From Farm to Senate: Facilitating Conversation on Oregon’s Cap and Trade Legislation

General Project Information

Overview

Our project with our partner organization, the Oregon Farm Bureau, aims to open up a conversation and make room for feedback in regards to Oregon’s divisive cap and trade legislation. The stakeholders include the OFB, which is meant to represent Oregon farmers, and Oregon’s legislative body in support of cap and trade. The relationship between the two parties is made more complicated as Governor Kate Brown, who passed cap and trade by executive order, was elected entirely by urban counties. The OFB’s main grievance is that cap and trade is that it does not allow farms to offset their carbon emissions by doing other things, like having solar panels. By facilitating discussion between Oregon farmers and legislative members, we hope to find a legislative middle ground that is still true to the aims of cap and trade and is agreeable to farmers.

Partner

Goals

Through future work with the Oregon Farm Bureau, we hope to increase the role farmers play in the creation of Oregon legislature. By facilitating conversations in which both farmers and legislators have an opportunity to share their unique stories and perspectives on the issue, this project aims to:

Foster a mutual understanding of the multidimensional, controversial issue of cap and trade.
Find a middle ground that will reduce carbon emissions without jeopardizing small farms.
Encourage future cap and trade legislation to incorporate the needs and efforts of farmers without losing its impact. It will be implemented fairly and credit farmers who use environmentally-conscious practices.

Status

Project Components

What (Issue)
Who (People)
How (Engagement)
Cited References

What (Issue)

Cap and trade is an environmental policy being instituted in many places around the world which takes a two-pronged approach to reducing carbon emissions. Cap refers to the set limit placed on emissions under cap and trade, which is supposed to decrease over time. Companies that produce carbon emissions are then permitted to buy and sell their carbon allowances (trade). Ideally, the system creates a business incentive to willingly minimize carbon emissions while simultaneously mandating and reducing the maximum amount allowed. This makes it very favorable to environmentalists, and the bill had a lot of strong support from Oregon Democrats. In March, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed an executive order creating cap and trade in Oregon following a standstill in legislature as Republicans boycotted sessions. Our partnership organization, the Oregon Farm Bureau, is heavily affected by this order and quickly issued a statement of opposition.

OFB’s objections to the order are outlined in their statement and further detailed in an op-ed written by their president Barb Iverson for The Bulletin. These issues mainly pertain to the cost of the order for Oregon farmers and ranchers. The goal of the order is to discourage high carbon emission activities and encourage alternatives. However, during our interview with Barb she pointed out that many farming activities require some activities with higher emissions at least for now, for instance, there does not yet exist an electric tractor that can do the job of the tractors that are currently used. The order also has little to no acknowledgment of efforts farms are already making to offset these necessary emissions. Barb expressed her disappointment that farmers like herself would receive no recognition or encouragement for the efforts they may already be making to reduce their impact. In her op-ed article Barb wrote “A ‘disincentive’ where there is no alternative is just a tax.” All of this seems to point towards a central issue– a lack of understanding between farmers and legislators. Furthermore, a 2018 paper from Harvard concluded that if cap and trade in Oregon wasn’t handled correctly it could result in little positive change and possibly even more emissions due to complicated interactions with existing environmental laws.

All of this shows that Oregon’s cap and trade order is too messy to be rushed through legislation. The issue is more complicated than just protecting our environment by reducing emissions. It will have serious and in many cases extreme ramifications for many Oregonians. On top of that, implementing a cap and trade policy in no way guarantees productive results. In order to come to an agreement that is favorable to the most involved parties, cap and trade must be a conversation. Oregon farmers need to be heard. They deserve a seat at the table. What could be the future of cap and trade in Oregon if it became about finding a collaborative solution rather than an issue of opposition?

Who (People)

In the conversation and conflict of Oregon’s cap and trade legislation, the two main stakeholders are the Oregon Farm Bureau, meant to represent farmers in Oregon generally, and Oregon elected officials, specifically members of the state senate in favor of the cap and trade legislation, and democratic governor Kate Brown.

Both farmers and lawmakers care about reducing carbon emissions, but there is a fundamental disconnect. Farmers reject cap and trade mainly because of the costs that it would add to their operations, but also on the basis that cap and trade ignores the good farmers do for the environment and was written without input from any actual farmers. Oregon lawmakers are under pressure to pass cap and trade in an effort to represent and gain approval from their voter base, Oregon democrats, primarily in Portland. As Oregon’s cap and trade bill was about to be voted on, Oregon Senate Republicans staged a walkout in protest. Under pressure to not have a climate bill stuck in legal limbo, Governor Brown issued an executive order to pass the bill. While approval was won with climate activists and liberal voters, the lack of democratic process only made cap and trade look worse to those who already opposed it. Not to mention that Kate Brown already was not favored by rural counties; while she did win the popular vote in 2018 with 50.1% of the vote, she was elected by only 7 of Oregon’s counties, none of which are in rural southern Oregon, all of which are clustered around Portland and Eugene. Oregon Republicans have already tried and failed to have her ousted from office, so it would be fair for rural communities in Oregon to be upset about legislation that directly affected them being put in place by a governor they did not elect.

We need to get back to the middle. The majority of people want to find a compromise.

Barb Iverson

The OFB and Oregon legislature find themselves at an impasse. The seemingly simple answer of finding compromise is much further out of reach when people are protecting their own livelihoods. Not to mention the existing divide between rural and urban Oregon saturating the background radiation of this conflict between farmers and politicians elected primarily by city dwellers. The only option to move forward would require open, non-aggressive conversation between Kate Brown and the OFB.

How (Engagement)

The project we have chosen to pursue with our partner organization, the Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB), examines the topic of cap and trade and the difference in opinion among the OFB and the Oregon legislation. Cap and trade aims to limit the emission of pollutants and charges companies in order to incentivize them to limit emissions. This provides a regulatory structure for Oregon farmers, which can be further seen in our partnership record detailing the organization. Ultimately, the Oregon legislation believes that cap and trade will better the overall air quality. However, many farms across Oregon, including those under the OFB, are concerned about how it will negatively affect their business, as the prices of fuel and natural gas would significantly increase.

We aim to initiate direct conversation between Oregon farmers and Oregon legislators to discuss how the cap and trade policy could benefit both parties. This has not really happened to date, as governor Kate Brown passed the executive order this year and the OFB responded with a statement opposing the regulations imposed. We want to facilitate this through contacting members of the Oregon legislation and targeting 10-20 representatives interested in the topic. The Oregon State legislature website has contact information for members of the Senate and House of Representatives, so we would use this to reach out to them. We would also contact OFB president Barb Iverson and ideally have her contact the members to gather representatives. We plan to moderate the discussions in a neutral venue, such as the Lewis & Clark Stamm Room, as there is space to host.

This relates to the “How” of engagement, as we are promoting effective communication. Future cap and trade in Oregon may want to keep the finances of the farms in mind. Rather than the presentation of information, which reflects ideologies, an alternative is to find the outcomes of the process that each side finds important. Since both sides care deeply about clean air, this could provide a middle ground. It is important to keep commonalities in mind, while also being understanding of the perspectives of both sides. This thought is further examined in an article by Proctor, who wrote that difference “arises from our differentiated interactions with environmental reality, leading to diverse forms of expertise and diverse truth claims.” There does not necessarily need to be a singular, concrete decision made.

Cited References

Bain, Paul G., Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno, and Carla Jeffries. 2012. “Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers.” Nature Climate Change 2 (8): 600–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532.
Borrud, Hillary “Oregon Senate Republicans Walk out over Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill.” Oregonlive. February 24, 2020. https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/02/oregon-senate-republicans-announce-walkout-over-climate-cap-and-trade-bill.html
Borrud, Hillary. “Oregon Republican Walkout over Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill Continues for a Fourth Day.” oregonlive, February 27, 2020. https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/02/oregon-republican-walkout-over-climate-cap-and-trade-bill-continues-for-a-fourth-day.html
“How Cap and Trade Works.” Environmental Defense Fund. Accessed April 14, 2020. https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works
“Oregon Farm Bureau Statement on Governor’s Executive Order.” Oregon Farm Bureau, March 13, 2020. https://oregonfb.org/ofbstatement_goveo/
“Oregon’s Urban-Rural Divide Deepens – Columbian.Com.” n.d. Accessed April 27, 2020. https://www.columbian.com/news/2019/jan/05/oregons-urban-rural-divide-deepens/
Proctor, James D. 2019. “When Our Ideas Differ: Three Options.” EcoTypes: Exploring Environmental Ideas (blog). June 23, 2019. https://jimproctor.us/ecotypes/about-ecotypes/when-our-ideas-differ-three-options/.
Schatzki, Todd, and Robert N. Stavins. “GHG Cap-and-Trade: Implications for Effective and Efficient Climate Policy in Oregon.” SSRN Electronic Journal, October 20, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3287179.

Project Progress

Input Received
Assessment
Outcomes
Next Steps

Input Received

Through our partnership work with the Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB), we have decided that our engagement project will consist of two-way, one-on-one conversations between the Oregon legislation and the OFB on the differences in opinion pertaining to cap and trade policy. With this issue, it is important that these two sides take on each other’s perspective and look for a middle ground. This is why input and feedback are so important for us – we want to make sure that we achieve the goals of our project. Below is feedback that we have received to date, as well as our plan to receive additional input going forward.

Professor Jim Proctor
- Throughout the course of our engagement work, we have received feedback from our professor, Jim Proctor regarding the details and structure of our project, as well as how we could handle the partnership work in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This feedback has helped us devise goals and expectations for our partnership work, as well as understand that even a proposed project will still have a great impact on the environmental studies community. Through this, we have been able to still secure contact from the OFB and create a vision for what our ideal engagement scene would be.

OFB President Barb Iverson
April 3, 2020
- We conducted an online interview with OFB president Barb Iverson, where we were able to discuss our idea of a cap and trade project with her. Most importantly, Barb stressed that we needed to work towards compromise and a middle ground. She also provided some of her opinions regarding cap and trade, as well as how these opinions differ among members of the OFB. This will allow us to see specific viewpoints within what we want to do and anticipate what topics or specifics may come up during the conversations between the OFB and the Oregon legislation. With the feedback that Barb provided, we have responded by creating goals for the project that emphasize working towards future policies that will benefit both the OFB and the Oregon legislation, while not looking to get a specific outcome that would favor either side.

Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) partnership group
April 21, 2020
- The members within the Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) project group provided us with feedback. While they understood what we were trying to do, they felt that we needed more specifics on how we would make the conversations between the OFB and Oregon legislation happen. This could include how we would get in contact with a legislator, or how we would bring them together. We definitely agree that obtaining our final goal requires difficult steps. Keeping the COVID-19 pandemic in mind, we would still like to get in contact with the Oregon legislature, but realize that we may just need to stick with a proposed idea and shore up a few things within the design.

Future input: Oregon legislature
- Finally, we would like to receive feedback from within the Oregon legislature, as they are a key component of what we want to accomplish in our project. One potential way to do this would be to email one of the members of the House of Representatives or Senate, as all of them have their own website and email that could be a method of contact. Being able to ask their opinion on cap and trade, as well as the feasibility and interest level of engagement with the farming community, would be an ideal way to strengthen our project.

Assessment

In short, our project goals are 1-foster mutual understanding, 2- find a middle ground and 3-result in fair cap and trade legislation. All three of these goals are subjective therefore their success will not be measured based on numerical data, however they are not unmeasurable. The following describes how each goal can be measured.

Fostering a mutual understanding is the first goal that would be achieved because mutual understanding is vital for finding a middle ground, which is vital for creating fair legislation. Formatively this would be seen when observing the success of the conversation we facilitate as it is happening. Summatively, whether or not we have succeeded in this goal will be clear in the next step of the conversation. If the people taking part in the conversation are later able to work together towards a solution, we will know we facilitated a productive conversation in which participants gained respect and understanding of one another’s perspectives.

Finding the middle ground means finding a compromise. This would mean that through negotiation the groups have come to a solution that is agreeable to both of them. There has been some give and take, and each party has given up some things and narrowed down what is non-negotiable. Formatively this would also be assessed based on our observations of the conversation in progress as well as a survey of participants afterward to gauge how they were feeling during the conversation. This can likely be measured summatively based on whether the conversation we facilitate results in an agreement. If the issue devolves into an argument there will be none, and we will have failed this goal. However, if an agreement can be reached that means the conversation led to a middle ground in which case we achieved our goal.

“Fair” cap and trade legislation will be defined as legislation which both parties can support, knowing that their voice has been heard and their needs are met as much as possible. This means it is based on the middle ground they hopefully found in our facilitated conversation. This is where the three goals culminate. If this is achieved it serves as a formative assessment for all of them because each goal leads into the next so overall success would mean that each step was a success. It would also serve as a summative assessment because it will show whether the project as a whole was successful. We can also survey participants and find out how much they felt they benefitted and gained understanding of other perspectives for a more data-centric assessment.

Outcomes

Next Steps

General Project Information

Project Components

Project Progress

Copyright © 2021 · Lewis & Clark College · Environmental Studies Program · Log in