Bend’s green energy policy
Recently, the Source printed a letter arguing that Bend City Council’s measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not worthwhile because “the world has seen the realities and moved on” from combating climate change. To support its thesis, the letter observed that China is building new coal plants. However, China has pledged to flatten its carbon emissions by 2030. It installed more solar panels last year than the U.S. has in its entire history, and almost two-thirds of the world’s big wind and solar plants under construction are in China (https://tinyurl.com/yfkkt4wx). Such efforts matter: temperatures at the end of this century are predicted to be anywhere from 1.4℃ to 4.3℃ above preindustrial levels, a 3-fold difference, depending on how the world controls carbon emissions (https://tinyurl.com/mufph2yt Figure SPM.4).
To imply that our current rate of warming is natural, the letter observed that the climate was colder during the Little Ice Age, 170 to 700 years ago. But the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is over 50% higher than it was 250 years ago, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and consequently the Earth is warming much faster than at any time in the past 2,000 years (https://tinyurl.com/mufph2yt Figure SPM.1). Climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own scientists, accurately predicted this rate of warming decades ago by modeling the climate effects of fossil fuel emissions (link: DOI: 10.1126/science.abk0063).
The letter noted that the world was hotter 500 million years ago (mya), when life had not yet colonized land and jawed fish had not appeared in the fossil record. However, the relevant time scale for temperature is not millions of years but the much briefer period over which human civilization has been established. Depending on how humanity controls carbon emissions, many places face perpetual inundation and uninhabitable heat. Bend faces sinking water supplies, the demise of its ski industry, the retreat of its ponderosa forests, and skyrocketing fire insurance premiums. Addressing these problems with smart energy solutions is simply common sense – especially since investing in renewable energy creates three times as many jobs as investing in fossil fuels (https://tinyurl.com/nu7mruhf).
— Matthew Orr
Beyond the Banner: Why a Non-Partisan Approach is Essential for Deschutes County
The crucial Deschutes County Commissioner election in 2026—a historic race expanding the board to five members—requires every voter to shift focus. While partisan national battles dominate headlines, the Commissioner’s job is fundamentally non-partisan. The 2022 decision to officially make these roles non-partisan was a commitment to governing based on local needs, not national loyalties. The Commission’s duties—managing public safety budgets, solid waste, health services, and land-use planning—are practical matters of local administration, not party platforms.
The Non-Partisan Imperative: Lessons in Regional Collaboration As a former City Councilor who served on the non-partisan dais for the City of Bend and a Deschutes County representative for business and industry on the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC), I feel compelled to share my perspective.
My experience on the Bend Council and the solutions-focused, collaborative COIC demonstrates that the central task of local governance is always listening and prioritizing shared prosperity over political scoring. This necessity for cooperation drives three key principles:
- Practical, Local Governance: Management of wildfire risk, public works, or the county budget requires common-sense problem-solving, financial acumen, and the ability to collaborate. The best candidates bring proven experience in management and coalition-building, not just party allegiance.
- Serving All Constituents: A partisan commissioner is naturally inclined to prioritize a party base. A non-partisan commissioner must serve the core needs of every resident, including the large bloc of Non-Affiliated Voters.
- Encouraging Collaboration: Effective governance on a small, five-person board demands daily teamwork. Partisan labels create artificial division; removing them encourages a focus on consensus and pragmatic solutions over political points.
The onus is now on us, the voters, to adhere to this non-partisan spirit. We must look beyond the yard signs and campaign rhetoric that mimic national debates and focus instead on core competencies and local vision.
To achieve a balanced and effective Commission board in 2026, we must adopt a higher standard of research:
- Scrutinize the Résumé: Look for a proven track record of doing the work—managing budgets, leading complex organizations, and negotiating solutions. Experience on a non-partisan council and in regional collaboration like COIC is invaluable.
- Demand Specificity on Local Issues: Ask candidates: What is your specific plan for solid waste capacity? How will you prioritize funding for public safety? What is your strategy for balancing affordable housing with responsible land-use?
- Focus on Temperament: Look for candidates committed to civil discourse and who demonstrate the ability to debate respectfully, listen more than they talk, and change their mind with better data.
The 2026 election is a unique opportunity to elect a Commission dedicated to sound governance, not political theater. By intentionally supporting candidates who embody the non-partisan commitment and the vital principle of always listening, we ensure a board focused squarely on Central Oregon solutions.
Our local future depends not on who shouts the loudest, but on who is best prepared to manage the complex business of our county. Let’s commit now to being informed, non-partisan voters in 2026.
—Chris Piper
Re: Pushback Mounts Against Oregon’s Planned Transportation Tax Hike (Dec. 4)
The Kayvon Bumpus story on the transportation funding plan sounds like a press release written by the opposition. First of all, there is no evidence that pushback is “mounting.” The signature campaign is not new. In fact it was widely anticipated and announced as soon as the governor signed HB399. And most experts anticipate that the campaign will fail to get the required signatures since time is short.
Also, it’s completely wrong to refer to “public outrage.” The only objections are coming from a handful of Republican legislators who hate any new tax, and an organization that was created exclusively to fight this plan by the architect of our current tax woes, Measure 5. Finally, to complain that our elected officials are “trying to make decisions for all of us” is laughable. Of course they are — that’s why we elected them as our “representatives!”
This funding is badly needed, especially in light of the broad cuts in Federal spending and constitutional limits on property tax increases. These legislators are wasting time and money to fight this constructive and thoughtful plan when they should be working with the governor, the Attorney General and Democrats on ways Oregon can thwart the attacks on our state by the White House.
—Louis Capozzi
This article appears in the Source December 11, 2025.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Reporter’s Response to Mr. Capozzi’s Letter
Mr. Capozzi, I understand you have a background working in media, which is why your letter baffles me. Your overwhelming bias prevents you from logically approaching the situation.
Let me disclose my own bias: I don’t support repealing the gas and vehicle tax, as I believe providing funding to highway maintenance and public transit is worth paying higher fees.
You say there is no evidence pushback is mounting, but statewide opposition to new taxes is plain to see. More than one poll can tell you the same. From Newport to La Grande, people drive cars, and most don’t want to pay any extra to do so. The No Tax OR petitioners claim to have more than 150,000 signatures; there is very obviously public outrage, even in Portland, one of the nation’s most liberal cities.
You also seem to be conflating my own writing with quotes from sources in the article who disagree with you (and me). To be honest, I find your reaction quite ironic, as one conservative quoted in the article called this newspaper a “liberal rag” during an interview, while you’re accusing the article of being too conservative. I suppose there’s quite a wide diversity of opinion in this county!
—K.B. (News Reporter, the Source)