SEATTLE - About two dozen projects have been proposed in the past two years to move the Northwest toward becoming a transportation hub for coal, oil and gas to Asia.

A new Sightline Institute report examines the combination of rail, pipeline and fuel terminal proposals across Washington, Oregon and British Columbia. Report author Eric de Place, Sightline's policy director, said public input is critical as local land-use agencies determine the fate of each project. Regionally, he said, he thinks Native American voices also will be important.

"It's almost impossible to overstate the potential for the Tribes to derail these plans," he said. "They have treaty rights with the U.S. government that allow them to, in many cases, put a stop to these plans almost immediately."

Last week's meeting of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians included a three-hour workshop on climate change. Last year, the coalition of 72 tribes passed a resolution opposing the transport and export of fossil fuels in the Northwest.

Deborah Parker, a council member of the Tulalip Tribes, said they are prepared to do more.

"Co-Salish Tribes, we're in 110 percent agreement," she said. "We do not want to see these oil trains here. Turning our region into a fossil-fuel depository and port of departure? It will not be economically beneficial - not anywhere near the degree that it'll be economically disastrous."

For the most part, she said, the tribes haven't been convinced that the job potential of the coal, oil and gas projects is significant enough to offset the damage to land, fish and wildlife.

Estimates in the Sightline Institute report indicate that Washington's ambitious plan for reducing carbon pollution can be tossed if all the fuel-transport proposals are approved. De Place said the changes would increase the Northwest's carbon footprint by three to five times.

"I think it's fair to say that most people are astonished at the scale of the transformation that this region is about to embark on if fossil-fuel companies get their way, and that decision is all happening within the next couple of years," he said. "The scale is much, much bigger than most people realize."

The Sightline Institute report is online at sightline.org.


get more stories like this via email

HELENA, Mont. - Republican lawmakers in Montana want to investigate the 2020 election. Some are concerned this could weaken trust in voting.

In a letter to legislative leaders, 86 of 98 state Republican lawmakers called for a special committee to examine the security of last year's election. It comes amidst a wave of Republican lawmakers across the country calling for audits of elections, which former President Donald Trump lost.

Jim Elliott is a rancher and a former Democratic state representative and state senator. He said he believes the calls are undermining democracy.

"The detrimental effect of questioning the elections, I think, is to turn Republican voters off," said Elliott. "Stop saying that their vote doesn't count."

Montana Republicans' quest to investigate the 2020 election began with allegations of fraud in Democratic-leaning Missoula County.

None of the claims have been substantiated, but became part of a push to pass several laws that Republicans say tighten security around elections. The laws include an end to election-day voter registration and changes to voter ID requirements.

Susannah Goodman is director of election security with Common Cause. She said she's concerned partisan calls for investigating and auditing the 2020 results are undermining confidence in county election officials.

She called claims elections weren't secure very concerning.

"They're not being done by election administration experts and some of them are being done very badly," said Goodman. "And we need to continue to push back on that because it can do real damage going forward."

In Arizona, state Senate Republicans initiated an audit of results for the presidency in Maricopa County conducted by private firms, led by a company from Florida. A report from auditors found no evidence of fraud and actually increased the margin of victory by which Joe Biden won the county.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

ERIE, Pa. -- The Keystone State is seeing several barrier-breaking progressive candidates running for office in unexpected places: rural Pennsylvania.

The trend of progressive Democrats running for office is not unique to Pennsylvania. It has been increasing since the 2016 election, everywhere from Maine to Virginia to Iowa.

Tyler Titus is running for Erie County Executive. A victory would mean Titus would be the first openly transgender county executive in the country. Titus tells of experiencing rural generational poverty firsthand, growing up in a small-town southeast of Erie, and said poverty solutions need a holistic and progressive approach, whether in urban or rural America.

"When you talk on progressive values that center around people and not just profit, you can win in purple spaces, you can win in red spaces," Titus asserted. "And I think that we see a momentum shifting. And that's exciting, and it shows that I really think that the U.S. is at a time of reckoning."

Titus is running against Republican Brenton Davis, a small-business owner and military veteran, in the Nov. 2 election.

The small Rust Belt city of Beaver Falls, northwest of Pittsburgh, may elect its first Black woman mayor next week.

Kenya Johns is a lifelong resident of Beaver Falls who defeated Democrat incumbent George Quay in May and currently is unopposed in the November election. Johns said her success speaks to the importance of uplifting voices reflective of the communities they represent.

"It's going to show that although we talk about needing diversity, equity and inclusion, we're at a space now where we can't just talk about it," Johns contended. "We need to be able to put people in that can make sustainable change. That's what the future of America looks like. It looks like brothers helping brothers, sisters helping sisters, to make a better place, a better environment, for all of us."

Mayor Quay is attempting a write-in campaign to have his name on the ballot. Johns' running mates, Peggy Evans and Vanessa Taylor, who are both running for City Council, also won in the May primary.

SEATTLE - Constructive conversations online can seem few and far between. Research from the University of Washington explores how the design of social media sites affects disagreements.

Amanda Baughan, PhD Student in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, helped lead that research. The research showed that spending more time on a site did not correlate to more arguments.

But Baughan said arguments are common on sites like Facebook, where the goal can be to 'win' for whatever audience is reading the posts.

"There's not really a way to scale back what is happening between two people or a group of people in the comment section," said Baughan. "It can get very heated, very quickly."

Baughan analyzed what percentage of users of certain social media sites said they had arguments.

Seventy-percent of Facebook users said they had argued on the platform. Sites like Twitter and YouTube were considerably lower, with 30% and 6% of users, respectively, saying they'd argued on those platforms.

Baughan said the venue in which these disagreements took place also is important. More than three-quarters of people who used WhatsApp, a private messenger, said they got into arguments on the platform, but were less frustrated with their experiences.

Baughan said people reacted positively to the idea of bringing their arguments on sites like Facebook to a private space, where it can be easier to be vulnerable.

"I think that replicates a lot of how we have difficult conversations in real life as well," said Baughan. "Generally, I don't think we would choose to have it in a crowded room full of people. We would choose to find a time where it's just you and the person that you disagree with, to kind of hash things out."

Baughan said social media sites would need to present such an option sensitively - perhaps not introducing it for the first time while people are in the middle of a heated argument.

"That could seem very creepy because it's like, 'Oh, the social media company is monitoring what I say,'" said Baughan. "So, I think that how the option is presented is really important - probably having it be introduced when there's not an argument."

And Baughan said she would like to see social media companies think beyond individual users' experiences when designing their platforms.

"Especially in the past year with the pandemic, so many of our relationships were carried out online," said Baughan. "And making a bit of shift towards emphasizing the relationship, in addition to the user, could be really beneficial."