"We have extensive data proving that the climate has been constantly changing for centuries. We know that humans contribute to greenhouse gases, … and that CO2 levels have been on the rise in recent years. But is there really an impending climate crisis in our future? Where is the journey to new energy taking us? Are our choices really so narrow? Should we immediately sacrifice the benefits of cheap, abundant, and reliable energy? What about the environmental impacts from these giant industrial wind and solar installaFons?

But, most importantly, what can we do, right now, to be sure we are living on a healthier planet by 2030 or even 2050? As it turns out, there is a lot we all can do right now as individuals and communities that can insure our success in restoring the health of our planet.

My name is Doctor John Di Paola. I founded the Oregon Green Plan because, as a life-long naturalist and environmentalist, I’ve become concerned with the new “green” solutions to our environmental challenges. What I’ve always understood to be nature focused environmentalism, has been reframed with the term “Climate Change”- and refocused on trace greenhouse gases which make up less than one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Traditional environmentalism has focused on the impact of human exploitation of natural resources that polluted our air and water, destroyed habitat through deforestation and land development. The environmental naturalists have worked for decades towards the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems and have developed an arsenal of proven methods that can immediately be scaled up to prevent and reverse human impact on nature. Experts agree that our goals to prevent a planetary crisis cannot be met without implemenFng Natural Climate SoluFons. These worthy organizaFons have been underfunded and pushed aside by the green energy industrial technological complex who instead direct subsidies into the development of wind, solar, battery, and carbon capture technologies.

The climate change agenda has become the dominant driver of economic, energy, public health and national security policies mandating the adoption of an industrial technological complex as the sole remedy for any current or future human impact on natural systems."

"Based on their computer models, they predict an impending crisis that threatens the very existence of our planet; their only path to save Earth and humanity is to completely eliminate fossil fuels, double-down on massive lithium mining operations, pepper pristine natural habitats with skyscraper sized windmill complexes, subsidize mass-production of Chinese manufactured solar panels and confine us to 15-minute ciFes.

We are witnessing the competition between two extraction industries; fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) vs mining (batteries, solar panels, windmills) to produce the energy infrastructure that supports modern society. All extraction industries are heavily energy dependent and invariably produce equally significant environmental impacts.

Over the past twenty years Germany and England followed this plan resulting in loss of energy security and skyrocketing costs for customers which has convinced them to slow their transition and reverse course on their initial timeline to take a more measured approach.

We believe the strategy of completely abandoning an industrial technology and substituting it with another industrial technology is NOT an effective means of solving environmental impacts. The failure of the fossil fuel industry to align itself with natural systems and mitigate/correct environmental damage was the cause of many major problems we see.

If you believe rising CO2 is a problem, should we create a whole new industrial technology around carbon capture and believe that somehow this will resolve the problem without further damage to the environment? Or should we be planting more trees and native plants?

Are these new technologies and industrial complexes financially viable so they can function without giant taxpayer subsidies? Will energy cost more? Can you and I afford them?

When we get to the final chapter will we all enjoy a safer, cleaner, healthier environment? These are the quesFons we are asking at The Oregon Green Plan.

We believe prudent environmentalism is rooted in verifiable science. That environmental conservaFon and restoraFon should rely on and support natural mechanisms. We believe that

our mutual concern brings us together and knowing the truth can bridge all divisions."

"You don’t need to be a scienFst to know the facts about climate change. The Oregon Green Plan is here to educate, prepare and equip Oregonians with the informaFon and soluFons to choose a beXer future. Some of us will do more than others but, together, we can make Oregon the cleanest, greenest place on Earth a state in harmony with nature.

---"