After hearing that COCC-Redmond and Redmond Airport had closed due to smoke from wildfires, I had reason to visit Safeway, 27th Street, Bend, where I came face to face with a mound of fireworks. I spoke to the store manager and expressed my shock and disbelief that they were being sold there. I asked why. He told me that it was because they had not been told not to. He knew of the city of Bend ban on the use of fireworks, but that it had not banned the sale of them, as well. The pile was covered in signs telling customers to not smoke close to the pile. I suggested that it might be of more use to put up a sign telling customers of the $750 fine if they use them before July 9.
On my way home, I passed two more tents selling fireworks in parking lots. Do the retailers, City Council and charities who use the sale of fireworks to raise money, not understand what is at risk here? We have been under an extreme heat advisory for days — it will not end soon. Why has the city come up with the arbitrary date of July 9 for the “safe” use of fireworks? Will Bend suddenly be soggy and damp?
As much as I enjoy the display on Pilot Butte, and am reassured that safety protocols are in place, I think that it should be canceled to set an example to residents. (Ashland has canceledits show.) Please help me raise awareness of the contrariness of the city’s announcement. There are examples of Oregon cities that have banned the sale and use of fireworks. Ashland is one.
I urge all residents concerned for their safety and that of their neighbors to contact Bend City Council at firstname.lastname@example.org
— Pauline Wilson, Bend
Hello, if you think pumping your own gas will lead to lower gas prices, then all you need do is check out California. Isn’t going to happen.
What pumping your own gas will do is put many many gas station attendants out of work and increase the revenue of the gas station owners.
As a “seasoned” citizen, I appreciate having my gas pumped. Especially in cold wet weather or when it’s 90-plus degrees out.
As for liquor, I’ll not weigh in on that, since I don’t use the stuff, but I’m fairly sure that Oregon has a real purpose in maintaining state-controlled liquor stores. Even if it’s only for the revenue.
— Diana Hopson, Redmond
Lately, we have seen an uptick in global warming articles and editorials addressing emissions (primarily CO2). Most authors use the term “net zero” to imply that all will be well if we could only reach that goal. Somehow, the general public is supposed to feel that natural fuels (all those that burn) will disappear or, at least, be very substantially reduced.
Since natural fuels will be continuously used in cargo transport by truck, train or ship, as well as air and sea human transport, the reduction in generated CO2 will be much less than wished for. So what do we do to make this rate of CO2 generation become “net zero?”
Just to divert a little: “Net zero” in science and mathematics means just that. The sums of all quantities added together equals zero. However, when the term is associated with “global warming,” it has an entirely different meaning.
What it really says is that while CO2 is continuously generated, we will somehow figure out how to remove it. The term “sequestration” was resurrected to solve this problem. So as long as the ”environmentalists” throw this term around with abandon, the problem is solved. Everyone is happy.
One problem, however, remains. Nobody knows how to accomplish this task with any sort of functional or economic efficiency.
— Jay Feinsten, Bend