Let them do it.
If Portland wants to phase out diesel within the city limits, then by all means let Portland do exactly that.
There is only one condition.
The people demanding the policy should also bear its full economic consequences.
That, of course, is the part that almost never happens.
The proposal sounds dramatic until you look beyond the city boundary.
The surrounding regions would continue using diesel because they would have to. Long-distance freight, agriculture, construction, heavy transport and logistics are not going to abandon reliable, energy-dense fuels simply because a city council has passed a resolution.
Which means the system would almost certainly continue functioning much as it does today.
Goods would still arrive by diesel.
Materials would still arrive by diesel.
Food would still arrive by diesel.
The only meaningful difference would occur during the final few kilometres.
The famous last mile.
That is where the expensive electric vehicles would take over.
Not because they make the entire transport chain more efficient.
But because they satisfy the political requirement inside the city itself.
The heavy lifting would still be performed by diesel.
The city would simply outsource that reality to everyone beyond its borders.
In other words, the economics remain largely unchanged while the appearance changes dramatically.
That is a remarkably common pattern in modern politics.
The difficult part is moved somewhere else.
The expensive part is hidden.
The visible part receives the applause.
If that is genuinely the future Portland wants, then there is a straightforward way to make the costs transparent.
Calculate what it would actually cost if every product entering the city had genuinely been transported under the environmental rules Portland wishes to impose.
Then apply that difference as a surcharge.
Not as punishment.
As accounting.
Every container.
Every pallet.
Every delivery.
Every tonne of steel.
Every crate of vegetables.
Every piece of machinery.
Price it as though the entire journey had complied with the standard being demanded.
The number would be fascinating.
So would the public reaction.
Because at that point the conversation would finally become honest.
Someone would have to answer the obvious question.
Who pays?
If the answer is “the residents of Portland,” then at least the incentives are aligned.
People would experience the true cost of the policies they support.
Consumers would see it at the checkout.
Businesses would see it on every invoice.
Investors would see it before deciding where to build their next warehouse or factory.
That is how markets communicate reality.
Of course, the likely outcome would be entirely predictable.
More companies would relocate.
More taxpayers would leave.
Investment would drift elsewhere.
Supply chains would adapt around the city rather than through it.
The tax base would shrink while costs continued to rise.
None of that should surprise anyone.
Economic incentives are remarkably indifferent to political aspirations.
Capital rarely argues.
It simply moves.
Which brings us back to the beginning.
Let Portland pursue whatever policies its voters genuinely desire.
There is nothing undemocratic about that.
The only thing that should not be permitted is asking everyone else to subsidise the experiment.
A political virtue that survives only because somebody outside the city pays for it is not really virtue at all.
It is simply the outsourcing of consequences.
The true test of any political conviction is remarkably simple.
Would you still support it if you had to pay every cent of its real cost yourself?
That is where slogans end.
And reality begins.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/12/portlandia-phasing-out-diesel/