Report card gives Oregon so-so grades.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Joshua Skov For The Register-Guard

How well is our society doing? How do we know? And what exactly are the indicators we use to measure this performance?

Those are the questions at the heart of the recently released Cascadia Scorecard 2005, a regional report card produced by the Seattle-based group Northwest Environment Watch.

Of course, economic and social analysts have many traditional indicators already. Economists speak of the gross national product, unemployment, inflation and interest rates. We consistently watch levels of educational attainment and teen pregnancy. A recent forum in Eugene provided an overview of Lane County's economy and a forecast for the coming year, largely focused on such established and useful indicators as jobs, real estate prices and housing starts.

The Cascadia Scorecard mentions some of these indicators, but offers two significant improvements over what we normally read and hear. First, it provides less-watched indicators of social, economic and environmental well-being. For example, the scorecard reports several measures of pollution, including the growing presence of toxins in breast milk - a poignant demonstration of the link between our environment and our health.

Second, the analysis puts the indicators in context and builds a coherent portrait of our region. The best example of these integrated insights is the focus of this year's edition: energy. (The publication's full title is "Cascadia Scorecard 2005: Focus on Energy.")

As a large net importer of energy, our region is quite energy insecure, vulnerable to changes in markets for oil and natural gas. Furthermore, our non-transportation energy infrastructure has many bottlenecks and weaknesses. In response, the scorecard describes an energy transition that can "generate thousands of new jobs, help restore the region's natural heritage, and breathe life into farm communities." The supporting details build confidence in the inspiring vision.

So, how is Oregon doing?

I won't give it all away, but two features emerge: The results are decidedly mixed, but comparisons across the region are helpful.

On a positive note, Oregonians' life expectancy continues its steady rise (reaching 78 years in 2002, an increase of 19 months since 1990). However, that is nearly three years below the region's best (almost 81 in British Columbia).

In terms of land use and limiting sprawl, the Portland area is still a leader. Nonetheless, the passage of Measure 37 raises questions about people's continued commitment to the state's system of land use planning.

Overall, the message is clear: Congrats on the successes, but don't rest on your laurels.

Lane County residents will particularly enjoy the regional angle, without an overwhelming focus on Seattle and Portland.

Naturally, the scorecard leads its readers toward a variety of recommendations, such as "clean car standards" being considered in Washington state and the aggressive energy efficiency efforts under way by BC Hydro, the electric utility in British Columbia.

Many of these ideas are familiar, but the scorecard powerfully puts them in context. By showing how the recommendations generate economic gains, improved environmental performance and greater security for the region, the scorecard sets the stage for better public policy and discourse. Instead of simply providing a wish list, it points the way toward actions and strategies that have a real shot at enjoying high consensus among the region's citizens.

Joshua Skov is research director and a principal of Good Company (www.goodcom pany.com), a sustainability research and consulting firm based in Eugene. The Cascadia Scorecard 2005 costs $6 and is available from Northwest Environment Watch (www.northwestwatch.org).