6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
February 6, 2015
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
Mike O’Brien
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Endangered Species Act created environmental industry
W
hen it comes to
environmental groups,
extremism pays. A review
of the tax forms filed by many of
the most active — and radical —
groups operating in the Western
U.S. shows that the top 10 groups
received nearly $1 billion a year in
contributions and legal fees.
That’s billion, with a “B.”
If they wanted to, those groups
could fully fund the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s endangered
species programs — for five years.
Instead, they go for the
money. They snipe at the federal
government and, as importantly,
at farmers and ranchers. Many
prefer to drag their targets into court
instead of seeking compromises
that would help species and allow
farmers, ranchers and others to stay
in business.
In fact, the litigation precludes
such compromises.
“When you’re litigating
something, you almost can’t really
talk to anyone,” said Don Stuart,
former American Farmland Trust
Pacific Northwest director. He wrote
a book about the clashes over the
ESA.
The reasons for suing the
government and ranchers are clear.
Many environmental groups don’t
like animal agriculture. They want a
vegetarian lifestyle. And they don’t
like large-scale farming. Anything
they can do to get rid of ranching
and large farms would be a feather
in their cap.
But there’s more to it.
Environmental organizations cannot
raise money if they solve problems.
They must make sure the problem
remains, or they can’t produce the
glossy ads and pamphlets and hold
fund-raisers.
You’ll never hear an
environmental group announce to
its donors, “Well, we’ve solved that
problem. Thanks for your help, and
we’re now going to dissolve the
group.”
Environmental groups need a
perceived problem — preferably
one that’s “getting worse and that,
through your donations, we can
make a difference.”
Here’s the format they use:
“The (insert an animal, fish or
insect) needs your help. We will
fight to save the (insert an animal,
fish or insect). With your donation,
we can save the (insert an animal,
fish or insect) for our children and
generations to come.”
The environmental groups
came up with this formula decades
ago, when Congress wrote the
Endangered Species Act and
President Richard Nixon signed it
into law.
With its deadlines and protection
not of species but of specific
populations, the ESA was a gift to
the environmental movement.
Suddenly, these groups had
an open playing field to petition
the government to protect local
populations of salmon, smelt,
wolves, owls, grouse and other
critters as though they were the
last of the species.
Take, for example, the gray
wolf, which is protected as
“endangered” in parts of the
Lower 48 despite the fact that just
over the border in Canada there
are more than 50,000 — and about
10,000 in British Columbia alone.
Yet under the ESA, American
wildlife managers must protect
wolves as though they are the last
of a breed.
The ESA is the blunt instrument
that turned environmentalism
into big business. If the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or any other
federal agency does not follow the
letter of this poorly written law
environmental groups drag them
into court.
The result is not more protection
for the (insert an animal, fish or
insect) so much as a payday for the
environmental group, which can
then chalk up another “victory” in
the “battle” to protect the (insert an
animal, fish or insect).
It’s also another source of cash.
The federal government must pay
the environmental groups if they can
convince a judge that the agency
missed a deadline or failed to meet
some other requirement.
For environmental groups, it’s
a great deal. Groups spend all of
their time suing the government and
other bystanders. Instead of solving
problems, they make sure the
problems continue.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel
that the ESA provided.
“We do have some pretty terrific
environmental protection laws,”
Center for Biological Diversity
spokeswoman Amaroq Weiss said.
For environmental groups, that is
a statement of the obvious.
Every farmer should
be an environmentalist
— and most are
By JONATHAN SPERO
For the Capital Press
T
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Carbon tax punishes producers
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has
proposed a billion-dollar-a-year tax
on carbon emissions, to be paid by
130 businesses and institutions that
emit more than 25,000 metric tons of
carbon a year.
Ag-related businesses on the
governor’s list include Lamb Weston,
Simplot, Tyson Fresh Meats, Agrium
Kennewick Fertilizer Operations,
McCain Foods and Basic American
Foods.
To emit any carbon at all,
businesses on the list would have
to bid for credits at auctions. The
base price is set at $12 per ton, and
there’s no limit on how high it would
eventually go. The governor’s office
estimates the auctions would raise
approximately $1 billion a year. Over
time, those credits will become more
expensive, forcing businesses to pay
more or to reduce their emissions
through more efficient technology or
reduced production.
The money would be used to fund
transportation projects and spare
Washingtonians increases in fuel
taxes. At first blush that sounds good,
but what they save at the pump will
be paid out in higher utility bills and
in the increased costs of the goods
and services provided by the affected
businesses. If they survive.
Inslee’s proposal is a tax on
producers and Washington’s largest
employers. While the governor would
have Washingtonians believe that the
plan will be cost-neutral, the assertion
ignores simple economics.
Nucor Steel, the state’s only steel
mill, told The Associated Press that
the plan would cost it an additional
$3 million the first year. The steel
industry is an extremely competitive,
international business. The more costs
associated with production, the less
competitive Nucor’s Seattle plant will
be.
Clark County Utilities told the
Columbian newspaper that the
emissions from its natural gas
generating plant would add $8.4
million to its expenses. Those costs
will be passed along to rate payers.
As their costs increase, producers
will make adjustments. They will
cut expenses — jobs — and increase
prices. If the cost of reducing carbon
doesn’t pencil out, they will move
on to more welcoming jurisdictions,
taking their payrolls and state tax
revenues with them.
Nonetheless, supporters say the
measure is necessary to save the
planet from climate change.
Even if you concede that carbon
emissions must be reduced to avert
calamity, Washington’s emissions
are less than negligible. If it were
possible to eliminate all of the state’s
greenhouse gas emissions, the impact
on global temperatures would be zero.
Inslee’s plan faces long odds in
the Republican Senate. There’s also a
campaign afoot to get an alternative
carbon cap/tax scheme on the 2016
ballot. It faces better odds.
That’s a pity. We think big,
national problems require national
solutions. Otherwise, a patchwork
of competing state regulations
leaves producers at a competitive
disadvantage.
he sour relationship
between farmers and
ranchers and environ-
mentalists comes from mis-
conceptions on both sides,
and neither the agriculture
community nor the envi-
ronment benefit. It is the
resource community that
has the greatest potential to
maintain and improve the
quality of the soil, water
and air we all depend on.
Where the urban com-
muter riding a bike instead
of driving a car may save a
few pounds of carbon, the
farmer planting a legume
cover or maintaining a vi-
brant grass pasture can se-
quester that carbon by the
ton. Where the homeowner
fixing a drip may save a
few gallons of water from
the treatment plant, the
rancher who keeps a stream
shaded and free of erosion
protects thousands or mil-
lions of gallons.
Farmers who disrespect
the fundamentals of envi-
ronmental protection do
themselves no good. We
all breathe the same air and
drink the same water. We
all want a healthy place for
our children. Farmers need
the confidence of the much
larger consumer population.
Otherwise there will be ob-
stacles at every turn.
There is a reason groups
such as Earthjustice and the
Center for Biological Di-
versity repeatedly receive
court-awarded
attorney’s
fees. They win lawsuits
because the agencies rou-
tinely flout the law. If those
agencies took the legally
mandated protections of our
laws seriously, they would
not be losing those lawsuits.
Everybody eats. Nobody
wants agriculture and food
production to go away. Yet
topsoil loss, species extinc-
tions, intensive pesticide
use, degraded streams, over-
Guest
comment
Jonathan Spero
crowding of animals, hid-
den engineering of crops,
and patent ownership of life
to do not have to be central
to food production. It is not
either–or.
There are detectable pes-
ticide residues in most of
our streams and evidence
that this is harmful to at
least some species. There is
residue in mother’s milk and
in most foods, and at least
a correlation with increas-
es in autism, dementia and
cancer. We do not yet know
if there is causation. The ag
community should not insist
on an innocent-until-prov-
en-guilty approach to what
is allowed in our food and
water.
Farmers should be taking
the lead role in environmen-
tal protection. It does not all
need to be organic. Farm-
ers should implement and
then highlight and show off
practices that increase soil
fertility, minimize pesticide
residues, protect wildlife,
and provide what can be
seen as an acceptable life
for food and dairy animals.
Ranchers should not defend
those who allow allotments
to be over-grazed or de-
graded. On public lands, the
rights of the public should
also be respected.
Farmers can be the he-
roes of the environmental
movement. A few already
are. If, however, farmers
continue to position them-
selves as opposed to en-
vironmentalism, the con-
cerned public will see no
choice but to seek to force
what they see as acceptable
standards, standards that
may prove unworkable for
many farm operations.
Jonathan Spero grows
vegetable seed in Southern
Oregon.
Readers’ views
Ranchers need to
get used to wolves
I would like to make a few com-
ments on the wolf stories you regu-
larly run.
I have been in forestry and agri-
culture for 30 plus years, I have been
producing over 4.5 million tree seed-
lings annually for reforestation stock
for the last 20 years. Yes, I am not fa-
miliar with livestock production.
I understand your viewpoint and
the desire to side with ranchers in
the wolf debate. Some issues I see
as erroneous and/or misrepresented
are as follows.
In a recent article you were dis-
cussing a sheep rancher who lost 4
sheep to wolf depredation. You stat-
ed he was running 1,200 head. This
is a .3 percent loss. Really? That is
a problem for him? I currently lose
10-15 percent of my crop to disease,
mice/voles, insects, winter damage,
harvest damage, etc. If a new prob-
lem added .3 percent it would have
absolutely no effect on our bottom
line.
Your most recent story about
lifestyle changes stated, “What that
means is any newly arrived wolves
take priority over ranchers who have
been there for generations. Ranchers
now must accommodate the behav-
iors of their new neighbors.” Get
used to it. Airports have to accom-
modate new neighbors regarding
noise, farmers accommodate new
neighbors due to dust, smell, etc.
It isn’t just ranchers. Forestry/Tim-
ber accommodated the spotted owl
which put thousands of people out
of work and took valuable ground
out of production.
As far as “ranchers who have
been there for generations.” Really?
I believe the wolf was there long be-
fore any ranchers ever settled North
America. In agriculture we also ac-
commodate the predators (coyotes).
They eat the mice and voles.
Robert Moore
Vice President
Lava Nursery Inc.
Woodland, Wash.
Not all W. Wash.
residents back wolves
Not everyone in the metropolitan
areas of Western Washington sup-
ports the reintroduction of wolves
from Canada, which destroy not
only our livestock but also wildlife.
It took years for farmers and
hunters to get rid of wolves, but now
they’re federally protected in much
of this country, including the west-
ern two-thirds of this state. Unfortu-
nately, they breed prolifically.
Coyotes we can cope with —
there are at least three on our sub-
urban farm, but no one worries they
might threaten young children.
Environmentalists should cease
and desist from offering rewards for
“information leading to a conviction
in the shooting death of a wolf in Oc-
tober in the Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest.” (quote from the
Jan. 2 Capital Press)
Maxine Keesling
Woodinville, Wash.