Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 7, 2015)
6 CapitalPress.com August 7, 2015 Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. 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 Internet know-it-alls try to take over science I t must be hard to be a scientist these days. The work is often difficult and thankless — heck, most of the public doesn’t even understand the basics of any type of research. They wouldn’t know the difference between a chromosome and a chrome bumper on an F-150. Such ignorance doesn’t stop a loud — and litigious — minority of critics from taking to the Internet or trooping into court every time something they don’t understand attracts their attention. It’s been seen a lot in agriculture, as semi- informed, self-anointed “experts” rail against everything from gluten to genetically modified corn. Yet when they are quizzed they know next to nothing about the science. In short, they know what they read on the Internet and not much else. We’re reminded of the car insurance advertisement on television in which a woman says her new friend that she met through the Internet is a French model. The guy, when he shows up, can’t even say “Bonjour” — but it said on the Internet that he was from France. Most recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was dragged into court over an experiment its scientists have been conducting in an attempt to rescue the northern spotted owl from possible extinction. Though the spotted owl ranges from the Pacific Northwest southward into Mexico, it was declared “threatened” under the federal Endangered Species Act. That designation has done massive damage to the region’s timber industry, because the spotted owl prefers old growth trees as its habitat. Nowadays, the sight of a logger is not causing the spotted owl problems. Instead, it’s a relative. The barred owl has moved into Northern California and Northwest forests in recent years. Compared with the spotted owl, the barred owl is a bully. It is a better hunter and outcompetes with his spotted cousin in nearly every way. Wildlife scientists whose job is protecting the spotted owl could do one of two things: nothing, which means the spotted owl would likely succumb to the barred owl; or they could try an experiment to take pressure off the spotted owl by reducing the number of barred owls. They chose the latter and came up with an experiment in which barred owls would be killed. Remember: The barred owl is not a protected species but is threatening a protected species. That experiment was enough to get the Fish and Wildlife Service scientists dragged into court. Friends of Animals and Predator Defense, two animal rights groups, argue that the agency violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to evaluate alternatives to lethal removal of barred owls. Again, barred owls are not protected, yet in the eyes of these groups, the agency should have come up with another way to get rid of them. Hmm, maybe they could feed the barred owls GMO gluten, if there were such a thing. Federal scientists were caught in a quandary only an environmental lawyer could love. They could kill the barred owls and get sued, or they could let barred owls kill spotted owls and get sued. Either way, the environmental lawyers win. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken saw through the groups’ arguments and has allowed the scientists to continue the experiment that could, if successful, return the population of northern spotted owls to health. But the story isn’t over. The environmental groups say they may appeal the judge’s decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That would accomplish exactly nothing, except give these groups something to write about — on the Internet, of course. Want to boost the Inslee’s climate change impact immeasurable ag sector? Build I new pipelines O ur V iew t seems fashionable these days for executives, thwarted by the democratic process used by elected legislative representatives, to take unilateral action to impose big- ticket policies on citizens. Unable to get the Legislature behind a carbon credit scheme to roll back greenhouse gases to half of 1990 levels by 2050, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is taking on the job himself. Washington will suffer as a result. Inslee issued an executive order July 28, kicking off what’s expected to be a yearlong process by the Department of Ecology to develop ways to limit greenhouse gases released in Washington. Inslee said he couldn’t wait any longer for lawmakers to pass his climate change agenda, claiming he had the authority to move unilaterally under the state’s Clean Air Act. “Carbon pollution and the climate change it causes pose a very real and existential threat to our state,” Inslee said in announcing the plan. Whether Inslee has the authority is an open question to critics of the plan. What is certain is that without legislative authority, any regulatory effort will lack the hefty carbon fee structure that was part of Inslee’s failed bill. That proposal would have capped greenhouse gases from some 130 businesses, including one fertilizer plant and eight food processors. The businesses, which emit at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon a year, would have been required to bid for By ELAINE KUB For the Capital Press A Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press a limited number of carbon credits to continue operating. The number of credits available would gradually be cut in half by 2050. The Office of Financial Management estimated the auctions would cost businesses $1.2 billion in the first two years, though the agency notes that nobody knows exactly what credits will cost once the bidding starts. “If the auctions generate higher prices than those assumed here, the expenditure impact of the bill could increase substantially,” according to a OFM report. Eastern Washington legislators were particularly worried about the lop-sided impact the measure would have on rural residents, farmers and ag processors, the bread-and- butter of the economy in east side communities. Inslee blames Republicans for the failure of his legislative proposal. But, he couldn’t convince the Democrat- controlled House of Representatives to sign on to the bill either. While it’s unclear what these rules will look like, farm interests aren’t optimistic. A carbon cap “would likely trigger significant new compliance costs that would hit … the farmer’s bottom line,” the Washington Farm Bureau stated in an email to its members. “When farmers and ranchers cannot make a reasonable profit, working farmlands get converted to subdivisions and developments,” according to the Farm Bureau. “Open agricultural spaces go away. Environmental outcomes get worse.” The impact of all of this on the Washington economy is potentially immense, and include higher energy costs, higher regulatory costs, fewer jobs. The impact of all of this on climate will be, at best, imperceptible without instruments that measure to a thousandth of a degree. Time is short to protect farmers from COOL retaliation By DAN NEWHOUSE For the Capital Press he clock is ticking for American farmers and manufacturers to avoid billions of dollars in sanc- tions and tariffs on U.S. ex- ports to our biggest trading partners. On May 18, the World Trade Organization rejected a U.S. appeal and ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico on mandatory country of ori- gin labeling requirements for beef, pork and chicken prod- ucts. WTO found that COOL requirements for muscle meat cuts were in violation of U.S. obligations with our trading partners, Canada and Mexico. This is the fourth time WTO has ruled against the U.S. on COOL requirements. Why is this ruling signifi- cant? Unless Congress acts to protect American produc- ers by bringing U.S. rules into compliance, Canada and Mexico have taken steps to retaliate within the next few weeks against the U.S. to the T Guest comment Dan Newhouse tune of $3 bil- lion in annual sanctions on American agricultural and non-agricultural goods. Retaliation over COOL requirements will not just have a negative impact on American beef, pork and chicken products: retalia- tion can apply to hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Washington exports of apples, cherries, pears, po- tatoes, wine, and manufac- tured goods as well. In arguing against re- pealing COOL, some falsely claim that COOL require- ments are really about food safety. However, meat prod- ucts produced or imported in the U.S. are already sub- ject to mandatory inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safe- ty Inspection Service. Ad- ditionally, before arriving in the U.S., imported meat products are required to be produced with an equivalent food safety system to that of the U.S. The reality is that all meat products sold in the U.S., re- gardless of origin, must be inspected to equally rigor- ous standards. The repeal of COOL will have no impact on the FSIS food safety in- spection program, ensuring that the U.S. continues to produce the safest food sup- ply in the world. If COOL is not about food safety, does that mean it implies an economic bene- fit? Compliance with COOL actually adds additional costs for American pack- ers, processors, producers and, ultimately, consumers. Given Washington’s prox- imity to Canada, processors depend on Canadian cattle, but under the mandatory COOL requirement, U.S. and Canadian cattle must be processed separately, adding increased cost with no safety benefit. Further, even when repealing mandatory COOL, there is nothing preventing producers from continuing to market their products as U.S. cattle — it just is not a requirement. Congress must act quick- ly to prevent potentially devastating retaliation in the form of sanctions and tariffs, which is why I cosponsored legislation to repeal country of origin labeling require- ments as an urgent response to the WTO’s ruling. I re- cently voted with the House on a bipartisan basis, 300 to 131, to pass this legislation to shield American farmers from retaliation by simply repealing the COOL meat cut provisions to make the U.S. compliant with our ob- ligations. The U.S. must play by the rules we agreed to with our biggest trading partners and export markets. Time is run- ning out to avoid the costly penalty of trade sanctions, which is why I urge the Sen- ate to pass mandatory COOL repeal. U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse represents Central Washing- ton’s 4th District in Congress. griculture relies on affordable energy to stay competitive. The cost of crude oil and natural gas directly impacts farmers’ ability to maintain a healthy bottom line, driving the costs of necessary expen- ditures like diesel fuel, irri- gation, fertilizer, lubricants and more. In the past five years, crude oil production in the U.S. has skyrocketed, bring- ing a surge of economic activity. Our country will surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s most prolific producer of fossil energy in 2015. For the first time in decades, the once va- porous concept of American “energy independence” is within reach. The boom has been good news for farmers, helping to keep energy prices and op- erating costs under control. But it has also brought some growing pains — especial- ly in the Midwest — due in large part to the strain that greater production has placed on the region’s freight transportation infra- structure. The increase in crude oil trains has reduced the freight capacity avail- able to transport grain and other commodities. Without action, the future of ship- ping agricultural goods will be defined by delays, price spikes and uncertainty. I recently partnered with the American Farm Bureau Federation to attempt to quantify the financial im- pact of regional transporta- tion strain on farmers in the Midwest. We found that the surge in crude oil traffic — combined with other factors — caused millions of dollars of losses to farmers, eleva- tors and end users. The Ag- riculture Department con- firms that $570 million were lost from Upper Midwest farmers’ profits during the 2014 harvest season alone. In North Dakota, the insuf- ficient freight environment could be expected to reduce the average corn farmer’s in- come by $10,000 relative to a “normal” year. Guest comment Elaine Kub Grain producers are uniquely dependent on effi- cient rail systems, especial- ly in crude oil traffic “hot spots.” The nature of grain production and use renders the industry inflexible with regard to the freight meth- ods that it must use. Grain farmers simply must have access to efficient rail in order to manage shipping costs, minimize delay and get their products to market in an economically compet- itive manner. Fortunately, a clear path forward does exist. Modern pipelines ser- vicing the Bakken region can help provide a solution by channeling hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil per day off of the rails and roadways. The merits of expanding our pipeline infrastructure are many. Pipelines signifi- cantly reduce transportation costs, are more efficient, and are impervious to weather or traffic related delays. If other industries were physi- cally able to send their prod- ucts through a pipeline, they would be delighted to do so. Comprehensive improve- ments to the freight network in the Upper Midwest are needed. Rail carriers have responded well to the recent breakdown in service, de- voting ample resources and energy to improving capac- ity and reducing delay. But in order to make the most of our newfound energy re- sources without compromis- ing the competitiveness of our agricultural sector, im- proved transportation infra- structure devoted to energy is essential. Pipelines are an essential part of that equation. Elaine Kub is the author of American Farm Bureau Federation’s recent study, “Insufficient Freight: An Assessment of U.S. Transpor- tation Infrastructure and Its Effects on the Grain Indus- try,” and “Mastering the Grain Markets: How Profits Are Really Made.” Letters policy Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community. Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your submission. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commentary submissions should also include a photograph of the author. Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. E-mailed letters are preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker publication. Letters may also be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383.