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.