Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 13, 2017)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. January 13, 2017 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor John Perry Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Inslee tries again on carbon tax A s Washington’s legislative leaders look for more money for the state’s schools, Gov. Jay Inslee has an idea. He wants to tax carbon as a way to stop climate change and use some of the added revenue to pay for irrigation projects as a way to convince rural legislators to support the tax. The problem: Inslee’s carbon tax does neither. He has offered no indication of whether, or how much, climate change would be impacted by his tax, which targets gasoline and other fuels. And the inclusion of money for irrigation projects has failed to convince rural Republicans to back the tax. It should also be noted that schools would still be Don Jenkins/Capital Press Washington Gov. Jay Inslee would use some of the revenue from his new carbon tax to pay for irrigation projects as a way to entice rural legislators to support it. underfunded. The state Supreme Court has ordered the legislature to give more money to public schools — billions of dollars more. The court said that, under the state constitution, the legislature is required to adequately fund education for kindergarten through high school. The legislature, which is in charge of the state’s pocketbook, hasn’t yet fi gured out a way to do that. Inslee, however, continues to beat the drum for a carbon tax despite the fact that the voters and the legislature have already rejected the idea, most recently in the November election, when Initiative 732 failed by an overwhelming 59 to 41 percent margin. In its current form, the $25 per ton carbon tax on fuel would bring in $2 billion over the next two years. Buyers and sellers of fuel, including farmers and ranchers, would pay the tax, increasing their costs. Organizations such as the Washington State Farm Bureau argue the tax would also force processors and suppliers to leave the state, and, ironically, create more carbon emissions because more of their products would have to be shipped farther to Washington customers. Under Inslee’s tax plan, only half of the revenue would go toward schools, and the rest would be held out as carrots in the form of money for water projects, encouraging the use of electric cars, forest health and “clean” energy. If Inslee wants to spend half the tax revenue to convince rural Republicans to pass his plan, he appears to have come up short. Senate Majority Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, pointed out that Initiative 732 offered many tax breaks and other incentives to voters, but it was still soundly defeated. “A sugar-coated version didn’t do very well,” he said of the carbon tax initiative, adding that he doubts Inslee’s latest version would gain any traction either. Sen. Jim Honeyford, a Republican from the Yakima Valley, was more blunt in his assessment of the outlook for the carbon tax. “I think the chances are slim and none, and slim just got on the bus to get out of town,” he said. Time for a change in Washington, D.C. O UR V IEW By LOREN STOUT For the Capital Press T Research helps better understand grazing near streams E nvironmental groups say cattle grazing on public rangeland trample and erode streambanks and pollute water. But a five-year study of cattle grazing conducted by Oregon State University shows cattle spend only 1 to 2.5 percent of their time in streams or buffer areas. And rather than ranging up and down the length of steams in allotments, cattle used only 10 to 25 percent of the available stream area. The cows typically did not rest or graze near streams. Instead, they spent most of their time grazing on higher ground or resting in dry areas away from streams. John Williams, an OSU Extension rangeland expert in Wallowa County, said cows enter riparian areas for two reasons: “One is to drink, the other is to cross.” The study was done on a tight budget. Researchers built their own GPS collars, which generated location data every fi ve minutes. They attached the collars to 10 cows in three different herds. Over the course of fi ve years they collected 3.75 million data points. The data show that animals behave differently at different points in the grazing season. And that, Williams says, suggests that producers could use such data to increase the effi ciency of their operations. The fi ndings are potentially signifi cant. Now we know that cattle probably don’t cause as much damage to streams and riparian areas as popularly thought, and it’s possible to use real data to reduce damage further by better management. The study shows the value of testing assumptions, and using what’s learned to make things better. We encourage OSU to continue this line of inquiry, and for all parties to take note. A cow and calf drink from Catherine Creek in northeast Oregon. Using GPS tracking collars over fi ve grazing seasons on federal land, researchers determined cows spend 1 to 2.5 percent of their time in streams. Courtesy of Oregon State University O UR V IEW Sustainability and agriculture S peaking to reporters earlier this “Just think about it week, American Farm Bureau for a minute; by using Federation President Zippy modern technologies, Duvall said producers need to speak today’s farmers grow up and tell the public how they are more crops on the producing more food with less water, same amount of land, Zippy Duvall using less plowing and less pesticides and less plowing. pesticides, and feeding “We need to take back the concept more people. of sustainability, because nobody works harder on sustainability than “By developing more uses for our the American farmer and rancher,” crops, like energy, we are making he said. our economy more sustainable. He says agriculture has never “If farmers don’t take care of our been more sustainable. Here, in his land, we cannot stay in business. own words: “By providing food for all Americans, we are sustaining their freedom — so they can pursue the careers they are interested in. “We have a great story to tell. We need to take back the concept of sustainability — because nobody is working harder to be sustainable than America’s farmers and ranchers.” All good stuff. But he saves the money shot for last. “For agriculture to be sustainable, farming and ranching have to be profi table.” No profi t, no food. Enough said. he presidential election of 2008 was supposed to be one of hope and change. After looking back on it, an ear- ly warning sign occurred before the election that would lead one to question why the election was labeled as such. That event occurred when then-candidate Barack Obama was caught on an open mike stating his preju- dice against the rural people and their way of life. No one dreamed at the time this would literally put a bull’s- eye on the back of rural people, their jobs and even their faith. It opened the fl ood gates to ex- treme prejudice and in the end a systematic effort to break the economy of these communities for the gain of a few. It became legitimate to de- monize people for what they did for a living, especially if it led to huge profi ts for their donors and lobbyists. They did not even bother to break down their prej- udice to gender or race. They just included everyone. The next shot at the rural life- style came through the regulato- ry avenues. They made it so the only people that benefi ted were the paying “clients” of the elect- ed federal and state offi cials. Our ex-governor and fi rst lady come to mind. Another good example of this was a timber consultant that was hired by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. They put him on Oregon Public Broadcasting to tell listeners how the people of Malheur County should not have any say in the national monument designation facing them. This has led to a culture with- in the government agencies of total complacency. If the peo- ple on the ground have a good idea, they are shut up by the threat of losing their job. They learned fast it is the paying cli- ents that run the show. When U.S. Sen. Jeff Merk- ley and Wyden recruited one of their clients for secretary of the Interior, the picture became very clear what their objective was. This woman fi t their qual- ifi cations very well. Her job before they paraded her around in front of Congress was to make sure the environmental community could have re- sources to put rural people and communities out of business. If it sounds familiar, it is ex- actly what they are doing now with the Malheur monument. In the meantime, the sen- ators were contacted by their clients and decided to kick in another monument designa- tion in rural Southern Oregon. These people are already very much aware of how the gov- ernment is going to put the screws to them. It is a heck of a money-making scheme. Recently, it was reported that Merkley was brokering a deal in rural Southern Ore- gon for the removal of dams. Guest comment Loren Stout These dams were not gov- ernment-owned and supplied electricity to a huge area of Southern Oregon and Northern California. The problem is, the dams are owned by one of the richest men in the world. He is also a mega-donor to the Dem- ocrats. If the reported terms of this deal are correct, these rural people may have a problem. The owner of the dams is off the hook for the environmen- tal cleanup, plus the company gets tax credits. Not only do the rate pay- ers and tax payers get shafted, they are using the government to help with making their cli- ents extremely wealthy. This same client is also buying up coal companies for pennies on the dollar. Just something to ponder when you are trying to fi gure out how to pay $250,000 a share for this company’s stock. Leaves the working class person holding the bag, while the extremely rich en- joy a windfall. Seems to be the new Democratic mantra. Today’s news brought an expected article. Merkley was put in a position of power with- in the Democratic party. He was fi nally noticed for his out- standing work for putting rural people and communities out of business while making Dem- ocratic clients happy. When U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer came out publicly and spewed his disdain for rural people, and Harry Reid called the ru- ral people terrorists, you had to know something was up. Then to top it off, Hillary Clinton said she was going to put all the coal miners out of business with the help of the secretary of the Interior and her agenda. The only thing they forgot to include was they have been trying to elim- inate ranchers, farmers, log- gers and the rest of the miners. After the election the Dem- ocratic party has been meet- ing to try and fi gure out how to get their message across to the rural people and their communities that mostly have blue-color workers. U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claims it is a communication breakdown. I do not believe that at all. Even the state-ed- ucated working class person knows what the middle fi nger means. I would have never thought the once great Dem- ocratic party would literally sell the blue-collar American worker. I do not know what price each person brought, but it must have been pretty lucrative because we are damn sure being sold. Loren Stout’s family has ranched in Grant County, Ore., since 1878. He lives in John Day.