letters
TO THE EDITOR
THE AMERICAN WAY
I oppose biomass energy production. We
need to sharply reduce energy waste instead.
If we are going to seriously challenge all of
our environmental problems, we’re going to
have to change the way we live. Most of the
things that we perceive to be necessities are
not. We have had the misfortune of living
in the most ridiculously wasteful century in
all of human history and we consider this
lifestyle to be normal, sane, and desirable. It
is not.
The cities of Oregon are highly visible
at night from satellites in outer space. I can
almost walk from one end of Eugene to the
other while reading a book at midnight.
Car dealerships and shopping centers are
ridiculously well lit, all night long, with
wasted energy. They could hire a security
guard, turn off the lights, and increase their
profi ts. We need more jobs, and less waste.
I once read an article on Guernsey, an
island in the English Channel. The author was
impressed by the astonishing common sense
of this land, which resulted in a prosperous
life with an extremely light footprint. For
example: “And at night much of Guernsey
is a dark place indeed because many of the
parishes have long since decided that street
lighting is a waste of money. So there isn’t
any. Guernseymen argue that if you go out at
night and want to see, you carry a fl ashlight.
Which is of course a very practical and
exceedingly cheap solution.”
Clothes lines and drying racks can get
clothes just as dry as electric clothes driers.
Small screen TVs provide us with no less
mindless garbage than large screen TVs. For
thousands of years, people have enjoyed rich
and satisfying lives without air conditioners.
And so on.
natural resistance
We are already using biomass fuel
to power vehicles — ethanol. Highly
subsidized ethanol is reducing grain exports,
and resulting in food riots in poor countries.
Biomass energy corporations have two
primary objectives: growth and profi ts, by
any means that they can get away with.
Richard Reese
Eugene
OUR OWN KOCH
Eugene, did you know? We have our own
Koch brother, here.
Think hard, who might that be? Is there a
mill called Seneca? There must be an owner,
a great local funder of who and what.
Having your underwear ironed doesn’t
keep you honest and straight. Just helps you
salute to your money and bark as a baron.
Steve Trimmell
Veneta
WINDBAG PUNDIT
I’m constantly underwhelmed by the
idiocy and ludicrousness of Mark Harris’
articles and “contributions” to the community.
Mark, you are such an arrogant windbag!
Congratulations, you are one of a handful
of black people in Eugene. Why don’t you
do something constructive with your status
instead of stroking yourself?
You can only get away with it here because
no one calls you on it. Guess what, buddy?
I’m calling you out. We all are pretty aware
there are few people of any color here. Why
not do something positive and help people be
comfortable with unfamiliar cultures instead
of rubbing your different-ness in their faces
constantly? Why not be more approachable
instead of swaggering around campus like
your balls are so huge you need a wheelbarrow
The foundation for
effective collaboration
his week is the 29th Public Interest Environmental
Law Conference (PIELC) at the UO. I remember
attending the fi rst PIELC in 1982. If I recall
correctly, it was scheduled for just a Thursday afternoon
and Friday, not four days. I was in my second year of
working at Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides and was thrilled to have the chance to learn
about environmental laws, and how I might make sure
they are followed. I brought a small cassette recorder to
tape what I was hearing.
I’m back for the PIELC this year. (I don’t think I’ve
missed more than one or two.) While my love of strong
environmental law and of citizen litigation when it is
necessary remains, I am much more conscious now than
I was in 1982 of the complementary role of collaboration
within the sideboards of environmental law (or labor
law, or civil rights law). Generally, when environmental
(or labor or civil rights) litigation is completed, someone
has won and someone has lost. That’s not necessarily
bad, because sometimes, for the sake of a society
guarding its natural resources, environmental or social
health, and future generations, someone needs to lose.
But losers can be a pretty sore bunch, and they
often have a lot more money and political power than
4 MARCH 3, 2011
EUGENE WEEKLY
A PROGRESSIVE TAX
On Feb. 14, the Eugene City Council
decided to put a city income tax measure
on the May ballot dedicated to keeping
class size down and making the school year
whole again. Most speakers during the
public comment section spoke in favor of the
income tax. Several, however, spoke against
it and specifi cally referred to the progressive
nature of the proposed tax as “class war”
against the well-to-do.
The reality is that we have been in class
war for some time now. Warren Buffet, the
icon of American capitalism, was quoted
recently, “There is class warfare, all right,
but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making
war and we are winning.” Since the 1980s we
have seen the largest redistribution of wealth
BY MARY O’BRIEN
Good
Legislation
T
for them? I’m really disappointed and
embarrassed by and for you.
Just so you know, I’m Native, black and
white, grew up here, and was trained as a
drug and alcohol counselor. You of all people
have the training to be a positive contributing
member to society. Get over yourself.
Clarice Smart
Eugene
the winners. And that’s where collaboration comes
in. Because more often than we think, there are more
possibilities than a stark win-loss (think Wisconsin).
Once, when some power companies were duking it
out over who would build how many dams on the
Snake River in Hells Canyon, the Supreme
Court didn’t decide between them, but
rather sent the case back down to a lower
court to consider whether any dams
needed to be built in Hells Canyon at all.
It’s that kind of thinking that often comes
up in collaborations.
I’ve spent the better part of the last
30 years in one collaboration or another
— whether developing alternatives to aerial
herbicide spraying on national forests in
Oregon and Washington; drafting Oregon
groundwater legislation; developing Toxics Board
and industry reporting processes following passage
of Eugene’s Toxics Right-to-Know Law; considering
alternatives to the West Eugene Parkway; developing
a new management plan for Hells Canyon; developing
aspen restoration guidelines for national forests in
Utah; jointly drafting a beaver plan for Utah; or grazing
cattle differently on some beat-up national forest
allotments in southern Utah.
The end result of a successful collaboration feels
different than a win in court. There isn’t the fi st-pumping
rush. Generally, there are just some quiet last hours
of wording being worked out by the ones who are still
willing to sit in a chair. But collaboration, particularly if
it has run on consensus and all principal stakeholders
have had a strong, informed representative, generates
its own rewards.
One of them is that a solution has been reached
that seems workable to all, and thus is likely to be
implemented rather than undermined.
Another is the gratifying moments when a participant
has broken a stalemate with a suggestion that
seems just right to everyone. The interesting
thing is that it isn’t always the same person.
Sometimes a person who got stuck in one
situation is the very person who unsticks
everyone else at another point in the
collaboration. Sometimes the person
who offers a workable solution is one
who would have been expected to have
opposed such a solution.
And that’s the best of collaboration:
when each participant is honestly working
at hearing everyone else and looks a little
sideways at the situation and sees some possibility
that hadn’t been on the table till then. Sometimes it’s
just a different wording; at other times a signifi cantly
different way to accomplish underlying, rather than
surface needs. But each time the participants get
unstuck they get an increased sense the collaboration
is working. And each time one of the participants is
generous at changing, others are more likely to be
generous.
There is a prerequisite for collaboration, however,
and that is good environmental (or labor or civil rights)
law. We do need to decide we will protect the Earth and
society’s opportunities for everyone. And then we’re
surprisingly good at putting our heads together to
fi gure out how to do that, to the ultimate benefi t of all.
Mary O’Brien has worked as a public interest scientist since 1981. She is
currently dividing her time between Eugene and Castle Valley, Utah.
WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM • BLOGS.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM