4A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
editor@dailyastorian.com
KARI BORGEN
Publisher
JIM VAN NOSTRAND
Editor
Founded in 1873
JEREMY FELDMAN
Circulation Manager
DEBRA BLOOM
Business Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN
Production Manager
CARL EARL
Systems Manager
OUR VIEW
Carbon plan should be nonstarter
O
regon was a national pioneer on
land use planning. It led the way
with the Bottle Bill. Its protec-
tion of public beach access is legendary.
In each case, Oregonians benefited
from the state’s landmark legislation.
That’s not the case with the carbon tax-
and-invest proposal being shaped by a
committee of Oregon legislators.
The greenhouse gases emitted by
Oregon truckers, commuters, utilities,
manufacturers and other entities are so
small that they are barely measurable on
a global scale. Neighboring California
has a huge impact, not Oregon.
Oregon officials might win environ-
mental plaudits for taking action, but the
actual atmosphere would hardly notice.
In fact, there’s a distinct chance Oregon
could worsen the global situation.
Cap-and-invest is a market-based sys-
tem in which U.S. states or Canadian
provinces place caps on the amount of
allowable carbon emissions. To exceed
those caps, companies can buy allow-
ances from the government. The allow-
ances can be sold or traded on the open
market, with the government investing
the income in environmentally friendly
projects.
California, Quebec and Ontario are the
North American leaders. Key Democratic
legislators in Oregon want to join them.
The catch is that Oregon’s environ-
mental initiatives already are stronger
than those in many states and nations.
The world, not just Oregon, loses if com-
panies leave the state for less-restrictive
locales. Or if Oregon companies switch
to buying products manufactured — and
shipped — under lighter regulations.
Transportation is a huge contributor to
greenhouse gases.
California now is the world’s
fifth-largest economy, larger than the
United Kingdom’s. That reality cre-
ates the incentive for many California
corporations to invest in carbon reduc-
tion there. In contrast, Oregon’s econ-
omy ranks in the middle of the pack
Associated Press
The Boardman Coal Plant is scheduled to close in 2020, part of the federal government’s plan to reduce carbon output. Oregon is
considering an additional cap-and-invest program to further limit carbon output.
among U.S. states — about the size of
Egypt’s and smaller than Pakistan’s,
Bangladesh’s or Finland’s.
The Legislature’s Joint Interim
Committee on Carbon Reduction must
prioritize how cap-and-invest, or any
other scheme, would alter the state’s
economy as well as its environment.
“What we’re proposing here is a big
and serious program, and I think it’s
legitimate to expect people to be con-
cerned about the effects on the econ-
omy,” said state Sen. Michael Dembrow,
a chief architect of Oregon’s cap-and-in-
vest proposal, at a committee meeting
this summer.
Such concerns ride especially high
in rural Oregon, reflecting both the
Democrat-Republican and urban-rural
splits on the committee.
“I can’t go to cap-and-trade yet,” Sen.
Fred Girod, R-Stayton, said at the same
meeting. “If you listen to the testimony
today, it sure seems like we’re going to
make rural Oregon pay the cost of all
this, and I don’t see urban Oregon step-
ping up to the plate, and that really both-
ers me.”
Sen. Alan DeBoer, R-Ashland, has
a more modest approach — a car-
bon-pollution tax, with related projects
to improve forest health and reduce the
destructive, carbon-emitting wildfires
around the state.
“Cap-and-invest is contentious for
many reasons, but a broader discussion
about sunsetting a carbon tax may be a
better way to solving one of the most
quarrelsome arguments in Salem,” he
said in a constituent letter last month.
Gov. Kate Brown and other key
Democrats are eager for the committee
to act.
But there should be no rush. Do what
is best for Oregon — all of Oregon.
OTHER VIEWS
Excepts from editorials
in Oregon newspapers
Baker City Herald, on
sanctuary law repeal
being sensible
W
e think Oregon voters should
repeal the state’s 31-year-old
“sanctuary” statute by approving
Ballot Measure 105 on the Nov. 6 ballot.
That said, we’re not bothered by Baker
County Sheriff Travis Ash’s decision to not
join 16 of his 35 counterparts who signed a
letter that urges voters to pass Measure 105.
The letter was written by Clatsop County
Sheriff Thomas J. Bergin.
In a written statement, Ash said he
declined to sign Bergin’s letter because Bergin
cited as an example the recent murder of
Mollie Tibbetts in Iowa. The man charged
with her murder apparently is a Mexican
national living illegally in the U.S.
“I didn’t agree with using the Mollie
Tibbetts family’s personal tragedy for political
purposes,” Ash wrote, “especially without
knowing how they felt about it.”
It seems that Tibbetts’ father, Rob, would
not think much of Bergin’s letter. Rob Tibbets,
while giving his daughter’s eulogy, said “the
Hispanic community are Iowans. They have
the same values as Iowans.”
Ash didn’t take a position on whether he
supports or opposes Measure 105.
But he said that whether or not voters
approve the measure, “it will not affect the
way we do business at the Baker County
Sheriff’s Office.”
Ash, who also oversees the Baker County
Jail, said his policy, which he says is consis-
tent with Oregon’s current law, is to notify
federal immigration officials if an inmate who
is in jail on other charges is also suspected of
being in the country illegally.
But Ash also wrote that such situations are
“rare.”
That’s not necessarily the case, however, in
some of Oregon’s more populous counties.
We agree with Knute Buehler, the
Republican candidate for governor, who said
he will vote for Measure 105 because he
believes repealing the sanctuary law will elim-
inate confusion and potential discrepancies
in how individual counties deal with illegal
immigration issues.
Opponents of the measure contend its
passage would encourage police to engage in
the noxious tactic of racial profiling. But the
1987 “sanctuary” law is not the only bulwark
against profiling. In 2015 Gov. Kate Brown
signed a law — one we support — that creates
a database of profiling complaints against
police, and an independent task force to
review those complaints.
The Bend Bulletin,
on Gov. Brown
needing to show more
transparency, release
records
F
or all the talk from Gov. Kate Brown
of supporting government openness
and transparency, she seems to hope to
be addressed as Gov. Openness. Yet, there’s
another example of her failing to live up to
her talk.
Brown is denying the public access to
legislation state agencies plan for the 2019
session until after the November election
is over. The records should be made public
now.
State agencies send proposed legislation
to the governor’s office every year before the
legislative session. The state has what are
called legislative concept approval forms. The
forms require agencies to identify a problem
and explain how a change in the law would fix
it. The governor’s office reviews them and can
turn them down.
Such forms were submitted in the past to
change the age of compulsory education from
age 7 to age 5. There was one to change health
insurance for inmates. There was another to
limit information to the public in some state
databases.
That’s important public business that the
public has a right to know. And in the past,
they have been provided to members of the
public.
This year, with Brown up for election, the
policy for releasing such records has changed.
There are new instructions sent to agencies
about the forms: “Although it is expected
that agencies will have discussed legislative
concept ideas with stakeholders, agencies
are directed to treat this document as confi-
dential and privileged and, accordingly, not
to share the text of this form outside of state
government before legislation is drafted and
finalized.”
That will be after the election is over. Does
that make any sense at all except to hide what
the government is doing from the public?
The state is claiming that release of the
records now violates attorney-client privilege.
That decision was upheld by Attorney General
Ellen Rosenblum. Is that so? State agencies
are forming critical policies to change state
law. In many cases, as the state admits, it has
publicly discussed its legislative concepts.
And now, when an agency proposes an idea to
the governor, it suddenly becomes top secret?
Knowing what proposed legislation a
governor rejects and what he or she allows to
proceed tells Oregonians important informa-
tion about the governor.
Gov. Openness should not be trying to
delay disclosure. She should be expediting it.
Release the records. Now.
Corvallis Gazette-
Times, on life returning
to forests after blazes
I
n a summer when Oregon residents
already have learned many lessons about
wildfire, the Columbia River Gorge has
one more to offer:
Even after the most devastating fires, the
land finds ways to recover.
Don’t misunderstand: The area of the
gorge that was ablaze a year ago in the Eagle
Creek fire isn’t the same as it was before a
thoughtless teenager tossed a firecracker into
tinder-dry brush. In some ways, the fire has
permanently altered the landscape.
But, as The Oregonian reported, the 49,000
acres burned in the fire already are showing
signs of rebirth. Ten years from now, much of
the burned forest will seem familiar to the hik-
ers who frequented the gorge before the blaze.
The fire raced through a region that is
well-loved by Oregon residents, within easy
reach of the state’s most populated area. Smoke
choked the metro area. Ash fell from the sky in
Portland. The area’s tourism-driven businesses
took serious hits.
The fire threatened the historic lodge at
Multnomah Falls, which was saved only
through the heroic actions of firefighters. The
fire did destroy four homes. Interstate 84 was
shut down for 10 days. Even navigation on the
Columbia River was stopped for two days. A
year later, the fire still has yet to be declared
extinguished — hot spots continue to pop up,
most recently in May.
All in all, it served as an urgent lesson, up
close and personal, about the sheer power of
wildfire.
And it angered people who were forced to
pay attention, possibly for the first time, about
that power.
The lessons that will play out over the next
decades along the gorge will require long-term
attention, but they’re just as important to
absorb as we move toward a deeper under-
standing of wildfire.
By the time a decade passes — a long time
for humans, but not even a blink of an eye on
nature’s timeline — it will be much harder,
but not impossible, to pick out signs of the
fire. After all, most of the acreage burned in
the blaze experienced only low and moderate
burns; only about 15 percent was severely
burned. In that area, mostly in higher eleva-
tions, dead trees (foresters and firefighters call
them snags) will remain standing, but even
these will have a role to play in the forest’s
rejuvenation.
Sooner or later, a fire was going to erupt
in this landscape. It would have been better,
of course, if the fire had been prescribed by
foresters and carried out under controlled cir-
cumstances. But the first lesson here is that fire
had a role to play in our forests.
The second lesson is just as important, and
maybe even more so: Even after the most dev-
astating fires, forests bounce back. That lesson
will be playing out for decades in the Columbia
River Gorge, if only we choose to look.