Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The daily Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1961-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 2020)
A4 THE ASTORIAN • SATuRdAy, FEbRuARy 1, 2020 OPINION editor@dailyastorian.com KARI BORGEN Publisher DERRICK DePLEDGE Editor Founded in 1873 JEREMY FELDMAN Circulation Manager JOHN D. BRUIJN Production Manager CARL EARL Systems Manager GUEST COLUMN Climate change just another political controversy T he climate change debate isn’t really about a change in the world’s climate. Almost every- body knows the earth has under- gone millions of years of hot and cold weather cycles. The controversy is whether human use of fossil fuels and other natural resources affects the earth’s normal weather cycles. I’ll say at the outset I think regional weather is becoming warmer. Anybody who visited Montana’s Glacier National Park in 1953 like I did, and again in 2018, can come to no other conclusion. The climate change debate over the years has morphed into a mul- DON tibillion-dollar business. HASKELL The federal govern- ment spent $37.7 bil- lion in 2014 alone. A Forbes study esti- mated about $150 billion was spent on climate change during President Barack Obama’s first term. During that same period, governments around the world spent an estimated $359 billion. And in 2018, Oregon State University took in almost $100 million for environmental research. It seems to me that kind of money can warp the opinions of climatologists who’re funded primarily with govern- ment money. That’s not to say they’re dishonest. Just that they’re human like everybody else and know where their bread’s buttered. Besides, I’m at a loss to remember a government study, funded with government money, that recommended the government do noth- ing about the subject of the study. For example, it’s certainly not correct to claim, as an Oregon State University climatologist did at a Columbia Forum speech in October, that scientists aren’t divided over science showing human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming. In fact, 31,487 American scientists of all branches of science, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s, signed the following lit- tle-known petition to the United States government after then-Vice President Al Gore signed a treaty to ration world energy production (the treaty was never ratified by the Senate). Here is the peti- tion in its entirety: “We urge the United States govern- ment to reject the global warming agree- ment that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any similar pro- posals. The proposed limits on green- house gases would harm the environ- ment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foresee- able future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there Tiffany Boothe/Seaside Aquarium Researchers say king tides offer a glimpse of what sea level rise from climate change could look like on the North Coast. is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environ- ments of the Earth.” America’s media never publicized this petition, called the Global Warm- ing Petition Project. It was originated by Oregon’s Institute of Science and Medi- cine. Most folks know nothing about it. But you can read all about this petition, signed by scientists from all branches of American science, including 350 Ore- gon scientists, at petitionproject.org/ index.php. And anybody who wants to nitpick this petition can find plenty of folks who criticize it for one reason or another. Furthermore, two other Oregon State University scientists, in a recent paper signed by 11,258 scientists from around the world, expressed opposite opin- ions from these American scientists who signed the Global Warming Petition. So what’s really going on? It seems to me climate change has morphed into just another big politi- cal controversy. It’s no longer a scien- tific endeavor. Anybody can easily find an opinion on climate change to sup- port whatever their political beliefs hap- pen to be about the role of government in their lives. It’s true that a large majority, but cer- tainly not all, of today’s climatologists claim mankind’s use of fossil fuels is causing global warming from carbon dioxide emissions. They’re paid hand- somely for their opinion that govern- ment needs to step in. Unfortunately, too many politicians readily act on opinions that folks need more government con- trol over their lives. Politicians know that when everybody thinks there’s a possibility of fire, everybody wants a fireman. The big question is what Amer- icans should do about the possibil- ity, however remote, that carbon emis- sions at least contribute in some fashion to, if not actually cause, the Earth to warm up before its usual cycle. In other words, since opinions are all over the lot, whether most folks can be satisfied about government’s role in the matter. Extreme suggestions aren’t accept- able to almost everybody. To claim we must stop using fossil fuels is like say- ing we must stop growing food. Or stop using airplanes, ships, cars, or lawn- mowers. Or stop eating beef because cows produce methane gas. Cap-and-trade laws proposed in Ore- gon are another example of extremism. That kind of brand new tax and con- trol over citizens’ lives by one small rural state in the Pacific Northwest will do absolutely nothing for a worldwide weather phenomenon. Even if all 50 American states enacted the same new tax and control over people’s lives, lit- tle would be accomplished — except to make everything more expensive for everybody. And make America much weaker compared to other nations of the world. Extreme American proposals will do nothing about carbon emissions for a very simple reason. America already regulates carbon emissions to a very low level compared to China and other far eastern countries. America’s not the big- gest polluter and emitter of carbon diox- ide in the world. China is. And countries in the far east exceed by far America’s carbon emissions. It seems to me those folks interested in climate change would be well-ad- vised to take on China instead of blam- ing today’s America for the world’s weather. They should encourage Amer- ica to motivate China to take a more responsible attitude about pollution in general and carbon emissions in partic- ular. Because as China goes, other far eastern countries will follow. It’s difficult to deal with dictatorships like China when a moral perspective is needed toward the environment. That need is the best reason why everybody should encourage Congress and Presi- dent Donald Trump to make concerted efforts to have China become more environmentally responsible. Future American elections will help resolve our government’s role toward matters of climate change. But inter- national diplomacy is needed to real- istically deal with China’s pollution of the Earth itself, and the environmental havoc China’s pollution causes. don Haskell is a retired attorney and former Clatsop County commissioner who lives in Astoria. GUEST COLUMN Shocked by counties in timber suit By DAVID JOHNSON I was shocked when I heard the Wash- ington County commission had decided to join Linn County in a law- suit against the Oregon Department of Forestry for not harvesting enough timber. Was this the same commission that rou- tinely thanked the department for the mil- lions of dollars returned to the county from timber harvesting? That was supportive of the department improving campgrounds, creating hiking, horseback and ATV trails? That asked the department to undertake a complex land exchange in order to cre- ate the L.L. Stub Stewart State Park in the county? Obviously, it was not. Background: These forests, once pri- vately owned, were cut over and burned over in the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s (including the series of Tillamook Burns), went tax delinquent, and reverted to county own- ership. The counties could not deal with these devastated lands, so deeded them to the Oregon Board of Forestry, to be man- aged in a trust-like relationship. State for- esters then began decades of work turning these lands back into productive forests. Timber revenue is distributed according to statute, approximately two-thirds going to the county and one-third to the Depart- ment of Forestry. The department’s share pays for fire protection, timber sale prepa- ration, reforestation, recreation, road main- tenance, everything needed to manage these lands. The county’s share is also dis- tributed by statute: 10% going to county administration, 25% to the county school fund and the remainder distributed to the taxing districts (mostly to schools). As these newly created forests matured, better guidance and principles were needed to move them into the future. So began a lengthy process to create the “greatest permanent value” administra- tive rules and associated “guiding princi- ples” in order to develop a new State For- est Management Plan. In essence, the goal being to generate a broad array of social, economic and envi- ronmental benefits over time and across the landscape. Dozens of public meetings, hearings and tours were conducted to dis- cuss, gather input and develop these rules and plans. The counties were involved every step of the way. Washington County was supportive of the Department of Forestry’s efforts throughout this entire process. Could more timber be cut? Certainly. But should these public forests look like a private industrial tree farm? No. That’s not what the public wanted. Providing timber, while also provid- ing different habitats for a range of species over time, is a primary goal. How much of each kind of habitat to have is the ques- tion. Current plans try to use the best sci- ence available to answer this question and determine harvest levels. Obviously, the science, as well as political opinions, con- tinue to evolve. So, why join the lawsuit? Did newly elected ultra-conservative commission- ers, unfamiliar with history or the rela- tionship with the Department of Forestry, push this? Were longtime commissioners swayed by the timber industry’s push for more harvesting? Did the smell of more Albany Democrat-Herald Attorney John McGrory speaks during closing arguments in the $1 billion class-action timber lawsuit in Linn County Circuit Court. money cause commissioners to turn into hypocrites? When I confronted the commission back in 2017, they told me they’d joined the lawsuit because they could better sup- port the Department of Forestry by doing so. Really? I can think of better ways to show support. Unfortunately, the Tillamook County commission also joined this lawsuit. Only the Clatsop County commission backed up their long-term support of the Department of Forestry by not joining the lawsuit. If only Washington and Tillamook County commissioners were as steadfast and true to their word as Clatsop County’s. The Department of Forestry will cer- tainly appeal the Linn County Circuit Court’s recent decision in favor of the counties. What this means for future man- agement of state forests is unknown. One can only hope our forests will be managed based on sound goals and prin- ciples, developed through a collaborative and thoughtful public process, and not by short-sighted political pundits. david Johnson was the Oregon depart- ment of Forestry’s Forest Grove district forester for 17 years. He is retired and lives in Gaston.
