Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (March 1, 2017)
Page 6 March 1, 2017 Your Carpet Best Cleaning Choice O PINION Martin Cleaning Service Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning Residential & Commercial Services Minimum Service CHG. $45.00 A small distance/travel charge may be applied CARPET CLEANING 2 Cleaning Areas or more $30.00 Each Area Pre-Spray Traffic Areas (Includes: 1 small Hallway) 1 Cleaning Area (only) $40.00 Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area (Hallway Extra) Stairs (12-16 stairs - With Other Services) : $25.00 Area/Oriental Rugs: $25.00 Minimum Area/Oriental Rugs (Wool) : $40.00 Minimum Heavily Soiled Area: Additional $10.00 each area (Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying) UPHOLSTERY CLEANING Sofa: $69.00 Loveseat: $49.00 Sectional: $109 - $139 Chair or Recliner: $25 - $49 Throw Pillows (With Other Services) : $5.00 ADDITIONAL SERVICES • Area & Oriental Rug Cleaning • Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning • Deodorizing & Pet Odor Treatment • Spot & Stain Removal Service • Scotchguard Protection • Minor Water Damage Services SEE CURRENT FLYER FOR ADDITIONAL PRICES & SERVICES Call for Appointment (503) 281-3949 When Polluters Lose and the Rest of Us Win The good thing about regulations J ill r ichardson As the Trump regime’s anti-envi- ronment onslaught begins, there are sev- eral terms used by men (and in the case of Trump’s cabinet, it’s nearly all men) attempting to turn us against protecting the air we breathe and water we drink. Polluting industries become “job creators,” and the policies that allow them to pollute are “pragmatic,” “balanced,” and “common sense.” Meanwhile, the rules put in place to keep Americans safe and our environ- ment clean become “government abuse” or “overreach.” These are buzzwords, devel- oped by polluting industries and their political allies, to convince us to let them keep trashing our planet. Another favorite, already ut- tered by Trump’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, is “picking winners and losers.” Any time the by government attempts to rollback pollution, fossil-friendly politi- cians trot this phrase out. Generously speaking, they mean this: New environmental rules allow some corporations to keep doing business profit- ably (the “winners”), while requiring others to make costly renovations or even shut down (the “losers”). Sounds unfair, right? Only, the “winners” are the responsible companies sion could be said to “pick win- ners and losers.” Suppose the military drops a supplier making expensive, faulty weapons and instead gives its business to a company making equipment the military actually needs. Most of us wouldn’t criti- cize the government for dropping the dead-weight supplier. Why should we apply different standards to environmental safe- ty? Do we, the American people, have a responsibility to breathe Suppose the military drops a supplier making expensive, faulty weapons and instead gives its business to a company making equipment the military actually needs. Most of us wouldn’t criticize the government for dropping the dead-weight supplier. with cleaner business practices, and the “losers” are companies that profit by making Americans sick. Say, for example, an old coal-fired power plant spewing mercury into the atmosphere. In fact, any government deci- polluted air and suffer the result- ing illnesses in order to keep a pol- luting industry in business? Of course not. Especially when the industry in question could have upgraded to cleaner equip- ment but refused to do so, in or- der to save money for themselves while sickening us. Let’s re-frame the idea of pick- ing winners and losers. When the government allows companies to profit by polluting, they’re also picking winners and losers. The winners are companies that don’t have to invest in clean- er technologies, and the losers are the American people, who get sick from breathing dirty air. No matter what the government does, whether it regulates or not, somebody wins and somebody loses. The only important question is who comes out on which side. Oh, and a word about “job cre- ators,” too. Drug cartels employ all kinds of people. That doesn’t mean what they’re doing is good for the rest of us. Do we want policies that allow irresponsible corporations to win while the American people lose? Instead, I’d propose an ultimatum for dirty industries: Clean up your act or go out of business. For ordinary Americans and re- sponsible businesses, that sounds like a win-win to me. OtherWords columnist Jill Richardson is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food Sys- tem Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It.