CHRISTOPHER RUSH
Publisher
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Editor
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
JADE McDOWELL
Hermiston Editor
FRIDAY, FeBRUARY 21, 2020
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Brown supports a bad idea, at least part way
O
regon Gov. Kate Brown last
week threw her weight behind
the effort to remove the dams
on the lower Snake River.
We think removing the dams is a bad
idea. While we don’t question Brown’s
sincerity, we wonder why she’s joined
the fight when Oregon has no direct
stake.
The dams in Southeast Washington
generate electricity and allow farmers to
move grain by barge down the Colum-
bia River’s main tributary.
Without the dams, the river would
be too shallow to barge wheat and
other farm goods the roughly 100 miles
between Lewiston, Idaho, and the
Tri-Cities. Lake Sacajawea, a reservoir
created by Ice Harbor Dam, irrigates
47,000 acres. The loss of electricity gen-
erated by the dams would increase the
cost of pumping groundwater.
Farmers are worried about being “at
the mercy of railroads” and skeptical
about switching to crops that use less
water.
Certain environmental groups have
been proposing for years that the dams
be dismantled. Supporters say breach-
ing the dams is necessary to save
endangered salmon and other fish spe-
cies in the Snake River Basin. They dis-
pute the feared impacts on farmers and
Capital Press Photo
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has come out in favor of removing four hydroelectric dams on the
Snake River in Washington state, saying that is the best way to increase endangered salmon
runs.
minimize the value of the energy pro-
duced by the dams.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Dem-
ocrat, has long supported removing the
dams. Most recently Inslee has touted
removing the dams as a way to bolster
the orca population in Puget Sound. Sci-
entists blame a declining orca popula-
tion on a lack of Chinook salmon for the
killer whales to eat.
Gov. Brown has come late to the fray.
In her letter of support to Inslee,
Brown said it is clear the “most cer-
tain and robust solution to Snake River
salmon and steelhead recovery” is
removing the dams. “No other action
has the potential to improve overall sur-
vival two-to-three fold,” she said.
Why now? We can only guess.
Brown, a Democrat, took office in
2015 when then-Gov. John Kitzhaber
resigned. She won a special election in
2016 to fill Kitzhaber’s unfinished term
and was re-elected in 2018. Term limits
prevent her from running again in 2022.
We have heard she has further ambi-
tions, either in Congress or in a cabinet
role.
What is better than supporting the
breaching of dams in someone else’s
state? No matter what happens to the
four dams in Washington, there’s no
direct political blowback on an Oregon
politician. But that doesn’t mean Brown
can’t burnish her bona fides with envi-
ronmental groups that might be useful
in future campaigns.
Now many of the people who support
breaching the Snake River dams also
support breaching the big dams on the
lower Columbia. That would have big
impacts on Oregonians. The governor
has been silent on the issue.
We are reminded of the old fable
about the relative roles chickens and
pigs play in producing a ham-and-egg
breakfast. The pig gives his life, and
thus is committed, while the chicken’s
involvement is free of risk.
Let’s hope Brown never goes whole
hog for dam removal.
OTHER VIEWS
The inconvenient truths of SB 1530
partnership with renewable energy and fossil
fuel replacement efforts seems irresponsible
at best and dishonest at worst.
Another inconvenient truth rests with the
unintended results of an 11th-hour compro-
or those of us who are strong advocates mise in SB 1530 that prohibits Oregon’s pri-
vate forestland owners from securing forest
for climate change reform in our state,
carbon offset payments through improved
the inconvenient truths surrounding
forest management practices, such as grow-
the latest climate change legislation — Sen-
ate Bill 1530 — before the Oregon Legisla-
ing carbon-absorbing trees longer before har-
ture causes pause. From the beginning, the
vest occurs. Carbon emitters can invest in
public has been kept in the dark on what hap- offset projects that equal up to 8% of their
pens to Oregon’s statewide annual emissions
total carbon footprint. Other states with car-
bon taxes encourage forest carbon offset proj-
numbers (at 64 million metric tons per year)
ects. Eighty-five percent of all car-
when including the contribution our
bon offset credits offered under
forests make to Oregon’s carbon
California’s carbon cap-and-trade
footprint.
program, which Oregon wants to
In climate-change strategy, two
emulate, come from IFM proj-
key approaches exist — keep it in
ects on private forestland, result-
the ground (reduce the use of fossil
ing in over 143 million metric tons
fuels) and pull it from the sky (shore
of additional forest carbon sinks.
up mechanisms that pull out and
Since 2016, over 3 million met-
store existing greenhouse gases in
C atherine
ric tons of forest carbon registered
the atmosphere).
M. M ater
with the California program come
The state has singularly focused
COMMENT
from Oregon private forestland.
on the former (renewable energy,
Almost $40 million in offset pay-
electric cars), while ignoring the lat-
ter. Both are needed.
ments went to Oregon forestland owners and
their forest-based communities, helping to
Here’s why.
sustain and grow carbon stores and long-term
In 2017, the Oregon Global Warm-
ing Commission and, in 2019, the Oregon
wood supply. Yet SB 1530 supporters would
Department of Forestry, independently con-
muzzle that option for Oregon forestland
firmed that Oregon forests produce a net
owners.
(after harvest) carbon sink of 30 million
Finally, while other states crafting carbon
metric tons each year through annual tree
tax legislation are simultaneously proposing
growth. All other sectors in Oregon, includ-
other tax-reduction trade-offs for emitters,
ing the energy and transportation sectors,
Oregon legislators ignored this wise strat-
egy by imposing another tax (20% on gross
generate approximately 64 million metric
receipts) on the same companies targeted
tons of emissions each year.
for carbon tax payments, creating a Marie
This means that when including our for-
ests, the total net statewide carbon footprint
Antoinette let-them-eat-cake scenario. If any-
thing, legislators should provide an exemp-
is really at 34 million metric tons per year,
tion from the new gross receipts tax for those
not the 64 million metric tons quoted, result-
ing in an emissions level that is only 3 million in the forestry and forest products sectors in
tons per year short of meeting Oregon’s 2035
the state that contribute so much to Oregon’s
statewide emission goals.
real reduced carbon footprint and to those
This good-news story has become an
heavy emitters who choose in-state IFM off-
set projects as part of their carbon tax offsets.
inconvenient truth to those pushing for pas-
sage of SB 1530, wishing to muzzle focus
As Antoinette discovered too late at the guil-
lotine, the price of arrogance is severe and
on this latest forest carbon discovery. Yet
lasting.
the exact opposite is needed. Of the 11 states
Like many, I would like to see Oregon
in the U.S. that count forest carbon in their
state’s carbon footprint, Oregon, Washington, become the next state in the U.S. to pass a
California and North Carolina lead the nation carbon tax, but not by masking the truth or
at the expense of those who contribute the
in net forest carbon sinks. At 50%, Oregon
most to Oregon’s unmasked carbon footprint
leads the nation in forest carbon sinks that
offset all other annual statewide carbon emis- picture.
sions. Washington and North Carolina forests
———
Catherine M. Mater is president of Mater
each offset 30%, California forests offset 7%.
Engineering and a former chair of the Oregon
For Oregon not to take a lead in using for-
est carbon as a central tool in helping to reach Global Warming Commission Forest Carbon
ambitious future emissions reduction goals in Task Force.
Editor’s note: Do you have a point
you’d like to make or an issue you feel
strongly about? Submit a letter to the edi-
tor or a guest column.
F
YOUR VIEWS
Legislative bills will boost
Oregon’s economy
Two bills are being considered in the cur-
rent legislative session that are important to
Oregon’s economy. These bills deserve our
attention and support. First is the Opportu-
nity Zone Bill (House Bill 4010). Let’s dis-
connect the Oregon tax code from Presi-
dent Trump’s federal “Opportunity Zone”
tax provisions. Otherwise, if we don’t, Ore-
gon tax revenue will be given away to the
very wealthy. This is a no-brainer. I don’t
want my tax dollars to go the 1%. They have
more than enough. Let’s be smart and make
federal tax provision serve all Oregonians.
It’s time to continue building the green
economy in our state. The Climate Bill
(Senate Bill 1530) is the next step. Although
“cap and trade” has been shown to work in
other states to both ratchet down CO2 emis-
sions and stimulate the economy, Republi-
cans in our Oregon Senate are again saying
they will walk off the job to prevent a quo-
rum for this bill. Our senators were elected
and are paid to do their job. Please, Sen.
Lynn Findley, R-Vale, show up, stay put, and
do your job.
I urge all Oregonians living east of the
mountains to learn more about these two
bills, and urge our local legislators to make
them happen.
Mimi Maduro
Mosier
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
U.S. SENATORS
REPRESENTATIVES
Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5244
La Grande office: 541-962-7691
Greg Barreto, District 58
900 Court St. NE, H-38
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1458
Rep.GregBarreto@state.or.us
Jeff Merkley
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3753
Pendleton office: 541-278-1129
Greg Smith, District 57
900 Court St. NE, H-482
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1457
Rep.GregSmith@state.or.us
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
SENATOR
Greg Walden
185 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-6730
La Grande office: 541-624-2400
Bill Hansell, District 29
900 Court St. NE, S-423
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-1729
Sen.BillHansell@state.or.us
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of
the East Oregonian editorial board. Other
columns, letters and cartoons on this page
express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies
for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold
letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights
of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime
phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published.
Send letters to the editor to
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave.
Pendleton, OR 97801