A4
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Tuesday, November 22, 2022 • Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Feds take steps
to keep
firefighting
forces intact
W
ith persistent drought and climate change
contributing to bigger, faster-moving
wildfires over the past decade, we’ve never
had a greater need for wildland firefighters.
Which makes some of the findings in a recent federal
report especially troubling.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the
agency that audits federal programs, on Thursday, Nov.
17 released “Wildland Fire: Barriers to Recruitment and
Retention of Federal Wildland Firefighters.”
As the title implies, this report illustrates many of the
challenges to ensure there are enough wildland firefight-
ers to deal with the blazes that inevitably start across the
West, including in Northeastern Oregon, each summer.
The federal wildland firefighting force includes about
18,700 people who work for the Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The most common barrier to hiring firefighters that
GAO investigators heard, in interviewing federal officials
as well as nongovernmental stakeholders, was low pay.
The starting wage for entry-level positions has been $15.
“Officers and stakeholders said that in some cases, fire-
fighters can earn more at nonfederal firefighting entities
or for less dangerous work in other fields, such as food
service,” the report states.
The GAO report is not wholly negative, however.
The authors point out that the federal government
has boosted the base salary by either $20,000 per year or
50%, whichever is less, for wildland firefighters nation-
wide. This provision, through the Infrastructure Invest-
ment and Jobs Act, continues through fiscal year 2026.
That’s significant progress.
But low pay isn’t the only challenge listed in the GAO
report. Mental health issues and a poor work-life bal-
ance are also cited as difficulties in hiring and keeping
firefighters.
Federal agencies are also working to address those
problems, according to the report.
The federal government isn’t renowned for its agility in
reacting to its shortcomings. But it’s heartening to see, as
the GAO report notes, that officials are taking meaningful
steps toward ensuring that, when the next fire season be-
gins, there’s a better chance fire crews will be ready to go.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
OTHER VIEWS
Blame’s on Biden for student loan mess
Editorial from The Boston Herald:
It may be a bit late in the game, but the
Biden administration could benefit by cre-
ating a new Cabinet position: The Secre-
tary of Thinking Things Through.
If the president had such an adviser, the
White House wouldn’t be in the position it
is now, informing those applying for stu-
dent loan debt relief with the website mes-
sage: “At this time, we are not accepting
applications.”
That sotto voce statement is a far cry
from Biden’s fanfare, first blared on the
campaign trail, that he would forgive stu-
dent loan debt by up to $20,000 for bor-
rowers, freeing up their money to live life
to the fullest.
According to Democratic cheerleaders,
it was necessary, it was overdue, it was vi-
tal to the lives of those who took out mas-
sive loans.
It was also not in the president’s power
to make such a move.
That’s the reason a U.S. District Court
judge in Texas struck down the plan on
Thursday, Nov. 17.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman,
whom The Hill noted is a Trump appoin-
tee, said the program is “an unconstitu-
tional exercise of Congress’s legislative
power” and the administration would
need approval from Congress to move for-
ward.
“Whether the Program constitutes good
public policy is not the role of this Court
to determine,” Pittman said. “Still, no one
can plausibly deny that it is either one of
the largest delegations of legislative power
to the executive branch, or one of the larg-
est exercises of legislative power without
congressional authority in the history of
the United States.”
This is not unexpected. Questions as
to the Constitutionality of Biden’s student
loan debt relief scheme had been raised for
nearly as long as it had been touted. They
had been raised by conservative voices, as
in, people Democrats don’t listen to.
If Biden had a voice of reason on staff, a
No Man if you will, he could have gotten
word that he’d need congressional author-
ity to pull this off.
Of course, that precludes that this was
news to him. The unfortunate truth is that
Biden was hell-bent on barreling his stu-
dent loan debt plan through, whether it
was in his purview or not. It was all about
winning the moment, both with the cov-
eted Democratic college-grad demo-
graphic, as well as progressives in the party.
The losers were those same college
grads, gulled into thinking they could
walk away from a chunk of what they
owed, and now caught up short by judicial
realities.
This isn’t the first legal challenge to
Biden’s loan forgiveness plan.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th
Circuit issued a stay on the program last
month after an appeal from six Republican
attorneys, according to reports.
The White House was trying to elbow
the student loan program under the HE-
ROES Act of 2003, which offers relief in
cases of national emergency.
Biden could have avoided these legal
battles if he had worked with Congress, as
he did with the Inflation Reduction Act.
But it might not have passed.
As the Secretary of Thinking Things
Through might say: told you so.
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-
1111; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov.
97850; Phone: 541-776-4646; fax: 541-779-0204;
Ontario office: 2430 S.W. Fourth Ave., No. 2, Ontario, OR
97914; Phone: 541-709-2040. bentz.house.gov.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. office: 313 Hart Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510;
202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland office: One
World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250,
Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900.
Baker City office, 1705 Main St., Suite 504, 541-278-
1129; merkley.senate.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem,
OR 97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. office: 221 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244;
fax 202-228-2717. La Grande office: 105 Fir St., No. 210,
La Grande, OR 97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885;
wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz (2nd District): D.C. office: 1239
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.,
20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-225-5774. Medford
office: 14 N. Central Avenue Suite 112, Medford, OR
Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read: oregon.
treasurer@ost.state.or.us; 350 Winter St. NE, Suite 100,
Salem OR 97301-3896; 503-378-4000.
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario): Salem office:
900 Court St. N.E., S-403, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-
1730. Email: Sen.LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem office: 900
Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460.
Email: Rep.MarkOwens@oregonlegislature.gov
Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker
City, OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049. City
Council meets the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m.
in Council Chambers. Councilors Jason Spriet, Kerry
McQuisten, Shane Alderson, Joanna Dixon, Kenyon
Damschen, Johnny Waggoner Sr. and Dean Guyer.
Baker County Commission: Baker County Courthouse
1995 3rd St., Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-8200.
Meets the first and third Wednesdays at 9 a.m.; Bill
Harvey (chair), Mark Bennett, Bruce Nichols.
Baker County departments: 541-523-8200. Travis
Ash, sheriff; Noodle Perkins, roadmaster; Greg Baxter,
district attorney; Alice Durflinger, county treasurer;
Stefanie Kirby, county clerk; Kerry Savage, county
assessor.
Baker School District: 2090 4th Street, Baker
City, OR 97814; 541-524-2260; fax 541-524-2564.
Superintendent: Mark Witty. Board meets the third
Tuesday of the month at 6 p.m. Council Chambers,
Baker City Hall,1655 First St.; Chris Hawkins, Andrew
Bryan, Travis Cook, Jessica Dougherty, Julie Huntington.
COLUMN
Can scientists ethically moonlight as activists?
BY NICHOLAS GOLDBERG
Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist
with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory, chained himself to the doors of the
Wilson Air Center in Charlotte, North
Carolina, earlier this month as part of
a protest against private jets and the
carbon emissions they spew. He and
several colleagues were arrested, hand-
cuffed and charged with trespassing.
Around the world, some 80 scientists
participated in the day of protest.
“I feel like the failure of society to
respond logically and rationally to the
findings of climate science frankly puts
my children into direct danger,” Kalmus
told me. “It would just be really weird if
I responded to that like a vegetable and
didn’t do anything about it.”
Allan Chornak, a wildlife biologist
who (along with Kalmus) chained him-
self to a door of the JP Morgan Chase
building in April in downtown Los An-
geles, said something similar before be-
ing arrested by Los Angeles police and
briefly jailed. He and other scientists
were protesting the company’s role in fi-
nancing the fossil fuel industry.
“We’ve tried being unbiased, we’ve
tried being silent, we’ve tried the policy
game...,” said Chornack about his fellow
scientist-activists, 1,000 of whom re-
portedly participated in April and May
protests globally. “We have tried every-
thing!”
Kalmus, Chornak and their col-
leagues believe it is their moral respon-
sibility as scientists to help awaken so-
ciety to the dangers of climate change,
which include not just more of the rag-
ing storms, droughts, wildfires and heat
waves we’re already experiencing, but
very possibly famine, mass migration,
collapsing economies and war.
I think they’re right.
But as more and more scientists have
become engaged in climate activism
over the years, they have faced push-
back from traditionalists who insist that
scientists should be disinterested, im-
partial “seekers of truth” who keep their
opinions to themselves, thank you very
much.
Because, after all, science is the do-
main of facts, not emotions, where
open-mindedness and objectivity are
at the very core and foundation of the
work. Political advocacy is frowned
upon.
This is not an unreasonable or unfa-
miliar argument.
The scientific method itself is built
on the notion of “values-free” thinking,
which is presumed to lead to more hon-
est, more credible results. For hundreds
of years, scientists have embraced em-
piricism and impartiality through pro-
cesses like measurement and quantifi-
cation, and repetition and verification.
And through random sampling and
double blind trials designed to weed out
bias and boost credibility.
Scientists with ideological axes to
grind and preconceived points of view
can compromise outcomes or diminish
public confidence in results, goes the
argument.
“I believe advocacy by climate scien-
tists has damaged trust in the science,”
Like the rest of us, scientists are hu-
wrote University of Bristol climate sci- man beings, with opinions, emotions
entist Tamsin Edwards in a much-dis- and social consciences. Those who
cussed article in the
choose to be en-
Guardian 15 years
I don’t believe activism has gaged citizens have
ago. “We risk our
a right to do so.
credibility, our rep- to taint a scientist’s work or
Kalmus says
utation for objec-
he keeps his pol-
detract from its credibility. itics out of his
tivity, if we are not
absolutely neutral.”
work. And when
If Kalmus, Abramoff and the findings of cli-
She also said
scientists have to
mate scientists are
Chornak follow the facts being ignored by
be vigilant against
what she called
leaders and
where they lead in their world
“stealth issue advo-
misrepresented by
cacy” — “claiming
what
day jobs, then what’s wrong corporations,
we’re talking about
moral choice do he
science when really
and his colleagues
with off-hours political
we’re advocating
have other than to
policy.”
up on their
engagement designed to speak
Edwards be-
own time?
lieves that science
who has
call attention to their work the And
belongs to the sci-
ability to speak
entists and policy
more author-
and its ramifications? (You with
should be left to
ity than the experts
the policymakers.
can agree or disagree with themselves?
I see the point, and
“Like all sci-
in a perfect world,
the decision to engage in entists, we were
I might agree. But
trained to maintain
these days Kalmus
civil disobedience, but that’s a type of neutral-
(who is a member
ity in all things…,”
of a group called
Rose Abramoff, a
a separate issue.)
Scientist Rebellion)
climate scientist
and his colleagues
who was also ar-
have the stronger argument.
rested last week in North Carolina, told
The situation has become too desper- a local reporter. “But we do speak from a
ate. We’ve reached a point in the climate place of greater credibility because of our
crisis where silence actually is a kind of educational background, and because of
complicity. Neutrality is a cop-out.
our training in the climate sciences.”
I don’t believe activism has to taint a
scientist’s work or detract from its cred-
ibility. If Kalmus, Abramoff and Chor-
nak follow the facts where they lead in
their day jobs, then what’s wrong with
off-hours political engagement de-
signed to call attention to their work
and its ramifications? (You can agree or
disagree with the decision to engage in
civil disobedience, but that’s a separate
issue.)
One more point: It’s not the protest-
ing scientists but their opponents who
have politicized climate science. The
fossil fuel industry has spent billions of
dollars over half a century to sow mis-
information and cover up or minimize
what the science tells us about emis-
sions and global warming. If legitimate
researchers now chain themselves to
a few doors to counter the slick, well-
heeled industry shills and to express the
consensus view of the scientific com-
munity, they’re unpoliticizing the issue,
if anything.
The simple truth is that policymak-
ers around the world are utterly failing
to address the climate crisis with the
urgency it demands, and ordinary peo-
ple are inadequately informed and in-
sufficiently focused on the impending
perils.
When scientists advocate for honest,
rational, science-driven solutions with-
out compromising the quality of the
work they do in their day jobs, we’re all
in their debt.
█
Nicholas Goldberg is an associate editor and
Op-Ed columnist for the Los Angeles Times.