The BulleTin • SaTurday, april 3, 2021 B5
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
What will your
tax dollars buy
for the river?
T
he Bend Park & Recreation District is looking at a list of
33 projects that could improve river habitat and impact
access to the river. Is the district splurging or are the
projects necessary? Are the projects wrong-headed or dead right?
The projects change river access
for people, parking, where dogs can
go in the river and more. Who pays
for it? You do. It will be your taxes at
work, though some of the funding
for the projects will likely come from
grants or community partnerships.
While the city of Bend is consider-
ing reducing parking requirements
across the city, staff is recommend-
ing the park district add more park-
ing at Riverbend Park. That’s based
on survey responses and other feed-
back. Is that what you want?
A permanent off-leash dog river
access point seems to be making it
on the list for Riverbend Park. But
based on the feedback the district
has received already, staff recom-
mends that two other seasonal ac-
cess points be scrapped. Is that what
you want? It’s far from the end of the
debate in the plan about dogs and
the river.
A potential project at Pioneer
Park would remove the rock wall
and create a riparian area. That’s
the project survey respondents dis-
agreed with the most. The district
says the project would be costly and
is unlikely to be completed in the
district’s near-term plans. Staff rec-
ommends taking the project off the
list. Is that what you want?
We just picked a few projects
that might get you interested.
There’s more information on the
district’s website here: tinyurl.com/
Bendparkplan. And the park board
is scheduled to get a presentation
from staff on the plan at its meet-
ing Tuesday. Tell it what you think
it should do. You can email the
park board at board@bendpark-
sandrec.org or write us a letter to
the editor of up to 250 words and
send it to letters@bendbulletin.
com.
Historical editorials:
Not from Portland
e e
Editor’s note: The following historical editorials
originally appeared in what was then called
The Bend Bulletin on April 6, 1906.
I
t may be true that the technically
legal election of the United States
senator will be by the legislature,
but it will also be true that the legis-
lature will elect the candidate who
receives the heaviest popular vote.
The people are coming into the
habit of asserting their powers these
days. If old laws and old customs
stand in the way, disregard them.
The formal phrases, the mere husks,
of the law are not to prevent the peo-
ple from exercising the power that
is rightly theirs. If members of the
legislature undertake to carry into
effect their “superior wisdom” non-
sense by choosing a senator in defi-
ance of the popular selection, such
legislators will go to their political
graves. This certainly — not any set
statute — is what gives force to state-
ment No. 1 The people will rule.
Therefore, the popular vote for
senator is important, and every
worker should consider seriously his
vote for this office. Our next senator
should be a clean man, a man of ex-
perience in affairs, a man of dignity
and force of character, and it would
be just as well if he did not come
from the corporation-ridden city of
Portland.
…
It appears that the U.S. Senate
has at last read the handwriting
upon the wall and profited thereby.
News comes from Washington that
a railroad rate bill will be passed
containing a provision for review
by the courts, thus securing the m
easure from being declared uncon-
stitutional. The bill as now outlined
embodies the recommendations of
the president and promises to be
an efficient remedy for the evils of
present day railroad administration.
Shortly after his retirement from the
war department, Secretary Root, at
a speech at a banquet in New York,
defended the president against the
charge of a dangerous radical by say-
ing that the disposition of the presi-
dent to force the great corporate in-
terests of the country to obey the let-
ter and spirit of the law, stamped his
as the greatest conservative force in
the government today. When equal
protection under the law is long de-
nied a people, history shows that
they will finally appeal to the law of
the strong arm, after all the final ap-
peal in any controversy.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
GUEST COLUMN
Ambulatory surgery centers commit
to safety, including surgical smoke
BY CAMMY GILSTRAP, NEAL MAERKI,
NEIL ALLEN AND CHRIS D. SKAGEN
P
hysicians go into health care
with the goal to help people.
Ambulatory surgery centers,
or ASCs, are licensed health facili-
ties that are either partially or wholly
owned by these physicians, and their
goal never changes to provide the best
care possible for their patients. In or-
der to accomplish this goal, physicians
employ a team of clinical experts and
develop comprehensive policies and
procedures to safeguard not only the
patient but also the staff working in
the ASC.
The March 17 op-ed article writ-
ten by Brenda Larkin, overstated the
problem with surgical smoke. The
Association of Perioperative Regis-
tered Nurses, AORN, is developing
unnecessary legislation to create yet
another layer of regulatory burden
on health care facilities. A majority
of ASCs have already voluntarily ad-
opted policies for the evacuation of
surgical smoke during appropriate
procedures. They have partnered with
AORN to provide education to clin-
ical experts around the state about
the potential hazards and how facili-
ties can best mitigate these risks. The
state trade association and the Oregon
Ambulatory Surgery Center Associ-
ation (www.ascoregon.org) promote
the AORN-developed surgical smoke
policy for those that do not already
have one in effect.
Local Bend ASC administrators
cal smoke. Surgeons and nurses are
have discussed this issue and have col- capable of determining which cases
lectively agreed that all safety precau-
generate smoke, and when the need
tions are taken when the use of cautery for increased safety precautions are
is present and creates a smoke plume.
indicated. If any unsafe practice ex-
A smoke evacuator is used and/or
ists within any facility’s operating
N95’s worn when it is anticipated that
room, the leadership in that facility
a smoke plume would be generated
should address it, and have existing
by a Bovie or laser. It is
policies and practices,
important to note that
including staff educa-
ASCs do not perform
tion. The facility should
The Association
nearly the number or
foster an environment
of Perioperative
types of procedures that
where staff feel com-
generate a lot of smoke
fortable bringing safety
Registered Nurses,
as the hospital does.
concerns forward, and
AORN, is developing a means for them to
ASCs use proper per-
sonal protective equip-
do so.
unnecessary
ment and have air ex-
The Oregon Ambula-
change rates that exceed
legislation to create tory Surgery Center As-
requirements set by the
sociation has a tag line
yet another layer of of “our patients come
state to protect public
health and safety.
regulatory burden on first,” and it appropri-
Additionally, ASCs
ately underscores our
health care facilities. commitment to a safe
promote a culture of
community, transpar-
operating room envi-
ency and communica-
ronment. ASCs here are
tion with all staff at the facility. ASC
committed to be an integral part of the
administrators highly encourage op-
Bend community, in providing safe
erating room staff to bring safety con- and cost effective surgical procedures
cerns forward, and our surgeons take
for patients as well as quality employ-
raised safety concerns seriously. ASCs ment for the staff of our facilities.
e e The authors are Cammy Gilstrap, RN, the CSC
are small businesses, and we enjoy a
Director at Cascade Surgicenter; Neal Maerki,
positive work environment and closer
RN, CASC, is the administrator at Bend Surgery
working relationships than some
Center; Neil Allen is administrator at Deschutes
larger operating room environments.
Surgery Center; Chris D. Skagen, JD, MELP, is
Surgical smoke evacuation sys-
executive director of the Oregon Ambulatory
tems should not be used in every
Surgery Center Association.
case. Not every case produces surgi-
Letters policy
Guest columns
How to submit
We welcome your letters. Letters should
be limited to one issue, contain no more
than 250 words and include the writer’s
signature, phone number and address
for verification. We edit letters for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons. We re-
ject poetry, personal attacks, form letters,
letters submitted elsewhere and those
appropriate for other sections of The Bul-
letin. Writers are limited to one letter or
guest column every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between
550 and 650 words; they must be signed;
and they must include the writer’s phone
number and address for verification. We
edit submissions for brevity, grammar,
taste and legal reasons. We reject those
submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted
columns alternate with national colum-
nists and commentaries. Writers are lim-
ited to one letter or guest column every
30 days.
Please address your submission to either
My Nickel’s Worth or Guest Column and
mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. Email
submissions are preferred.
Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Write: My Nickel’s Worth/Guest Column
P.O. Box 6020
Bend, OR 97708
Fax:
541-385-5804
Biden’s infrastructure plan does not come at a cost to jobs
BY GERNOT WAGNER
Bloomberg
“O
nce you put capital
money to work, jobs are
created.”
These are not the words of Presi-
dent Joe Biden, announcing his ad-
ministration’s infrastructure plan in
Pittsburgh on Wednesday. Nor were
they the words of Transportation
Secretary Pete Buttigieg, standing
on a train platform to announce ex-
panded service, or of any of the ad-
ministration’s economists charged
with touting the virtues of the $2.25
trillion spending plan.
It was Michael Morris, then-CEO
of Ohio utility American Electric
Power, who uttered them on an in-
vestor call a decade ago. AEP was
fighting an Environmental Pro-
tection Agency proposal to reduce
mercury and other pollutants from
power plants, citing the expense of
creating jobs to install new scrub-
bers on smokestacks or build cleaner
plants. Morris, taking his fiduciary
responsibility to the utility’s inves-
tors seriously, argued these new
roles would come at a cost to AEP
and were, thus, bad. What he did
not question, and correctly so, was
whether more investments would in-
deed create more jobs.
All that held particularly true
in 2011 since the economy, slowly
emerging from the Great Recession,
was far from full employment. As
Josh Bivens, an economist at the Eco-
nomic Policy Institute, testified at the
time in favor of EPA’s air toxins rules:
“There is no better time than now,
from a job-creation perspective, to
move forward with these rules.”
The economy is once again far
from full employment. That made
the $1.9 trillion American Rescue
Plan, passed last month, so import-
ant. It is also a clear point for passing
the infrastructure package now, and
for spending the money soon.
“Jobs versus the environment” is
an old trope. There are indeed some
real trade-offs. When a tree cannot
be cut to protect the northern spot-
ted owl, the tree cutter is out of a job.
Climate is different.
Cutting CO₂ isn’t about stop-
ping economic activity, as last year’s
COVID-19 lockdowns have vividly
shown. Even the near-total lockdowns
last April only decreased CO₂ emis-
sions by around 17% per day com-
pared to 2019 levels, around 7% for
the entire year, with emissions bound
to increase this year. Reguiding mar-
ket forces toward fully decarbonizing
economies implies more economic
activity, more jobs, not fewer.
That does not mean that all jobs
will stay the same. They won’t, and
they shouldn’t. Biden’s infrastruc-
ture plan, for example, is projected
to cost around 130,000 jobs in the
oil, coal, and gas industry. Providing
these workers with a viable alterna-
tive must be part of the clean energy
transition, and it is. Biden’s plan in-
cludes $16 billion to help retrain and
employ fossil fuel workers to plug
orphan oil and gas wells and clean
up abandoned coal mines. That
comes on top of $10 billion to cre-
ate a Civilian Climate Corps aimed
at training the next generation, and
many more programs with specific
climate-related goals-both to cut
CO₂ emissions and to fortify U.S. in-
frastructure to make it more resilient
to climate changes already in store.
Then there are more far-reach-
ing changes that a cleaner future
will bring. An electric vehicle takes
about one third fewer workers to
build than a gas guzzler. That one-
to-one comparison, however, misses
dynamic effects, and international
competition. Much of the jobs im-
pact does not come from one-to-one
comparisons but from who produces
the vehicles in the first place. China,
for example, now dominates the
global market for lithium-ion bat-
teries. That domination stems from
access to raw materials but also from
its large domestic battery market.
Creating such a market in the U.S.
would also help build a domestic
supply chain.
Many other parts of the infra-
structure plan are even more directly
linked to jobs, especially in building
and construction sectors, which can
hardly be outsourced across interna-
tional borders.
It is also why this infrastructure
package is perhaps the most dura-
ble of climate policies. The Reagan
White House famously removed
largely symbolic solar panels in-
stalled during the Carter administra-
tion, but most actual infrastructure
investments are here to stay. Short of
large bipartisan majorities for CO₂
emissions cuts, this feature is import-
ant. Future administrations are not
going to strip homes off their bet-
ter insulation, or rip out bridges or
train lines. It helps that weatherizing
homes and building infrastructure
goes hand-in-hand with more jobs.
e e
Gernot Wagner writes the Risky Climate
column for Bloomberg Green. He teaches at
New York University and is a co-author of
“Climate Shock.”