Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Bulletin. (Bend, OR) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (May 19, 2021)
A8 The BulleTin • Wednesday, May 19, 2021 EDITORIALS & OPINIONS AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Heidi Wright Gerry O’Brien Richard Coe Publisher Editor Editorial Page Editor Bill could open more housing O wning a home can be a “we made it” moment for families. It’s a space for them to call their own. It can create stability. It can help a family create wealth. It can help strengthen a community. But in Central Oregon and across the state, what can be missing are starter homes for first-time buyers. State Sens. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, and Lou Frederick, D-Portland, joined together as chief sponsors on a bill to make that easier: Senate Bill 458. The bill was also sponsored by state Reps. Jason Kropf, D-Bend, and Jack Zika, R-Redmond. The bill will provide more oppor- tunities to build what’s called middle housing — such as duplexes. Oregon already took a big step in that direction in 2019 with House Bill 2001. It allowed middle housing in neighborhoods that were previ- ously restricted to single family-de- tached homes. That wasn’t greeted with welcome everywhere. People worried it would mean the character of neighborhoods would be upended with more housing. Some people don’t want greater density. But Ore- gon does have a problem with hous- ing supply. And as Knopp has said: “The best way to bring down the cost of housing is to increase the stock of housing built at affordable cost.” SB 458 was introduced at the re- quest of Habitat for Humanity. It takes HB 2001 a step further. It al- lows lots to be created for new mid- dle housing units as long as they meet the local development code on the parent lot. It essentially reduces the regulatory barriers to selling both units of a duplex as two indi- vidual homes when the real property was not previously subdivided or partitioned. This bill has its detractors, as well. The reasons are similar to those brought against HB 2001. But if you believe owning a home is a good thing for Oregonians and if you be- lieve Oregon must do more to ensure more people can own homes, this bill helps get Oregon there. And it’s not every day you see Knopp and Freder- ick — usually on different ends of the partisan spectrum — take the joint lead on a bill. The bill has passed both houses of the Legislature and its next stop is Gov. Kate Brown’s desk. Oregon Lottery likely to seek more money I f playing the lottery is your thing, you could soon get one more chance a week. The Oregon Lot- tery Commission will soon be voting whether to allow an additional Pow- erball drawing. It’s almost certain that the commis- sion will do it. It doesn’t set the rules for Powerball. It participates in Pow- erball along with other states. And the “Powerball Product Group” has approved an additional drawing on Monday to accompany the current drawings on Wednesday and Satur- day. If Oregon wants to keep selling Powerball tickets, it needs to allow the additional drawing. What will the change mean? The states selling Powerball tickets are not benevolently trying to create more winners. They hope it will mean more sales of tickets and more rev- enue over time. Staff of the Oregon Lottery project increased Powerball ticket sales will mean about a 5% in- crease in sales in Oregon. More drawings can mean more ex- citement. Lottery operators hope you buy the fantasy: Never work again. More millions than you could ever need. Raining cash down to help your family, your friends, your favorite causes. The reality is your chances are pretty awful. The probability of win- ning the Powerball grand prize is 1 in 292,201,338. Winning $4 is much easier at 1 in 38. If you have the money to lose, Powerball can be fun. It’s also like a voluntary tax. Since 1992, Powerball has generated between $10 million to $20 million per fiscal year in Oregon for things like education, state parks and services for veterans. The breakdown for 2020 in Ore- gon was: Gross sales: $31,196,079 Prizes: $15,589,343 (50% of gross) State transfer: $10,615,363 (34% of gross) Retailer commissions: $2,472,882 (sales) and $115,176 (prize) The gross sales figures in 2020 were about half what they were in 2018. If you buy Powerball tickets think- ing it’s the answer to bring you long- term happiness, you are likely to win disappointment. Think of it more as buying a fleeting dream that also goes to some good causes. 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. Vaccines, not masks, are the solution BY MONICA GANDHI Special to The Washington Post W hen the Centers for Dis- ease Control and Preven- tion called for universal mask-wearing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in April 2020, much of America took heed. And by doing so, we helped slow the spread of a disease that has taken the lives of more than 3.4 million people globally, including more than 580,000 in the United States. Now, it’s time for us to listen to the CDC again. In declaring last week that most vaccinated people don’t need to wear masks, the agency leaned on solid science that shows the vaccines are working — not only to protect the per- son who got the shot but also the peo- ple around them. I am keenly aware of the protective value of masks. I was among the first to publish a scientific brief on the im- portance of universal face-masking for the U.S. public. Since then, I have published many papers with others promoting masks as a way to not only slow the spread of the virus but poten- tially even reduce the amount of virus the wearer is exposed to and reduce the severity of disease if contracted. Based in part on our work, the CDC revised its guidance in November to conclude that masks don’t just protect others but also protect the person wearing them. Our research also contributed to CDC guidelines early this year that the fit and filtration abilities of the mask make a difference in blocking viral par- ticles, leading many Americans to start double-masking. I am a believer in the power of masks. But the vaccines are even more powerful, according to a growing body of research — not just in clinical tri- als but in the real world. Study after study has demonstrated that they pre- vent severe disease and infection at astounding rates. Vaccines prevented COVID-19 hospitalization among adults 65 and older by 94%, prevented symptomatic infection among health care workers in Israel by 97% and blocked severe COVID-19 disease by 97.4% in Qatar, even when the major- ity of circulating virus was from vari- ants of concern, according to studies cited by the CDC the day it released its new mask guidance. Studies also found that serious breakthrough in- fections among vaccinated individuals are extremely rare. Of over 115 million Americans vaccinated, only 0.0009% have had severe COVID-19 after vac- cination, despite the virus continuing to circulate in their communities. Vac- cines truly defang the virus. We now have ample data to show that the vaccines also block transmis- sion. The ability of this virus to trans- mit from individuals who are infected but do not show symptoms (asymp- tomatic) has been the reason it was previously so difficult to contain. But studies at this point show us that vac- cines massively reduce asymptomatic infection. When the CDC rolled out its most recent recommendations on masks last week and President Joe Biden fi- nally told us, “we’ll smile again, and now see one another’s smiles,” I, along with many others, agreed that this was a wonderful, data-driven, science-ac- knowledging day. But others who had hailed the initial recommendation in 2020 to wear face coverings by the CDC as scientifically sound reacted to the new guidance with trepidation and surprise. But there is harm in rejecting this science and the recommendations of a famously cautious CDC. Masks, dis- tancing and ventilation are mitigation strategies; vaccines are the solution. We don’t need to mitigate the impact of the virus by other interventions if we can suppress it through immunization instead. My biggest concern about failing to embrace the science at this point is that it could prevent the return of full in-person school. The science tells us that, on our current trajectory, it’s pos- sible to get all children back to school in person by the fall — free of masks, regular testing, social distancing or fear. That is not only because adoles- cents are now approved for the vaccine and a vaccine for the very young could be available by then. With fewer people infected, the probability of any unvac- cinated people being exposed to the vi- rus will become vanishingly small. But science cannot always overcome fear, as we have seen in California, where more than half of students re- main in distance learning even though it is the state with the lowest case rates of the novel coronavirus, which can cause the illness COVID-19, in the nation and among the states with the highest vaccine uptake. Many groups, including the American Federation of Teachers, recognize the need for reg- ular school to resume nationally. If we let fear dominate our narrative now, the fate of schools in the fall will re- main in the balance. e e Monica Gandhi, an infectious-diseases specialist, is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. 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 Why carbon is so important when talking about climate change BY BRENDA PACE e e Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of four columns over the next two months on climate change and potential legislation that may give readers information they can take action on in the effort to meet carbon emission reduction goals. T he news reports have been shocking to watch. More and stronger hurricanes and torna- does threatening the destruction and flooding in the East and fires destroying communities in the West. Climate refugees are not just in for- eign countries but in the United States with people leaving California and east- ern coastal areas. Many Oregonians are still living in temporary housing after last year’s fires. If you fish, farm or fight fires, you see the evidence firsthand. To cope with skyrocketing costs, insurance compa- nies and federal disaster agencies are just beginning to adjust to these threats with substantial changes in premiums and funding. We all pay taxes and buy insurance, right? We presume climate change is in- volved, but how does it work and what has carbon got to do with it? Scientists have been studying the history of the Earth in many different ways — from changing flora and fauna to changing geography and geology. They’ve learned from chemistry, fossils, ice cores, corals, ocean sediments, RNA and DNA. They’ve extracted, reverse engineered, used spectrometers and la- sers to look at specimens and into the earth. One of the spectacular discover- ies that has resulted from all this work is the relationship of carbon dioxide and temperature. The National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration has graphed the last 800,000 years of this relationship. There have been nine major peaks of both carbon and temperature and nine valleys. The correlation over this period is positive and linear but variable. Vari- ability depends upon interrelationships between numerous Earth characteristics such as the distance of Earth in its orbit around the sun, volcanic activity, cloud formation, Earth’s surface conditions and more, all of which can create feed- back loops that accentuate or slow tem- perature’s reaction to carbon. But the basic relationship is that temperature and CO2 escalate in tandem. Though the Earth’s temperature has gone up and down over the eons by as GUEST COLUMN Pace much as 14 to 15 degrees Celsius, these changes occurred over many thou- sands of years. As a simple observation, each peak in NOAA’s graph required 90,000 years on average. From the last valley some 20,000 years ago, Earth has heated some 11 degrees Celsius— or about .055 of a degree each century. But in the last 100 years, our tem- perature has increased a full degree, and about 80% of that has occurred since 1980. Quoting NOAA again, the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2005. Similarly, carbon dioxide in the at- mosphere increased about 236 parts per million in the last 20,000 years to about 416 ppm, according to NOAA’s direct measurement this year. Over the eons the carbon level in the atmosphere had never exceeded 300 ppm until 1950. These last 70 years have seen car- bon increase 39%. Carbon dioxide is the dominant gas in the atmosphere contributing to higher temperatures, but methane and nitrous oxide are more powerful green- house gases and so also a part of the process. The greenhouse gas title was earned because all three interfere with the transmission of heat accumulated on the Earth’s surface. When the sun’s heat enters the atmosphere, it does so as visible light, and greenhouse gases do not interact with it. When heat tries to bounce back into space, however, it becomes infrared energy, which green- house gas molecules absorb and retain. A more complete description com- posed by Sarah Fecht is at Earth Insti- tute, Columbia University, dated Feb. 25, 2021. The effects on Earth of climate change can be seen throughout the sys- tems that support life on Earth. But we can talk about it locally as well. Melting of ice sheets can raise water levels at the coast. These higher coastlines can exac- erbate floods from earthquakes and tsu- namis, which can send Oregon coastal refugees over the mountain to us. Here in Central Oregon, the melting of our mountain glaciers has been well documented. Reduced snowpack has affected available water for virtually ev- erything: habitat, fish, wells, farmers. Early melting of whatever snowpack exists means that reservoirs cannot fill or even retain enough water through the season for irrigation and recreation. Drying forests mean more and hotter fires. Reduced soil moisture can change the biota of the soil such that our local species may not regrow. While winds like we had recently are expected about once a year, they may begin to happen more often. There are innumerable events locally and within businesses and university research centers to reduce carbon emis- sions or the effects of climate change. However, the most substantive and encompassing efforts are at the federal level, and the next article will be de- voted to those. e e Brenda Pace is retired from Pace Research Co., a regional economics consultancy, and the Center for Natural Lands Management, a habitat management nonprofit for endangered species responsible for more than 75,000 acres.
