A8 The BulleTin • Wednesday, June 2, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Does Bend have
right policy for
homeless camps?
F
irst the good news: The city of Bend is working harder
than ever to find better solutions for the city’s homeless.
And now for news that can be
good or bad: The Bend City Council
will discuss Wednesday a new city
policy to remove homeless camps in
or near city streets and sidewalks.
The policy is already in place. It
was signed just a few days ago on
May 28 by City Manager Eric King.
The policy is “intended to address
health and safety concerns of both
the traveling public and individuals
residing or camping on city rights-
of-way.” Does it do that the right
way? Read on and decide.
The policy acknowledges people
who are homeless need places to
sleep, shelter and store belongings.
And in Bend, there is not adequate
space in homeless shelters for ev-
eryone. So people set up where they
can. In parks. In vehicles. On public
property and sometimes on private
property.
But “people storing items and oc-
cupying tents or other structures at
ground level in the street immedi-
ately adjacent to vehicle traffic pose
an increased street safety risk that is
not in alignment with the policies to
reduce crashes and injuries on city
streets,” the policy says.
Then it gets into the actual pol-
icy. It applies to rights-of-way — not
other city owned property. Before
anything happens, a determination
must be made by the city manager
that there is an “unsafe campsite.”
It can be a threat to public health,
safety or the environment. That
could involve trash, public urina-
tion, crimes being committed, calls
for service to the area, if it is near a
property that serves children and
more.
A 72-hour notice would be re-
quired before an unsafe campsite
would be cleaned up or removed.
State law, ORS 203.079, only re-
quires 24-hour notice. No notice
would be required in certain situ-
ations, such as if law enforcement
officials believe illegal activities are
occurring other than camping. Per-
sonal property taken from a site
will be stored for a minimum of 30
days. Notice would be posted where
the property was taken so it can be
retrieved.
We imagine councilors may have
questions about the policy. That
may include how homeless camps
at locations other than in rights-of-
way will be handled. What do you
think of the policy? Tell councilors.
You can email them at council@
bendoregon.gov. The key issue may
not be the language of the policy but
how it is used.
Legislature should
pass water storage bill
B
ills in the Oregon Legislature
are now on a kind of death-
watch. What will move and
what will die?
One in particular we have been
tracking, House Bill 3103, remains
alive. It’s important because it would
allow more flexibility in how water
can be used. That could help the wa-
ter situation in the Deschutes Basin.
The bill has made it to the Legisla-
ture’s budget committee, the Joint
Committee on Ways and Means,
meaning it could still be passed this
session.
Oregon has rules about water
rights — the location of where water
is stored, where it is diverted and the
purpose or use for the stored water.
For instance, what water there is in
Wickiup Reservoir is designated for
use by North Unit Irrigation Dis-
trict, which serves an area around
Madras. Oregon’s Water Resource
Department has claimed it does not
have the authority to permit release
of the water for other uses — such as
to help water habitat and the Oregon
Spotted Frog. HB 3103 would clearly
grant that authority.
The bill was amended to put up
to nearly $500,000 toward facili-
tated discussions among state stake-
holders to try to reach agreement
on other water disputes. Is that a lot
of money for discussions? Yes. But
Oregon needs more changes in its
water laws. Progress will mean pad-
dling upstream. Discussions are the
place to start.
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.
What country will this be for grandson’s family?
BY JANET WHITNEY
GUEST COLUMN
y grandson and his wife, who
have been living and work-
ing in Europe for almost
three years, are here visiting family.
tice harms both the oppressed and
They are young and bright, with back- the oppressor. We all suffer, in a va-
grounds in economics and health
riety of ways, the consequences of
care. Ready to begin a family,
bigotry and hate. Unfor-
the question arises of where
tunately, representatives
to put down roots.
in congress, paralyzed by
The country they cur-
fear over loss of power and
rently live in provides safety
wealth, make up the ma-
and security for its citizens:
jority of a Senate which is
child care, health care and
able to block attempts to
education. Basic subsistence
change direction. Their vi-
Whitney
provides a security which
sion is small and mires us
frees people to make healthy
in stagnation. The elections
life choices. Contrary to being on the
of 2022 will tell us more about how
dole, people there work as hard as in
many Americans buy into this fear-
any country.
ful mindset.
Foremost in our family discus-
Voter suppression is underway, an
sions is the challenge to democracy
attempt to limit voter access to peo-
we struggle with today in the United
ple of color. We are forced to put our
States. The last administration has
attention on random acts of violence
upended our sleepy approval of our-
rather than random acts of kindness.
selves and our country. The former
We fail to understand that infrastruc-
President has put our shadow side
ture includes people and not simply
on the table; we must now deal with
bridges and roads. And so on.
our racism, painfully and honestly. As
It is unclear to us and to many
we come to grips with the reality of
whether democracy will survive, and
racism, inequality, and the myths we
that is scary. Why would a young cou-
have perpetuated about the American ple, who are lucky enough to have
dream, we are asking hard questions.
choice, choose to live in America?
Our history confirms that injus-
What do we offer in the way of resil-
M
iency and hope?
Maybe the incentive to help explore
a more creative vision is enough mo-
tivation. People worldwide believe
that we are a country who can do it.
And maybe we can, with political will.
Maybe we can grow our vision by
electing more ethnically and racially
diverse, informed, people to make
healthy decisions for our country, de-
cisions which offer safety, opportunity
and exclude no one. Maybe we can
agree that we want all our children to
have safe housing and a good educa-
tion.
My grandson and his wife want to
raise their children among family. It
is important to have the support of
grandparents, aunts and uncles. Priv-
ilege allows them to act on the hopes
of refugees and immigrants here
and everywhere who have the same
dream.
Will we act on hope and use the
democratic privilege we currently
have to work for causes and elect peo-
ple who believe that all individuals
and families in America and else-
where deserve shelter, health care, ed-
ucation, and equal opportunity?
Without that, how can any of us
make good choices for our children,
all of whom are precious?
e e
Janet Whitney lives in Bend.
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
Getting carbon under control: What methods will be most effective?
BY BRENDA PACE
Editor’s note: This is the second in a
series of four columns over the
next two months on climate
change and potential legisla-
tion that may give readers in-
formation they can take action
on in the effort to meet carbon
emission reduction goals.
O
ur last column reported
CO2 at 416 ppm, a level Pace
not seen for 2.6 million
years and a change of over 3%
in just the last five years. (NASA
Climate Vital Signs, February
2021) Nearly simultaneously,
during 2020, climate events cost
$119 billion in the US alone.
(NOAA.gov/billions).
Though the number is huge
for a single year, it is nevertheless an
underestimate that neglects the human
cost of worry, work and fear of losing
your home, livelihood or a person you
love. Ultimately, we need action, but
what government action will be the
most effective?
Currently, the federal government
has multiple legislative alternatives
generally organized around three ideas:
government expenditure, emission
regulation and a carbon price. Let’s
look at some examples with the caveat
that none of these bills are finalized.
A clear example of a government
expenditure effort is President Biden’s
American Jobs Plan which is
a wide-ranging spending plan
requiring $2.6 trillion. Of that,
$174 billion will support a
network of charging stations
and electric vehicle subsidies
plus another $126 billion will
provide energy efficient hous-
ing units. Since 33% of our
emissions (EPA) are from
transport and housing, these
expenditures are relevant.
Another $100 billion is di-
rected to the electrical grid
which will hopefully enable
it to cope with increasing
amounts of renewable electric-
ity. Finally, $62 billion will go
to research and development
in climate change science and techno-
logical innovation. (Committee for a Re-
sponsible Federal Budget reporting April
2, 2021) The climate change expendi-
tures total about $462 billion.
Emission regulation is illustrated
by Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFÉ) standards, which have set
minimums on the fuel economy for a
manufacturer’s fleet.
More recently, utility emissions reg-
ulations were ordered by the Obama
administration to be enforced by the
EPA. Former President Donald Trump
GUEST COLUMN
overruled these, however, the federal
appeals court reversed again opening
the way for updated rules. (KPMG
Potential Legislation and Policy
Changes.) A similar reinstatement for
methane releases has passed the senate.
GovTrack.com currently lists 124 bills
that regulate emissions.
A Carbon Pricing Bill Tracker (Re-
sources for the Future) lists 12 bills in-
troduced in the 116th and 117th Con-
gresses. Nearly all have set an initial
price for carbon and other greenhouse
gas emissions of $15 to $52 per metric
ton and most increase that price by $10
plus inflation per year though some
rise more slowly.
The big difference among these
plans is how the revenue is used. One,
the Energy Innovation and Carbon
Dividend Act, sends all but adminis-
trative costs equally and directly to all
households. Other plans pay a smaller
percentage to households or restrict
the payment to income tax filers (al-
beit lower tax brackets) and use the
remainder for a variety of purposes
including worker and rural assistance,
research and development, infrastruc-
ture spending, payroll tax reductions
and some low-income support.
Though all these efforts will help re-
duce emissions, effectiveness, which
means ease of implementation and re-
sults, should be our focus. The follow-
ing barely skims the surface.
The American Jobs Plan is largely
directed to overcoming problems cre-
ated by inequity, social infrastructure
and the pandemic while only about
18% of the price tag is specifically in-
tended to cope with carbon emissions.
That $462 billion, large as it is, is a car-
rot designed to enhance renewable fuel
use but may not necessarily push the
economy away from fossil fuels and the
growth of emissions at the rate needed.
Regulations can be a spotty process
targeting an industry or fuel, technol-
ogy or product without fully under-
standing their impacts. As applied to
energy producers, regulations often
result in a kind of cap and trade where
one company exceeding the standard
can sell that benefit to others who are
failing the standard.
Energy production by itself affects
only about 25% of emissions without
altering those created by industrial pro-
cesses or design of consumer goods.
Watching CAFÉ standards over the
years exposed the degree of enforce-
ment required for regulatory admin-
istration and the resistance from law-
suits, lobbyist activity and downright
cheating. On the scale between the
carrot and the stick, regulations tend
toward the stick.
A price on carbon is essentially dif-
ferent because it uses dollars rather
than rules to reach deeply into the link-
ages throughout the economy. Though
the fee is applied only to the producers
of fossil fuel at their source, the effect
on price seeps through every exchange
of every product that is bought or sold.
Then, the only escape from the grad-
ually rising price of carbon, is for all
economic entities to compete for new
products and services that use less.
Lucky for us, the U.S. excels at com-
petition and innovation. Fortunate too,
carbon pricing cause little governmen-
tal administrative fuss because reve-
nues only involve producers and ex-
penditures only involve households.
Is there a blend that would be the
most effective in our situation?
Ideally, each method would be de-
signed to perform what it does best.
After all, we don’t have time to waste on
imperfect decision making. The Mauna
Loa Global Monitoring Laboratory just
reported a preliminary finding of 419
ppm for April, a bit higher than the Feb-
ruary NASA estimate. More about deci-
sion-making in the next column.
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.