Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Opinion & Editorial

by Bob Scott, Doug Soehren, Carol Miller, Hamilton

We Montanans do indeed face significant problems, as mentioned by forester Craig Thomas in his recent opinion piece. Mr. Thomas mentions wildfires, costs to fight those wildfires, unemployment, deteriorating schools infrastructure and a declining stock market. We can easily add high gasoline and other fossil fuel prices, dependence on out-of-state food production, low wages, high poverty, escalating health care costs, air pollution, water pollution, global warming, and loss of biodiversity to the problems list.

We would not include however, “overstocked forests” as one of the problems. Since our forests have only a fraction of the big, mature trees and bio-mass that existed in pioneer times, we think calling them “under stocked” would be more accurate. Many of us have observed that years of logging, road-building, population pressure, and wildfire suppression, while reducing our old growth forests, has also created an increase in Douglas Fir and other species where Ponderosa Pine was once dominant. This human-caused situation could be viewed either as another local problem or as Nature's way of recovery. We can certainly understand how a forester looking for work might be eager to characterize our entire forest system that way but we find it misleading to do so.

Central to Mr. Thomas’ proposed solution is the assumption that cutting big timber will prevent wildfires. The maps of the 2000 wildfires (our biggest recent wildfires) show that most fires burned where extensive logging and road building had already occurred. The preponderance of scientific evidence now identifies the root causes (which are still continuing and even escalating) of the present wildfire situation as global warming (continuing and accelerating), a century of overzealous fire suppression (still continuing), the logging of the nation’s old-growth forests (still continuing), and human encroachment into the wildland-urban interface (still continuing). In short, we have managed the forests to near death. It is time to stop doing this.

On the surface, the idea of converting forest biomass to "fuel for our local social infrastructure" sounds good. Unfortunately, the combustion of any carbon based material, including bio-mass from our forests, would exacerbate the most pressing global environmental problem we are facing, by increasing the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. In our lifetimes we are seeing our atmosphere deteriorating as naturally sequestered carbon in the form of dead plants (petroleum & coal) and live plants (forests) are burned. Massive loss of Life is what we are witnessing every day if we take the time to look. The countless fires that humans start every second of every day are hurting us and most other life forms. The irony is that Mr. Thomas’ proposed solution to his ill-defined problem is to save those overstocked forests from burning by – you guessed it – burning them. Not thinned trees, not small diameter firs that have come in after logging the old growth, not trees that might be too close to a house – he wants to burn saw timber from those “unsold timber sales.” And he is suggesting that we convert the heating systems in our public buildings to burn biomass, which would mean we would have to keep on burning wood to heat those buildings in the future, possibly depleting our supply of lumber for building houses, and depriving future generations of a needed resource.

This is going backwards – burning wood to heat our buildings. The country needs to develop clean energy instead of continuing to try to make old ideas fit a changing world. We know that the cheapest and cleanest form of energy is conservation. Passive building design (http://www.passivehouse.com/English/PassiveH.HTM) and super insulating techniques have already been developed that require no combustion heating at all. Many existing buildings can be remodeled and retrofitted with super insulation, efficient heating systems such as ground source heat pumps, improved windows, heat exchanging ventilation systems, modern control systems, etc. to reduce heat requirements, emissions, polluting and operating costs.

Geothermal (ground source heat pumps) uses 40% less energy than even the most efficient natural gas systems, and is way more efficient with way less operational cost than wood burning systems. Electrically powered ground source heat pumps cause zero air pollution at the site, and zero air pollution anywhere if the electricity is generated by hydro, wind, solar, and other non-polluting alternatives (as currently being advanced all over the world). Less fuel consumption frees up dollars for the rest of the economy while helping the environment. Energy conservation and alternative energy projects build local employment in the new green economy. Meanwhile, our forests, which did quite well without management for tens of thousands of years, will be fine if we have the common sense to use them sustainably. The self-renewing old growth forests will be here for our grandchildren and beyond while adding to our economy by providing clean water, clean air, and wildlife in abundance.

This path – of alternative, non-polluting energy sources and energy conservation projects – is the progressive, practical way into the future. Had we taken this path years ago Mr. Thomas and other people in the natural resource extraction businesses, who are understandably worried about their livelihoods, might have different jobs now; important jobs that are going to help move our country into a sustainable future that will benefit all.

Big spending required for times like these

Dear Editor,

We are now in a 'demand depression.” This is a reinforcing cycle where a lack of confidence led people to reduce spending which leads to falling prices which leads to evaporating profits which results in people being laid off, further reducing spending. This is what happened in the Great Depression. The thing that got us out of the Great Depression was government spending.

Some will tell you that the New Deal did not get us out of the Depression but rather World War II. They're right but they're trying to lead you to the wrong conclusion. When President Roosevelt used government spending to put people to work, the economy rebounded. The problem was he spent too little and listened to conservative deficit hawks who convinced him that he

needed to balance the federal budget. When he did the country was plunged back into depression. It was only until the massive government deficit spending of World War II that the country finally recovered.

Others will tell you that we'd be better off if we just cut taxes for business and the well off. Business and wealthy people aren't going to expand their operations because demand is dropping. Furthermore this "supply side" economic policy has resulted in smaller and smaller economic upswings since Reagan, and each one has produced fewer and fewer jobs until Bush's

was practically a "jobless recovery". This is because circumstances have changed. Real wages of middle and working class people have been falling as our productive capacity has been shipped overseas. If we give the people doing the outsourcing more money, what do you think they will do with it?

Enter the Federal Government which can contract with the private sector to do work that is long overdue: repair infrastructure, invest in alternative energy, make buildings and transportation more energy efficient, etc. These are things that the unregulated market will never make happen because it isn't in any particular person's short term interest to do them. The market will not solve the energy crisis alone. Look at the price of gasoline. At the very moment in history when we should be weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, the drop in the price of oil makes it financially impossible to develop alternative fuels. This is what happens when market forces are the only deciding factor.

In conclusion, the solution to our problem is massive government deficit spending. This money will be used for projects put out to bid to American business, resulting in productive expansion, the hiring of American workers, and the solving of American problems. After the economy has recovered we can balance the budget with reasonable post-crisis fiscal policy. We did it before, remember? Don't listen to the followers of Herbert Hoover.

John Schneeberger
Hamilton

Leaving a legacy for future

Dear Editor,

This time of year is always one where I spend some time pondering the past and considering the future. One of the first things that always comes to mind when I undertake this exercise is how fortunate I am to live here in Montana. We live in a truly special place. Our heritage is one woven together by generations of Montanans from diverse backgrounds, with different skills who have protected that heritage through foresight, creativity and vision. This past holiday season Montana families like mine and yours gathered around fireplaces to celebrate traditions that are born from this heritage.

These traditions, this heritage, this place called Montana is a gift to each of us--so too it is a responsibility. For as I look forward to 2009 and beyond I understand, as I think every Montanan does, that paying this gift forward means that our generation must join past generations in rolling up our sleeves to make sure our children and grandchildren can enjoy the same Montana we enjoy today.

One of the ways we do that is to conserve Montana’s special places. In 2009, we have a unique opportunity to protect an important part of Montana’s landscape by joining our voices to support the Montana Legacy Project. The Montana Legacy Project is a land conservation purchase agreement between Plum Creek Timber Co., the Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy that will protect some 312,000 acres of land in the Swan, Blackfoot and Fish Creek drainages in Northwest Montana.

Over the past 30 years, the Montana Land Reliance has, with the use of conservation easements, helped private property owners protect over 800,000 acres of land including over 1,300 miles of streambed. In the Swan Valley alone, MLR has worked with private landowners to complete 30 conservation easements protecting 5,357 acres of historically and ecologically significant land. Our easements establish a balance between the presence of man and needs of nature, and are crafted to allow responsible management activities that make our economy strong, keep our communities close knit, and allow our incredible wild lands to remain intact.

In 2000, in conjunction with other groups and in response to the reorganization of Plum Creek Timber Co. from a timber company to a real estate investment trust, the Montana Land Reliance was asked to participate in the Swan Lands Coordinating Committee. This committee, which included local community members, private non-profit conservation groups, and a number of public agencies, was coordinated with the Swan Ecosystem Center in Condon. The committee developed strategies aimed at restoring and protecting timberlands, ecological and recreational resources, while maintaining the area’s rural economy and way of life. As has been the case since the Montana Land Reliance completed its first easement in the Swan Valley in 1993, the role of the Montana Land Reliance in the committee process was to focus on our mission of private land conservation and on educating new landowners on how conservation can have a positive impact on both their property and the adjoining properties in those neighborhoods.

While the majority of land involved in the Montana Legacy Project will transfer to either the U.S. Forest Service or the State of Montana, some lands will remain in private ownership. Involvement of the Montana Land Reliance would be limited to those lands that will be privately held. The Montana Land Reliance continues to focus on working with private landowners to complete conservation easements, and remains dedicated to assisting landowners with conserving the timber heritage and traditional land uses of this unique place.

The Montana Legacy Project embodies the spirit of our state--people with diverse backgrounds, different skills and viewpoints, coming together to weave the colorful tapestry that is Montana. The Legacy Project is not perfect--nothing is--and some people will like certain features better than other parts. That is natural. But taken as a whole, the Montana Legacy Project represents a unique opportunity for Montana's current and future generations. Sitting down and sharing our vision for tomorrow, respectful of each other and the landscape that surrounds us, enriches us as Montanans. When the Montana Legacy Project is fully implemented, all of us will have taken advantage of an opportunity to do something significant to protect Montana's landscape for future generations. It is a gift worth giving. Let's not pass it up.

Carol Bibler
Kalispell

Stop assault on Montana term limits

Dear Editor,

Nearly 17 years ago, the citizens of Montana wisely decided that term limits were their single best weapon for keeping career politicians from using their office for personal gain or abusive power. That historic vote made term limits the law of the state by a staggering 67% to 33% vote.

Since that time, term limits have opened up venues of opportunity for young Montanans new to politics, and they have brought a fresh flow of innovative ideas into the legislative chambers. The result, invariably, has been lower taxes, fewer regulations, and smaller government.

Yet now, a handful of politicians in the State Legislature are trying to gut the state’s popular term limits law in order to hold onto their positions of power. Led by Rep. Ray Hawk, they have introduced a bill, HB 174, which would double the amount of time they could remain in either House of the legislature.  And they are trying to rush the bill through to the House State Administration Committee before the public can mount a protest.

This action comes despite the fact that as recently as 2004, when the politicians first attempted to repeal term limits, a full 70% of the people resoundingly supported the state’s term limits law. So, the politicians know full well that support for term limits within the state is not decreasing, it is increasing. In fact, the only ones who seem to find it a problem are the power-hungry politicians, themselves.

In short, HB 174 not only defies the people’s will; it betrays their trust.  And, it should be stopped now, in Committee, before it is allowed to waste one more dollar of the taxpayers’ money, or one more moment of their time.

As the people of Montana well know, term limits protect citizens by not allowing career politicians the time in office to build tight (and often highly lucrative) relationships with lobbyists and special interests. And that’s just the beginning. As the politicians know, term limits also guarantees:

 ·Competitive elections that open up government to new ideas – and individuals;

· A government that is far more accessible to the people;

· Greatly reduced influence by special interests;  

· A cleaner, more transparent government;

· A far wider range of new, real-world perspectives and experience;

· A more even distribution of power across districts and parties;

· An end to the “tyranny of seniority” – where those most out of touch are most in control.

It is for all of these reasons, and more, that concerned citizens – in Montana and across the country – love term limits. And it is also for all of these reasons that politicians hate them and desperately cobble together backdoor proposals to rid themselves of these restrictions on their power.

Under current term limits law, state politicians can serve eight years in each chamber of the legislature; surely enough time to pass any bill the public really supports. Under HB 174, these same politicians could serve a full 16 years in either chamber – more than a decade and a half – all the while seizing more power and establishing cozier relationships with special interests and high-paid lobbyists.  

The good people of Montana need to contact their state legislators immediately to stop this bald power grab dead in its tracks. Hard experience has taught us time and again that without term limits, the politicians invariably become nothing more than slavish servants of special interests selling their services to the highest bidder. With term limits, citizen legislators serve the people’s will with an eye towards doing what’s right, going back home, and letting others share in the joy of true public service.

Montanans deserve to keep their term-limited citizens legislature intact. And that’s why they need to openly oppose HB 174 now in the strongest possible terms.

Philip Blumel, President
U.S. Term Limits

Time to limit cell phones

Dear Editor,

Last week in the legislature, I had a hearing on a bill I'm sponsoring: House Bill 49. It restricts the use of cell phones and texting devices while driving in school zones and in cities. In most of the state, there will be no impact at all. But in school zones and in bigger cities, drivers will need to refrain from using their manually operated, hand held cell phones or texting devices.

Hands-free operation of the phone is allowed under the bill. If you have a headset or other hands-free product then this bill would not impact your use of that equipment. It does affect texting, however. Just like talking on the phone, I believe the act of text messaging takes too much attention away from the road. There are many roads and areas in Montana where it may be less hazardous to text and drive at the same time, but school zones and in our larger communities are not among those areas.

Statistics indicate that a significant number of accidents are caused by drivers who don't pay adequate attention to the road. The frequency and seriousness of accidents increase when the level of attention goes down. Talking or texting while driving are two serious problems that take attention away from the road. I believe school zones are especially an area where it's not acceptable to run that risk.

We would love to believe that everyone has common sense, but the sad fact is that it's just not true. Some people are simply unwilling to accept personal responsibility, and that causes a potential danger to the rest of us, and to the children who are going through school zones.

The bill has been heard in the House Transportation Committee. It enjoyed broad support from law enforcement.

The bill also has a number of exemptions. Drivers of emergency vehicles, like ambulances and police cars, are exempt from the rules when they're performing their official duties. So are drivers of public maintenance vehicles like snow plows and medical or disaster responders like the Red Cross.

It was quite some time ago that I asked for this bill to be drafted. But something happened just recently that confirmed for me the need for this kind of legislation. My granddaughter, a high school senior, had a lady run a stoplight right in front of her. This lady went across five lanes of traffic. Fortunately my granddaughter was able to brake enough that instead of being hit, she actually hit the woman who ran the stoplight.

The moral of the story is, of course, that the woman who ran the stoplight was talking on her cell phone.

The result of the collision was that both vehicles were totaled. My granddaughter was injured, thankfully not seriously. But if something like that happens in a school zone, who knows whether we can count on being that blessed.

When a behavior risks the lives of others, society is within its rights to take action to prevent it. When a behavior risks the lives of children in particular, we are within our rights to stop that behavior. Hang up and drive is good advice in any situation. I believe that in school zones, and in higher population areas it ought to be more than good advice; it ought to be the law.

Rep. Bob Lake
Hamilton

©2009 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney