Editorials from around Oregon

Selected editorials from Oregon newspapers:

_____

The Eugene Register-Guard, Oct. 4, on making recycling pay

Recycling can be likened to a mining operation. Processing costs depend on the purity of the ore — and if the costs exceed the value of the processed material, mining stops. Mining can also become unprofitable when commodity prices fall, when substitute materials become available at a lower price, or when environmental regulations impose added costs. All of these forces are at work in the global recycling industry, threatening to disrupt a materials recovery process that begins with individual consumers.

The problem is especially acute for recycled plastics and mixed paper. China, which buys half the world supply of these recycled materials, is setting new standards for their purity, saying that by the end of the year it will reject any scrap shipments that include more than a small percentage of contaminants such as food residue. These standards are rippling back through the supply chain to Lane County, where the garbage haulers who collect recyclables are facing the possibility of having to dump some of them in the Short Mountain Landfill near Goshen.

The Association of Plastic Recyclers is opposing China’s new standards before the World Trade Organization, arguing that they are a form of protectionism. The trade group also claims that the volume of contaminants in recycled material has already declined. The association says China can achieve its goal of avoiding acting as a dumping ground for foreign garbage in other ways.

But environmental concerns may mask the real reason for China’s new stance: Low oil and fiber prices have made plastics and paper recycling less profitable, forcing processors to demand higher-quality feedstocks.

Economics has always been the Achilles’ heel of recycling. Some commodities, such as scrap metal (especially aluminum) and cardboard, can just about always be recycled for a profit. Others, such as glass, can seldom be recycled without some form of subsidy. Demand for still others, including plastics and paper, varies widely. In 2008, for instance, the price of recycled PET — the type of plastic used to make water bottles — crashed to $20 per ton from $370. If the prices of recycled commodities don’t cover the cost to collecting, sorting, shipping and processing them, recycling programs have to be subsidized or abandoned.

Recycling, however, is powered by broader forces — not just economic, but also environmental and social. It embodies a large element of civic virtue: People feel good about putting a detergent jug into the recycling bin instead of the garbage can. It serves a variety of environmental goals, including extending the life of landfills and reducing the energy consumption and greenhouse gas production associated with the manufacture of new materials. It sustains an industry that employed 150,000 Americans in 2015.

But all of these benefits depend on someone, somewhere, being able to make a profit from recycled materials. China’s decision to reject materials of lower quality means that other markets — preferably domestic ones — must be developed, or the quality of recyclables flowing from American households must be improved.

Both responses should be pursued. It’s easy to believe that many have grown careless about what goes into the recycling bin. That carelessness could lead recycling programs to be curtailed, subsidized through higher garbage hauling rates, or abandoned altogether. The future of recycling depends at least partly on people paying attention, and sending only high-quality ore to the mining operation.

____

The Oregonian/OregonLive, Oct. 3, on politicizing Las Vegas tragedy

The horrific news out of Las Vegas on Sunday wasn’t even 12 hours old before Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Sen. Jeff Merkley and others challenged Congress to take up gun control, thereby politicizing the mass slaughter that left at least 59 people dead and 500-plus wounded.

It was exactly the right call to make. And it’s what Oregonians, who on Sunday marked the two-year-anniversary of the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, should all be doing. The senseless killings of concertgoers, apparently by a lone gunman spraying bullets from his hotel window, exposes once again the impotence of the nation’s gun-violence laws and the weak will of Congress to strengthen them. So yes: This latest tragedy should immediately spark calls to Congress to work on a political solution that helps protect the public from this relentless onslaught of violence. If that is considered “politicizing,” then so be it.

Of course, critics aren’t seeing it that way. Anti-gun control factions, conservative media outlets and others are trying to whip up sentiment that such activism is disrespectful or opportunistic, a tired trope they trot out after each mass shooting. In reality, the real disrespect comes from Congress’ steadfast refusal to even modestly tighten gun-control laws, despite mounting body counts and devastation to communities, from Connecticut to California. Lawmakers’ cowardice and inaction only enables future assailants to similarly turn venues frequented by our children, friends, families and community members into shooting galleries. America mourns again and again.

The public should not mistake calls for Congress to do its job as disrespect for those victimized by Sunday’s violence. It is because people grieve for those in Las Vegas that they are demanding politicians take notice. It is because they can imagine the panic that concertgoers felt as they hid or fled, and because they harbor the same self-sacrificing instinct of the man who died while shielding his wife from bullets with his body that they are “politicizing” this tragedy.

Blumenauer is urging that Congress consider proposals he first offered in 2015 to curb gun violence. Among them, restricting the deadliest weapons, increasing restrictions on sales and improving research of gun violence to better understand the effectiveness of various policies. All reasonable ideas that deserve fuller development.

It’s unclear whether any of these proposals or some combination would have prevented the Las Vegas tragedy. But no policy will stop every attack. Rather, the goal should be to stitch together proposals that collectively prevent would-be assailants from acting on their plans, limit casualties in instances when they do and examine mistakes with an eye to improving the response next time.

Politicization only turns destructive when politicians base their speech and actions on prejudice and ignorance rather than data and rational thought. Unfortunately, prejudice and ignorance sell much better, as people attempt to pin blame on a shooter’s race, religion, political party or some factor other than the high-powered weapons that are all too often a common denominator among these attacks.

The public grieves for the victims in Las Vegas, as it did for the 49 people massacred at an Orlando nightclub in 2016, the eight students and one instructor gunned down at Umpqua Community College in 2015, the 14 killed and 22 wounded in San Bernardino in 2015, and the 26 elementary-school kids, teachers and staff executed at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. The list goes on and on.

Our grief must turn into action. Responsible gun owners must allow for the possibility of reasonable gun control measures that protect the greater good while preserving their rights as well. Activists who argue for unrealistic policies banning gun ownership must focus on proposals that are prudent, targeted and enforceable. And the public must see through the faux piety of those who condemn the “politicization” of these shootings, to speak up and send a message instead: These mass shootings are not normal. They are not an acceptable cost of our freedom. And they are not unfixable.

Politicize this attack — and the attacks that follow — until those who are responsible for addressing this epidemic finally answer the call.

____

The Bend Bulletin, Oct. 3, on state making careful decision on lead

The state of Oregon will not require day care centers to test for lead in their water. The tests, which can cost nearly $100, are simply too expensive, officials say.

Lead in drinking water is damaging to humans, particularly very young ones. That’s been a problem, particularly in the Portland area, where, in spring 2016, unacceptably high lead levels were found in several schools’ drinking water. The school district failed to make the information public in a timely manner.

Central Oregon’s schools did fairly well when tests were ordered for across the state in 2016, after Portland’s problems became public. Bend reported lead in a couple of the district’s oldest buildings, while one school in Crook County also had lead in one of its drinking water sources. All problems in both districts have since been taken care of.

But while lawmakers have since required Oregon schools test for lead, the requirement does not extend to child care facilities. Deciding what to do about that was left to the state’s Early Learning Council, which decided on Sept. 28 not to require testing in child care facilities here. The state of Washington recently decided to make such testing mandatory.

Oregon officials cited the cost of testing faucets and other water sources, and noted that they neither could demand nor help pay for corrective measures. They could, instead, simply bar kids from facilities with lead problems.

Officials were concerned about the potential for losing child care slots in a state with not enough child care to go around.

Still, the decision leaves parents in a quandary. Unless facilities test voluntarily and make the results known, parents may worry about what their kids are ingesting.

Providers can have the tests done on their own and then, assuming the results are good, advertising that fact. The state is also issuing new guidelines about letting water run for several minutes if a faucet hasn’t been used in several hours.

If parents are concerned, they can pressure facilities to have the testing done.

____

Medford Mail Tribune, Oct. 3, on Medford School District pulling out of Southern Oregon Education Service District

Medford School District officials say pulling out of the Southern Oregon Education Service District will save the district money because it can provide in-house the services it now pays the ESD to provide. ESD officials say severing the relationship will wind up costing Medford more.

They can’t both be right. But it’s impossible to know, looking in from the outside, whether Medford students will be better off with or without ESD services. District officials need to show their work as they calculate the answer.

The Southern Oregon ESD is one of 20 statewide, each serving multiple school districts. Headquartered in Medford, SOESD serves districts in Jackson, Josephine and Klamath counties, providing special education, instructional support, and network and information technology services.

ESD support is especially important for small districts that don’t have the resources to provide specialized services on their own. Larger districts like Medford may be able to provide those services themselves, but it’s hard to say which way is more cost-effective.

The SOESD receives $5.5 million in state funding to serve the Medford district. Medford would receive 90 percent of that amount directly if it pulled out of the ESD. Last year, Medford proposed a pullout but wanted the ESD to allow it to buy back services it still needed with a surcharge; the ESD refused.

This year, Medford officials are floating the idea again, looking toward next school year for the separation to allow for months of planning. Medford has until Nov. 1 to notify the ESD of its intent. The deadline for official notification of withdrawal would be March 1, 2018.

Medford Superintendent Brian Shumate says the 90 percent state allocation would help the district break even financially the first year. If that means all the ESD services would still be provided, that’s one thing. But as School Board Chairwoman Karen Starchvick warned, students would suffer if there were “any hiccups during the transition phase.”

More than hiccups are at stake. SOESD Superintendent Scott Beveridge says Medford would spend several times more to provide some of the ESD services in-house, including data handling and services to some disabled students.

School district officials are still working out the details. Shumate has promised to be “forthright” about that work. District parents and patrons should expect no less.

____

Corvallis Gazette-Times, Oct. 2, on distracted-driving law

Nationally, the number of fatal car wrecks is on the rise, and that trend also is true in Oregon. No one knows for sure the reasons for the increase, but everyone has a pretty good guess: It’s because we’re distracted as never before when we buckle ourselves into the driver’s seat.

So the timing seems just right for Oregon’s new distracted-driving law, which went into effect on Sunday.

Under the new law, it’s illegal to hold phones or other electronic devices while driving. That means no texting and no phone calls unless your vehicle has a hands-free system in place.

The new law, House Bill 2597, also closes loopholes in the current law by addressing all types of electronic devices, not just cellular phones.

Rep. Andy Olson of Albany was the chief sponsor of the legislation. Olson, a former Oregon State Police officer, knows firsthand about the damage caused by distracted drivers — damage that simply doesn’t have to happen if drivers stay focused on their first responsibility.

“Nationally, one in four vehicle accidents involve distracted driving,” Olson said last week in a news story about the new law. “It’s a major concern.”

“The law doesn’t say you can’t use them, you just can’t have them in your hand,” Olson said. “You can still swipe something on or off. We just don’t want you holding the device. That’s the key.”

So, for example, you can still use your smartphone as a navigation device, but be sure to type in the address before you start your vehicle. While you’re on the road, it’s strictly hands-off.

It has been illegal to text or use a cellphone without a hands-free device while driving in Oregon since 2009. (Drivers under the age of 18 cannot use any cellular device while driving, even if it is hands-free.) The new law adds some teeth to all that.

Which is why area law-enforcement officers say they aren’t interested in giving drivers the benefit of a grace period in enforcing the law: They’re ready to write tickets when they catch that tell-tale glow emanating from inside your vehicle.

Linn County Sheriff Bruce Riley likely was speaking for many mid-valley law officers when he said: “We are done warning folks. Done educating folks about this. We are going to enforce this law.”

First-time offenders are looking at a fine of $160. Why, that might cover a month or two of data charges on your smartphone, and that’s the point: The fine is designed to catch your attention and to leave a bit of a mark on your pocketbook.

A third offense committed within a 10-year span could end up costing you $2,500 and could include up to six months in jail.

The idea is to make people think twice about driving with one eye on the road and one eye on their smartphones. That driving technique is a recipe for disaster. It’s best just to set the device aside while you’re driving; in fact, some phones now have “do not disturb while driving” features that drivers may want to consider activating.

Just a second or two of inattentive driving can be enough to trigger a wreck: Lt. Brad Liles of the Albany Police Department said distracted driving is a common culprit in rear-end accidents. “It’s especially noticeable at stoplights, when they don’t see brake lights for a second or two,” he said.

It’s not as if we don’t have enough distractions while driving even without our devices: Just last week, for example, news stories reported about new electronic billboards that will be able to send personalized messages as vehicles approach them. We are not convinced that this constitutes a major advance for civilization.

But may we suggest a message for those new billboards? How about this: “Eyes on the road, partner. Hands on the wheel.”