Page 29 - Flathead Beacon // 9.21.16

GUEST COLUMN BOB LAKE
GUEST COLUMN GEORGE WUERTHNER
THE PROBLEM IS LACK OF TPROFESSIONALISM
HE EDITORIAL WRITTEN instance, half of the birds in the West rely jointly by Dale Bosworth, David on dead trees at some time in their life. Mihalic and Ryan Zinke was a And logging/thinning can’t stop
THE FUTURE OF ENERGY IN
TMONTANA
HE STATE OF MONTANA IS
di cult to deal with, however, the dev- astation to the families, the schools and the community of Colstrip is the great- est travesty. Colstrip and the state of Montana lose the most in this battle. If we discover one day that we have the opportunity to host an industry that would employ Montanans, pay strong wages, contribute to our tax base, but could not locate here because of our lack of base load generation, all of Montana would su er.
Fortunately, Montana has the com- fort of a eet of hydroelectric facilities, along with the Colstrip thermal genera- tion, that provide the base load required to make the intermittent power sup- plied by the renewables useable. This is imperative, as Montana ratepayers must have reliable and a ordable elec- tricity 24/7.
Montana has the greatest opportu- nity for energy generation in the nation. All we need to accept is that every source of power must be considered. We have large coal, natural gas and oil reserves, an abundant area of wind and solar potential, and a labor force that is ready to go to work. Given the opportunity, our young people are anxious to stay here in Big Sky Country and contribute to the future of Montana.
The bottom line is, we all need to be objective and honest with ourselves. We need all sources of generation to keep costs under control. Montana is far too special of a place to allow personal bias or ideology to limit any source of energy generation. Lower energy costs help our seniors, our less fortunate, our young families, our schools, our public build- ings and businesses. Together we can continue to live, work and prosper in this amazing state of ours.
blessed with an abundance of
energy resources. We have areas of high quality wind and solar opportu- nities, and we have one of the nation’s largest reserves of high-quality coal, plus new reserves of natural gas. The recent announcement of the complete shutdown of Colstrip units 1 and 2 was met with a few celebrations in some areas of Montana, but a great deal of concern in the community of Colstrip and the surrounding area. One thing is abundantly clear: energy and economic security in our state remains uncertain.
Consider a few of the fallouts from the closure. It will make the operation of units 3 and 4 more expensive because of the economic rule of e ciency in size. The loss of jobs both in the mining and plant operation, plus the loss of income tax, property taxes and reduction in the coal severance taxes will have signif- icant impact to local revenues, school revenues and the many recipients of the coal-tax trust fund.
The e ects do not stop there. The main 500kv transmission line that runs from Colstrip to the west coast popula- tion centers could possibly cease oper- ation when Colstrip 1 and 2 close. If a transmission line does not have a full capacity of electricity available, the line will not work at all. If that happens, one of the causalities could very well be the REC plant in Butte that employs 100- plus well-paid individuals. REC is the largest consumer of Colstrip power in Montana. They produce the raw mate- rial used to make solar panels. The clo- sure of REC could very well increase the cost of solar panels and would make solar energy more expensive.
The loss of tax revenue, a core indus- try and exports to the state economy is
mixed bag (Sept. 7 Beacon: “We Have a Land Management Problem”). I certainly celebrate our public lands as the authors do. Yet the other message that we need to “manage” (read: log) our public lands more demonstrates a singular lack of eco- logical understanding by the authors.
Part of the problem is the Forest Ser- vice does not act professionally and/or rationally (not because it doesn’t have good employees).
Take its growing re ghting budget. If the Forest Service were actually “pro- fessional” and “scienti c” in its manage- ment, it would know (and I think many in the agency do know this) that most wild- res go out without any control at all, so wasting money suppressing these blazes is crazy. Others, burning under extreme re weather conditions, cannot be con- trolled. Spending money to suppress such blazes until the weather changes is anal- ogous to dumping dollar bills on the res, for all the good it can do.
Many in the Forest Service know this, but cannot act rationally due to the false expectations of the public, politicians and others who simply do not understand re ecology.
Furthermore, we waste a good deal of money ghting res in remote areas where there is almost no chance of it harming homes and other structures. Indeed, a “scienti c” and “professional” approach would be to encourage such res because in reality (again if you read the science) we have a de cit of large wild res compared to the past.
Another example of the lack of scien- ti c understanding from the authors is their use of the pejorative word “cata- strophic” to describe natural large wild- res and to suggest this “damages” the land. If the authors had spent any time reading the latest science regarding large res, they would discover that big wild- res are what maintain healthy forest ecosystems.
Episodic wild res, bark beetles, and so forth are the main factors that create snags and dead wood. These components are critical to many, many species. For
these large blazes – even if you wanted – because, again, the science shows that cli- mate/weather is what drives such blazes. Any number of reviews have shown that thinning/logging has questionable bene- ts except in very speci c strategic situa- tions. But this is regularly ignored by the “professionals” who are beholden to the timber industry.
Another common and unscien- ti c assertion is that bark beetles will increase wild res. The science is clear on this – if you used science, you would nd that recent research has found that beetle-kill trees typically reduce re risk. But you will be hard-pressed to nd a col- laborative that incorporates that science into its thinking or recommendations.
Anything that does not support log- ging is ignored by collaboratives or down- played. They exist purely to promote more logging under various guises.
Know the code words. Vegetation management means more logging. Fire hazard reduction means more logging. Hazard tree removal means more log- ging. Community economic develop- ment means more logging. Restoring for- est health means more logging. Creating resilience means more logging.
There’s a pattern here. No matter what the problem reall is (and often completely fabricated) the only solution that is advo- cated is logging. Logging is like magic elixir of the old-time snake oil salesman who convinced naïve people that it could cure arthritics, cancer, kidney stones and almost every other imagined ill.
The authors are correct in that we do need more science in our management. The problem is that science is typically ignored, or cherry-picked to favor more logging.
S,o yes, let’s celebrate our public lands, and be thankful we have them, but bear in mind that commercial interests have been feeding at the public trough for more than a hundred years, and they haven’t disappeared. They just make sure that “professionals” who agree with log- ging get hired, or are elected.
“MONTANA HAS THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY FOR ENERGY GENERATION IN THE NATION. ALL WE NEED TO ACCEPT IS THAT EVERY SOURCE OF POWER MUST BE CONSIDERED.”
Bob Lake is District 4 commissioner with the Montana Public Service Commission
“THE PROBLEM IS THAT SCIENCE IS TYPICALLY IGNORED, OR CHERRY PICKED.”
George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 38 books including “Wild re: A Century of Failed Forest Policy.” He divides his time between Livingston and Bend, Oregon.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM
29