RoguePundit

Spreading Biofuels Money Around

Cellulosic ethanol has long promised to significantly improve the efficiency of ethanol production.  Someday maybe it will...maybe here in Oregon.    

A pilot plant to turn wheat straw, wood wastes and corn stalks into ethanol fuel will be built in Boardman, Ore., with help from a $24.3 million U.S. Energy Department grant announced this week.

The 2.7 million gallon-a-year plant will be built at a site where Pacific Ethanol already operates a 40 million gallon-a year corn-to-fuel plant. It could be running by the end of 2009.

The Sacramento, Calif., company will partner with BioGasol ApS, a Danish corporation with an enzyme technology that will be used at the plant. That technology already has been demonstrated at a pilot plant in Denmark, according to Pacific Ethanol.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory will be involved.

Pacific Ethanol's press release doesn't exactly say that the technology has already been demonstrated...

The cost effectiveness of our proprietary process concept has already been validated in pilot plant scale and we believe that the future production cost can be competitive with other transportation fuels when the technologies are fully matured.

...

BioGasol is already engaged in a demonstration plant in Denmark--the BornBioFuel ("BBF") project--where BioGasol will build own and operate a feedstock flexible plant that uses local available agricultural residues and other low cost cellulosic feedstocks. Construction of BBF has already started and the first ethanol will be produced from this plant in early 2009.

So, there will be two demonstration plants, one in Denmark and one in Boardman, both to be completed in 2009.  From this Copenhagen Post article...

"Our process technology could set the standard for second-generation biofuel production," said Birgitte Ahring, the chief executive of BioGasol. "The cost-effectiveness of our process concept has already been validated in pilot plant scale and we believe that the future production cost can be less than $1.00 a gallon--even less when the technologies are fully matured."

Talk about a pipe dream.  Back to the original article.

Under the terms of the federal grant, Pacific Ethanol and BioGasol are expected to raise another $24.3 million to invest in the plant.

Straw, wood and corn stover all contain cellulose, an abundant material that could allow for greater ethanol production.

But cellulose is difficult to break down into starch and the fermentable sugars that can be turned into ethanol.

"We will demonstrate the technology and see if it is successful," said Pacific Ethanol Vice President Tom Koehler. "In order to get somewhere, you have to put one foot forward."

DOE also funded three other ten-percent of commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants on Tuesday:

- ICM Incorporated. The company, based in Colwich, Kansas, uses agricultural waste and switchgrass as a feedstock and biochemical and thermochemical conversion. The DOE gave the company $30 million.

- Lignol Innovations of Berwyn, Pa. The biorefinery, located alongside a petroleum refinery, uses a solvent it calls "biochem-organisolve" to produce ethanol from wood waste. It received $30 million.

...

-  Stora Enso North America of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisc. received $30 million for a biorefinery that will use the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert wood waste to diesel fuel.

Plus, the DOE press release included the following:

Due to an overwhelming response to this solicitation, the Department anticipates selecting a second round of small-scale projects later this spring, bringing DOE total investment up to $200 million should a second round of selections be made.

The DOE is filling up this map with ethanol investments.

 

Threatening Legal Action Over Timber Funds

Back in late 2005, I blogged about local efforts to raise the money necessary to sue the federal government for the return of the O&C lands.  The thought was that since the feds have stopped living up to the terms of the O&C Act of 1937, they should give us back the O&C lands.  The idea isn't without logic.

To make a long story short, in 1866 the federal government granted a large swath of land to what eventually became the Oregon & California Railroad Company. The railroad was to build a line from Portland to California, selling land on either side of the route to fund the construction.  O&C finally completed the project, but tried to keep a bunch of the remaining land.  The feds revested that land (current O&C acreage by county here) and promised to compensate the local governments for the loss of property taxes.  Here's how the law clearly puts it.

Section 1181(a) of the 1937 O&C act reads that O&C lands "Shall be managed... for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating streamflow, and contributing to the economic stability of the local Communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities."

But as we know, little harvesting of the O&C lands--sustainable or otherwise--has occurred for years.  Most of the land has essentially become a nature preserve (with an increasing fire risk).  Thus, the federal government started compensating the O&C counties directly.  That funding was lumped in with the money derived from the logging of national forests.  It looks like the resulting timber payments from the creatively-titled Secure Rural Schools Act have now come to an end.  The feds have reneged on their end of the bargain.

A couple of years ago, folks were more hopeful that the feds would come through with the money owed.  Thus, some were nervous about the Southern Oregon Resource Alliance threatening to sue.  And the fact that SORA wanted the land back made environmental activists nervous.

I figured that if a lawsuit was necessary, the state ought to take that ball and run with it.  But Governor K, as usual, has been asleep at the switch.  Then last week we got a boost from a surprising source...hopefully not just because he's running for Secretary of State.

Sen. Rick Metsger (D-Mt. Hood) has formally requested that the Oregon Dept. of Justice investigate and pursue legal action against the federal government on behalf of Oregon’s rural counties to secure funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

In a letter to Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, Metsger asked the Justice Dept. to determine if Oregon has a “protectable interest” in the funding that supports rural schools and funds a majority of county road maintenance work.

If so, Metsger said, “The state needs to defend our rural communities and sue for restoration of these funds, if that is what it takes to ensure the federal government meets its historic responsibility to these communities.”

Despite efforts from Oregon’s Congressional delegation, Congress has failed to restore the funding that expired this month. The result is a significant effect to public safety, community livability and transportation infrastructure, the senator said. 

...

“In my transportation tour of Oregon last fall I have seen first-hand the devastating impacts this funding loss means to working Oregonians,” Metsger said. “It is time the state speak up and say loudly that lack of action on this important issue is unacceptable.”

Oregon has a much stronger case with the O&C funding than with the money that comes from USFS.  But, just 18 of Oregon's 36 counties receive O&C funds while 32 get county payments.  Regardless, let's hope that Metsger's interest is genuine and that lame duck Hardy Myers sinks his teeth into this subject. Let's also hope that next month, the legislature doesn't pass on addressing the difficult problems being caused by the loss of timber funds.

Interstate Wine Retailing

The Dormant Commerce Clause essentially says that "states do not have the power to enact anticompetitive laws that discriminate against sellers in other states."  The U.S. Supreme Court cited this in Granholm v. Heald (2005), which found it unconstitutional for states to allow in-state wineries to ship wine directly to local consumers but prevent out-of-state wineries from doing the same.  Since then, some states have contended that this decision only applied to wineries, not wine retailers.  But earlier this month...

In a sweeping repudiation of anti-consumer and protectionist restrictions on the shipment of wine, Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court of Northern Texas ruled yesterday that the state of Texas may not prohibit consumers from having wine shipped to them from out-of-state wine merchants if the state allows the shipment of wine from in-state Texas wine merchants.

"We know wine lovers and lovers of free trade will rejoice upon reading this decision," said Tom Wark, executive director of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association—the consumer and retailer advocates who helped file the lawsuit. "This decision puts to rest the plainly protectionist notion that retailers may be blatantly discriminated against only for the sake of protecting wholesalers."

...

The Siesta Village decision is set to have an important impact on two important and nearly identical cases in New York and Michigan, as well as in states considering wine shipping legislation this year. Those states include Maine, Tennessee and Virginia.

"SWRA has plans to present this important decision to lawmakers and alcohol regulators in a number of states where consumers have been banned from having wine shipped to them from out-of-state retailers," said Wark.  "Illinois is one state, for example, that recently banned its residents from having wine shipped to them from out-of-state retailers after wholesalers lobbied very hard to impose the restriction—even though lawmakers were told that such a law would be unconstitutional, which this decision confirms."

Alcohol wholesalers have spent millions to protect their markets in states like California, Texas, Illinois, and even here in Oregon.  Various states have a range of monopoly laws that help protect wholesalers and their profits, some of which become campaign contributions to help preserve those laws.

In an unexpected part of the opinion, Chief Judge Fitzwater gave impetus to what could be a radical reformulation of the three-tier system when he gave the state of Texas the authority to force out of state retailers to purchase their wine from Texas wholesalers. This surprising part of the decision suggests the creation of a national wholesale market whereby wine retailers are allowed to purchase wines from wholesalers in a variety of states and not just their own, as is the current law in most states. This of course is not the only option for states that will have to re-evaluate their retailer shipping laws and is not the solution that SWRA believes is constitutional. States concerned with consumer choice and access to wines should create a permit system that allows out-of-state retailers to ship into the state and have the shippers contribute to the local tax base through remittance of state taxes—just like wineries are allowed to do in 36 states.

"This is an important ruling for those who favor free trade, consumers rights, and those who want to see the American wine trade flourish," Wark said. "Wine lovers should be very pleased that the Court specifically prohibited a ban on consumers importing wine from out-of-state retailers."

In the 2000-2006 campaign cycles, wholesalers contributed nearly $50 million to various political campaigns.  The California Beer & Beverage Distributors ranked fourth in the nation at $1.72 million, and the Oregon Beer & Wine Distributors Association ranked sixth at $1.23 million.  Some of that money was passed out during trips to Hawaii that a few of our legislators accepted and failed to report (previous blog here).

Oregon's wholesalers aggressively protect their monopolies.  And while they fight to keep the beer tax low and the unclaimed bottle deposits in their pockets, you don't hear much about our spirit tax being the second highest in the nation.  The state controls the sale of hard liquor, so there's no competition unless you drive across the border to somewhere other than Washington, which has the highest spirit tax in the nation. 

Killer Dolphins

For years, environmentalists have been seeking ways to restrict the Navy's use of various loud noises--like mid-frequency active sonar--to protect whales and other sea life.  It's been a fairly typical battle.  Activists have unleashed all sorts of logical, speculative, and wildly ridiculous claims about the harm that these sonars are causing to charismatic fauna.  That's been met by considerable resistance to anything that would cause restrictions to military operations and training.

Too often, scientific accuracy takes a back seat in such debates.  Not often does research which invalidates the dross get much publicity.  It doesn't help when the truth isn't pretty.

Film taken of gangs of dolphins repeatedly ramming baby porpoises, tossing them in the air and pursuing them to the death has solved a long-term mystery of what causes the death of so many of these harmless mammals--but has left animal experts baffled as to the motive.

Another mystery is that the animal 'murders' have only been reported in two parts of the world--along Scotland's East Coast and in America off the beaches of Virginia, where even more alarmingly, the victims were scores of the dolphins' own young.

The first clues to solving the riddle came in 1997 when, by coincidence, marine biologists in Virginia were finding young, dead dolphins with horrific internal injuries at the same time as young porpoises were washing up on Scotland's north-east coast with identical causes of death. The body count was growing in both locations.

The two groups of biologists pooled information and, at first, it was believed the mammals had died through 'blast trauma'. In American cases, this was supposedly from exercises by the US Navy, and in Scotland from air guns used by oil rig technicians to detect undersea caverns.

This theory was dismissed after further examination of the mammals' bodies revealed the injuries--broken ribs, imploding lungs, damaged livers and massive internal bleeding--could only have come from prolonged, focused attacks.

There's plenty of evidence which shows that Navy sonars and other loud noises under water can be very harmful to various types of sea life.  But, this was yet another example of environmentalists cynically assuming that whenever something bad happens, it must be man's fault. 

When tell-tale teeth-marks were identified, the dolphin--the mammal classified as one of the world's most intelligent, sensitive and sociable creatures--became the official suspect.

Confirmation of the murders came by way of two shocking films shot by holidaymakers.

The first was initially believed to show a dolphin fishing for salmon - until closer examination revealed a relentless attack on a porpoise, its body spinning round with such force that its back was broken and its soft tissue shattered.

...

Watching the films, Aberdeen marina biologist Dr Ben Wilson explains yet another shocking phenomenon--that the dolphins use their incredible ultra sound abilities to home in on the vital organs of their victims that will cause most damage.

"The blows are carefully targeted," says Dr Wilson, who is a member of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. "And the attacks are sustained, sometimes up to 30 minutes."

In 2004, autopsies of 48 porpoises that had stranded themselves on the Welsh Coast determined that 28 were killed by bottle-nosed dolphins.  It makes sense that the dolphins would use their sonar in such attacks.

Theories abound on the reason behind the mammal murders. These have included territorial clashes and feuds over food resources. But food is not in short supply and the victims are not just chased away but pursued to the death.

Another belief is that dolphin attacks on their young may be down to mating instincts, because when her calf dies the female dolphin is ready for mating again. But the experts are still not positive that it is only males who do the attacking.

And, incredibly, they can only guess that the attacks by bottle-nosed dolphins on Scotland's harbour porpoises is some kind of bizarre 'target practice.'

...

...as the experts of the Cetacean Research and Rescue Unit are forced to declare: "These killings represent yet another example of the hard brutality and evolutionary pressures of the marine world."

Not just the marine world.

Promoting Green Energy

On first blush, the following would seem to be both well-intentioned and inflationary.

Microchip manufacturing giant Intel Corp. announced Monday that it is making the largest-ever purchase by a corporation of renewable energy certificates, or RECs.

Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) has agreed to buy certificates for 1.3 billion kilowatt hours per year, over an undisclosed number of years. These certificates fund the building of more renewable energy generation facilities, and also guarantee Intel will be using energy from renewable sources such as wind, the sun and biomass.

Intel's purchase makes the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company the single largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy. The purchase is equivalent to 46 percent of its total U.S. energy use.

...

Intel has been buying wind power in Oregon for some time, said local Intel spokesman Bill MacKenzie. The company anticipates buying about 25 million kilowatt hours of wind power in Oregon this year. That's a much smaller fraction of Intel's energy use in Oregon than the 46 percent of its total U.S. energy use that the company is buying RECs to replace, said MacKenzie, due to the current high cost of wind energy. 

Not to mention that here in Oregon, a goodly percentage of our "generic" electricity comes from hydropower, which is renewable except when politics trumps science.

I'm sure Intel is getting a volume discount.  And by locking in prices, it protects itself against future price increases.  But, Intel isn't saying what it's paying, so we don't know how generous this initiative is.

The next-largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy is soft drink maker PepsiCo Inc. Purchase, N.Y. -based PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP) is purchasing 1.1 billion kilowatt hours per year, equivalent to 100 percent of its energy usage.

The U.S. government, including military agencies, is the biggest buyer of renewable energy in the United States.

That's another way that the feds can subsidize renewable energy.  There are some renewable energy initiatives though which can brag that they lower power bills, like the new solar farm on Nellis AFB (in Las Vegas).  It would sure be nice though if the public knew the true price of the power, subsidies and all.

Random Nature #153

New Justification:  Climate change will be greatest near the poles, but the UN and various non-governmental organizations say that it will have its greatest impact on developing nations...which are predominantly in and near the tropical latitudes.

To understand how the effects of climate change will interact with socio-economic and political problems in poorer countries means tracing the consequences of consequences.  This process highlights four key elements of risk--political instability, economic weakness, food insecurity and large-scale migration.  Political instability and bad governance make it hard to adapt to the physical effects of climate change and hard to handle any conflicts that arise without violence.  Economic weakness narrows the range of income possibilities for the population and deprives the state of resources with which to meet people's needs.  Food insecurity challenges the very basis of being able to continue living in a particular locality and, as a response to that and other kinds of insecurity, large-scale migration carries high risk of conflict because of the fearful reactions it often receives and the inflammatory politics that often greets it.

...

The double-headed problem of climate change and violent conflict thus has a unified solution--peacebuilding and adaptation are effectively the same type of activity, involving the same kinds of dialogue and social engagement, requiring from governments the same values of inclusivity and transparency. 

A society that can develop adaptive strategies for climate change in this way is well-equipped to avoid armed conflict.  And a society that can manage conflicts and major disagreements over serious issues without a high risk of violence is well-equipped to adapt successfully to the challenge of climate change.  Climate change could even reconcile otherwise divided communities by posing a threat against which to unite and tasks on which to cooperate.

If the above sounded like a sales pitch for increased foreign aid...   

The Shortfall:  In its own words, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)...

...brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to:         

  • Support sustainable economic growth
  • Boost employment
  • Raise living standards
  • Maintain financial stability
  • Assist other countries' economic development
  • Contribute to growth in world trade

The 30 OECD members are all industrialized nations.  Back in 1970, the 22 members--all European except for Canada, Japan, and the U.S.--agreed to the following in UN General Assembly Resolution 2626:

"In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade." 

But, only 42 percent of that total has actually been provided as official development assistance (ODA).  The OECD keeps track of the shortfall.

The U.S. is easily the largest donor in terms of dollars.  But when one translates that into a percentage of our gross national product--now referred to as gross national income (GNI), we're constantly at or near the bottom.  For instance, the U.S. contributed 0.22 percent of its GNI in 2005, ranking us only ahead of Portugal.  But, that percentage was higher than we'd given each of the previous three years...yes, Iraq has helped boost the number.  Rather than diving into the reasons why the U.S. and several other nations have been coming up a wee light, or how much of the money has been lost to corruption...

Paying Someone Else to Change:  As I've noted before, some are advocating that a global cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions could augment or potentially replace foreign aid.  From a speech last month by the OECD Secretary-General:

"We must find a way to share the burden of the costs of climate change action that takes into account the level of economic development of nations," he said. "We need to create a sound economic footing for the post-Kyoto framework."

Mr. Gurría said the policies needed to tackle climate change were already available, but needed to be implemented efficiently and effectively. The policy "toolkit" could rely heavily on market-based instruments, such as taxes or a global emission trading system, also known as a cap and trade system, complemented by regulations and incentives for innovation.

"By agreeing more ambitious caps, in the context of a global trading system, developed countries could carry a relatively greater financial responsibility than developing countries," he said. "And enabling trading in emission permits would encourage mitigation action to take place where it is cheapest and so keep the global costs low."

When it comes to climate change, he'd rather tax bad behaviors than subsidize good ones.  But if polluters would like to pay others to reduce their emissions...

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. The most important factor of a carbon project is that it establishes that it would not have occurred without the additional incentive provided by emission reductions credits.

Some developing nations have filthy power plants to clean-up, ozone-depleting chemicals to destroy, etc.  Here's where the CDM Certified Emission Reductions were generated in 2006.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, South Korea is (amazingly) considered a developing nation...it's expected to garner 7.58 percent of the CDM credits this year.  China should drop to under 50 percent.  Meanwhile, the poorest continent still isn't doing very well, because it's...

Not Developed Enough:  From the World Bank's "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007" (here)...

All of Africa (including South Africa and the countries of North Africa) remain at 3 percent of the market, and all the other countries of Sub-Saharan Africa account for just about one-third of that number.  These numbers clearly demonstrate the difficulty of expanding carbon business in much of Africa, where electricity access is a major challenge and therefore mitigation opportunities are also limited; e.g. in Uganda or Zambia, just around 10% of the country's population has access to the grid for electricity.  Yet, a clean, grid-connected electricity project in such a country has to demonstrate under CDM rules that it displaces "carbon-intensive" electricity on its grid; the fact that it derives mainly power from clean hydro sources is seen as a reason for it not to receive credits for proposed new clean energy sources.

This unintended consequence unnecessarily punishes the poorest people in poor countries, who can least afford to use expensive diesel, kerosene or fuel wood for their basic needs.  The poor usually forego even the most basic benefits of modern energy services that so many others take for granted.  No approved methodology exists as of yet through which countries with such obvious energy needs such as these can be rewarded for clean development.  The broader eligibility of projects expanding opportunities for clean electricity with large hydro grids would help make more development opportunities available for people, with CDM playing a role in helping to meet their aspirations.

...

Carbon assets from Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) remain at one percent of volumes transacted so far. ... Large classes of LULUCF assets including possibly soil sequestration, fire management and avoided deforestation, among others, remain attractive opportunities to promote sustainable development in Africa and in other natural resources-based economies, but are still systematically excluded from the CDM and other regulatory markets.

Too often in poorer nations, sustainable development comes in the form of conservation initiatives that offer little-if-any economic benefit to those being displaced.  Meanwhile, population growth and the desire to improve one's condition continue to put increasing pressure on the lands and species that conservationists are trying to protect. 

Valuing Nature:  From a recent World Economics article (no direct link...search for author Mike Norton-Griffiths)...

1977 was an important year for the conservation in Kenya for it was then that sport hunting and all other consumptive uses of wildlife and attendant value added activities were banned.  It was also the year when the Kenya Rangeland Ecological Monitoring (KREMU) began to monitor the numbers and distribution of livestock and wildlife throughout the 193,000 square miles of Kenya's arid and semi-arid rangelands.

So, perhaps uniquely, a major change in conservation policy--a ban on all consumptive utilization of wildlife--coincided with a new capacity to monitor its effect and impact.

The monitoring results have been deeply disturbing, and by the mid-1990s a number of warnings were issued about a major decline in wildlife right across Kenya's rangelands, even in the most heavily used tourist areas.  The only good news was that the loss rates seemed significantly less inside the Protected Areas than outside where some 70% of all Kenya's wildlife are to be found.  More recent analyses eliminate even this ray of hope--rates of wildlife loss continue unchecked, and are now the same both inside and outside the Protected Areas.  Since 1977, Kenya has lost 60%-70% of all its large wildlife.

While losses of such magnitude indicate a major institutional failure to protect wildlife, the pernicious spread of agriculture throughout the rangelands, even around important conservation and tourism areas like the Mara area of Narok and the Amboseli area in Kajaido, give clear signals of a policy failure.  Indeed, the entire economic system of rangeland production in Kenya has undergone a radical transformation since the mid-1970s: the human population is growing at >3% per annum; cultivation is growing at >8% per annum; while livestock numbers remain stable, offtake is growing at >4% per annum; and wildlife is decreasing by >3% per annum.

The author of this study posits that the most important policy failure is the ban on "consumptive utilization of large wildlife."  He also lays considerable blame at the feet of tourism cartels for ensuring that about 95% of the revenue goes to the agents and providers of accommodations and transportation.  There's little-if-any opportunity for all the small landowners who are dealing with the impacts of the wildlife.  As the author puts it:

Consider the goat--and suppose you were not allowed to use it in any way at all (no marketing, no slaughter, no use of milk, meat or skin), and that if you were discovered to be using it you would at worst be shot dead, or at best imprisoned--indeed imagine that all you could do with your goat was hope a minibus of tourists would drive by and photograph it, from which you might obtain a meagre reward.  How many goats do you imagine would remain in Kenya?  This is the nub of the continued survival of wildlife on the rangelands of Kenya.

He goes on to offer a number of suggestions for allowing the sustainable harvest of some of the wildlife, incentivizing landowners to at least not drive off or kill wildlife, and revising property rights to give landowners, for instance, some say in how the tourism industry operates. 

...not a single tourism company in Kenya invests in wildlife or habitat management, even though their very economic future depends upon the resource.

Not much sustainable about that supposed development.

Abuse of the Developmentally Disabled

The following certainly seems like a good idea...though it's pathetic that it will take a state law to get it done.

An Oregon House committee voted to introduce a bill that would create an online database of caregivers who have abused people with disabilities.

The proposal is one piece of a broader measure that seeks better protection for the 4,200 developmentally disabled adults in group and foster homes across Oregon.

Rep. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, vice chairwoman of the House Human Services and Women's Wellness Committee, said lawmakers need to act quickly "because we've got people in danger today."

...

An investigation by The Oregonian last year found that at least one in five adult clients in state-licensed homes has been the victim of serious abuse or neglect since 2000. The newspaper also published a database of caregivers named in documented incidents.

State officials track such information, but they have not made it easily accessible to relatives or guardians of the developmentally disabled.

...

The bill also requires group and foster home operators immediately to notify all clients and their guardians and case managers each time there is a substantiated allegation of abuse or neglect within their home.

That investigation turned up all sorts of ugly examples.  Our asleep-at-the-wheel leadership promised "swift reforms"...Gelser's bill is part of that effort.   Some are using this to justify more funding for the programs, higher wages for caregivers, etc.  And if the money's not available, no doubt the kicker will receive a chunk of the blame. 

But what about accountability for the current situation?  If DHS is doing a lousy job with the money it's currently managing--and it is, we shouldn't assume that things will improve simply because of a bigger budget.  The reforms won't be worth the paper they're written on if people won't be held accountable for accomplishing them.  Amongst the things in The Oregonian's piece...

Department of Human Services officials have known for years that they lacked legal authority to fire dangerous caregivers. But it wasn’t until this year that they asked lawmakers for permission to develop a registry or the power to use it to deny employment. They don’t plan to request funding for a registry until 2009.

The state also has dragged its feet on the 9-1-1 problem.

Records obtained by The Oregonian show that the DHS two years ago determined that caregivers weren’t promptly calling paramedics. Yet a new 9-1-1 policy has been held up because officials can’t agree on how to word it. In the interim, another resident died after caregivers delayed calling for help.

Weak financial controls also invite abuse. Oregon does not closely scrutinize how foster home operators spend the thousands of tax-free dollars they receive each month to take care of clients. State officials acknowledge that this has allowed some foster home providers to cut corners and profit from the savings.

Lack of accountability is part of the problem.

Higher Suicide Rate Amongst Veterans

Last fall, CBS reported on what it called an epidemic of suicides amongst veterans.  Today, it had a follow-up story that focuses upon Oregon's suicide data.

The state health report, “Violent Deaths in Oregon: 2005” found 18 to 24-year-old male veterans had the highest rate of suicide among all males in the state from 2000 to 2005 – almost 5 times higher than non-veteran males the same age.

...

Data for the report was collected from local medical examiners, police reports and death certificates. In 2005, veterans accounted for 28 percent of all suicides in Oregon. The majority of the veteran suicides (97 percent) were committed by males. And overall, in the years 2000 to 2005, male veterans died of self-inflicted wounds in Oregon at more than double the rate of male non-veterans.

Switching to a paragraph from the report...

The reasons for higher rates of suicide among veterans are not clear.  There are many unexplored possible contributors.  For example, the difference could be due to baseline differences predisposing to suicide between those who choose to enter the armed services and those who do not, or could be due to exposure to traumatic events during combat, or a high prevalence of gun availability and familiarity among veterans.  Regardless of the cause, these results argue strongly for suicide prevention efforts targeted to veterans.   Two facts should prompt officials to make suicide prevention a prominent focus among older veterans: First, the high rate of suicide among veterans older than 65 and that approximately 70 percent of older males are veterans (2000 census).

For military members, conversations with military (or contracted) mental health professionals are not privileged.  What you say can come back to bite you career-wise.  It's somewhat safer to talk to a chaplain.  Nevertheless, I've often wondered whether that stigma makes vets less prone to seek help or be open with those trying to help them. 

Back to the article...

Researchers with Oregon's Violent Death Reporting System are now digging deeper into the issue of veteran suicides as a result of their recent findings. According to Millet, they plan to team up with the Oregon National Guard and the Portland Department of Veterans Affairs to gain more information about the individuals who died of suicide. Millet says "we need to see what can be done to reduce the problem."

They need to talk to friends and family as well.

Medical Marijuana Catch-22 Upheld

A couple of months ago, I blogged about a California man who was fired for testing positive for marijuana use, despite having a prescription for medical marijuana and there being no evidence he was impaired on the job.  Oregon has already been through this scenario, with our state Supreme Court finding such dismissals legal (previous blog here).  As of today, the same is true in California.

In a 5-2 decision, the court said Proposition 215, the 1996 state initiative that allowed Californians to use marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor's recommendation, did not protect workers from dismissal for violating federal drug laws.

Prop. 215 was intended only to exempt medical marijuana users and their caregivers from prosecution under state drug laws, the court said.

"We have no reason to conclude the voters intended to speak so broadly, and in a context so far removed from the criminal law, as to require employers to accommodate marijuana use," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in the majority opinion.

Dissenting Justice Joyce Kennard said an employee who uses medication outside work to remedy pain or illness, and whose job performance is not affected, should be protected by state disability laws from arbitrary firing.

The voters who passed Prop. 215 "surely never intended that persons who availed themselves of its provisions would thereby disqualify themselves from employment," said Kennard, joined by Justice Carlos Moreno.

Justice Moreno is probably right...but that's not the point.  There's been a tug-of-war for years now between the feds and some states regarding the legal status of marijuana.  When the courts have been stuck in the middle, federal law takes precedence.

Prop. 215 "does not eliminate marijuana's potential for abuse or the employer's legitimate interest in whether an employee uses the drug," Werdegar said.

Noting that the initiative did not mention employment or the workplace, she said RagingWire "has not prevented (Ross) from having access to marijuana" but has only refused to employ him.

Business organizations had come to RagingWire's defense, noting among other things that companies that hire drug users might forfeit federal contracts.

An employer who hires a medical marijuana user is "arguably being complicit in an activity that's illegal under federal law," RagingWire's lawyer, Robert Pattison, told the court.

Medical marijuana is now legal in twelve states, the latest being New Mexico when Governor Richardson signed it into law last year.

Attracting Migrant Workers

Washington's asparagus industry has been in decline for years, hurt by the state's high minimum wage and duty-free imports from Peru (previous blog here).  In 2003, the state had three asparagus canneries; all are now closed.  Asparagus production in Washington dropped by 21 percent last year.  Yet this year, there are some farmers showing interest in planting the delicious perennial.

Schreiber (executive director of the Washington Asparagus Commission) said Tuesday's meeting also drew the interest of a handful of folks who weren't asparagus growers, but were considering getting into the industry.

"I've been running this meeting for five years and have never seen that before," he said.

Many are fruit growers who hope to plant asparagus, which is harvested early, as a way of offering more steady, longer-term work to laborers, which may give them an advantage in keeping laborers or bringing farm laborers into the country under the federal guest worker program, known as H2A.

Interesting strategy.