The Field Burning Elimination Budget

Earlier this year, Governor Kulongoski had DEQ draw up a plan to eliminate field burning by 2011.  Now he's trying to put our money where his mouth is.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski has released his proposed state budget for the next two years that he says will protect education from cuts despite the recession but require deep cuts in some social services spending.

Among other things, the governor’s office said in a statement on the $15.8 billion general fund budget, the proposal provides $200,000 “to enable the Department of Environmental Quality to phase out the practice of field burning in the Willamette Valley, addressing a serious threat to public health in Western Oregon.”

The budget is growing by close to a billion, yet our governor is talking about protecting budgets from cuts.  And speaking of what Kulongoski considers a cut, why does DEQ need an extra $200K to reduce and then eliminate field burning over two years?  DEQ is already manned and budgeted to manage the existing field burning limit and its exemptions.  This effort should cost us nothing in the next budget and save us money in future budgets. 

From the first link...

Most growers have adopted alternatives to burning, especially since the emergence of reliable markets for grass-seed straw in recent years. But the annual ryegrass raised by many Linn and Lane County farmers isn’t suitable for livestock feed, and the fine fescues grown in the Silverton Hills won’t germinate without fire.

Current law takes those considerations into account, allowing the burning of up to 25,000 acres each year of identified species and steep ground. The Kulongoski bill will have no such exemptions, Ginsburg said, although it would empower the Environmental Quality Commission to allow emergency burning in case of pest or disease outbreaks.

Gee, despite our economic woes, who needs the money those annual ryegrass and fine fescue farmers generate.  But, maybe there's an economic analysis somewhere that shows we'll save money on medical bills.

So, which causes more emissions, burning a grass field or shipping the grass straw to Asia?  In NIMBY math, the field burning is what matters.  But when it comes to climate change, the key variable is the fossil fuels used, not whether the grass is burned or consumed as animal feed.  Sure, some folks discount the emissions involved in shipping the grass straw to Asia because the ships have to return there anyway.  But there's also the harvesting, transportation to and from the ports, and the impact of the straw on a ship's gas mileage.  That type of recycling isn't green.

Returning to the original article...

The budget calls for $1.9 million to carry out plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including a cap and trade system.

Gee, despite our economic woes, we can still afford to slow the economy by increasing the cost of energy, regardless that we're using less of it.  

Some of Governor Kulongoski's green image is simply decay.