In Our View: Environment Must Be No. 1

What happens in Portland doesn’t stay in Portland. At least not when it comes to air pollution or water pollution or other environmental concerns. All of which makes last week’s developments surrounding Bullseye Glass in Portland of interest to those on the north side of the Columbia River. On Thursday, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown ordered the company to stop burning toxic metals in unfiltered furnaces.

Bullseye had come under scrutiny in February, when air-quality tests near the company revealed high levels of arsenic and cadmium. Steps were taken to reduce those emissions, but Oregon officials recently discovered a one-day spike in airborne lead at a day care near the glass manufacturer — with the readings showing lead at 2.7 times the acceptable standard. Lead, whether ingested through air or through water or through products such as paint, can lead to irreversible brain damage and is of particular concern for children.

Bullseye officials questioned whether their operation was the source of the lead and lashed out at the state Department of Environmental Quality, saying in a statement, “Their actions show that, rather than helping a business operate in the cleanest manner possible, they would prefer to close us down.”

Therein lies the crux of the debate over environmental regulations vs. economic concerns. Protection of the environment — and therefore citizens — is an essential role of government. Yet there must be a balance between those protections and a role in helping businesses to operate and prosper. That can create a tenuous dichotomy, and it is one that is a constant source of debate in the political theater. One favorite talking point of conservatives in recent years has been to suggest that the federal Department of Environmental Quality should be shut down, leaving regulation to state authorities.

The obvious problem with such a notion is that what happens environmentally in other states can have an impact in Washington. When coal is mined and burned in the United States, the Northwest is not impervious to the impact. If California decided to use the Pacific Ocean as a garbage dump, Washington would be affected, as well. If the Snake River was somehow tainted at its headwaters in Yellowstone National Park, that water would eventually pass Vancouver’s doorstep in the Columbia River.

Then there is the tragedy of the commons, an economic theory posited in the 1830s by William Forster Lloyd. This states that large numbers of people acting rationally in their own self-interest can create conditions that are harmful to society as a whole. To use one locally relevant example: If somebody caught four salmon out of the Columbia River, they could rationalize their individual action as being insignificant. But if everybody in Clark County caught four fish, the river would soon be depleted.

Because of that, we lean on the side of strong environmental regulations and enforcement. When Oregon officials first cracked down on Bullseye Glass regarding its emissions, they turned a blind eye toward the issue of lead. But the latest discovery led to quick action. Mary Peveto, president of Neighbors for Clean Air, told The Oregonian, “It’s a turnaround from how dismissively the agency has handled air pollution concerns for more than a decade.”

While it would be best for all parties if Oregon officials can work with Bullseye to ensure clean air along with a prosperous business, for now the action is a victory for the residents of Portland — and nearby Vancouver. Because what happens in Portland doesn’t stay there.