To the editor:

It's too bad doing the right thing is not always the "best economic choice". It would be nice if local, sustainable grass-fed beef, for example, was the cheapest. Why do we pay more for it? Because we know it's healthier for us and the environment. It would be great if the safest cars/buildings/airplanes could be constructed with cut-rate materials and still be safe. While it may cost less today to consume and pollute as much as we want, it’s like using a credit card: sometime the bill will have to be paid with interest. Alas, that's where the "running the country (or the county) like a business" breaks down. Economics is always viewed in the short term. Our grandparents invested cleaning up the air and the water, in setting aside and protecting public lands for us to enjoy, and in starting recycling programs—none of it was cheap. Don’t we owe it to our children to keep up these legacies? The single-handed decision by commissioner Nash to end a 30-year recycling program appears to take a very short-term view of the issue. At the least the decision seems to warrant more of a public discourse and consideration of options. Admittedly, the best solution is lower consumption: use less no-deposit glass, fewer tin cans, less plastic--no argument there. But I don't agree that we can't afford to recycle: I think we can't afford NOT to recycle.

Randi Jandt

Enterprise, OR

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.