06.28.08
Is climate change real?
Some people question whether climate change is really happening, and whether or not it is caused by human activity. I believe it’s one of the most serious environmental threats we have ever faced. Extreme weather events such as Hurricane Katrina and this year’s “500-year flood” in the Mississippi watershed are just the beginning. I don’t think we want to wait until our coastal cities are underwater before taking meaningful action to reduce carbon emissions.
The global south is already suffering severe consequences. I worked in the Sahel region of West Africa 25 years ago with farmers who were already suffering from climate change. They could no longer grow traditional food crops and their wells were dry. I did what I could to help mitigate the effects by building wells & earthen dams for water supply and irrigation, but it was inadequate. They became “environmental refugees” and had to leave land they had farmed for generations. They moved to shantytowns near the capital city, where jobs were scarce, pay was meager, and living conditions were miserable.
The story is similar throughout the global south. In Bangladesh and other lowland countries, sea level rise has already inundated hundreds of square miles of farmland. Some island nations in the south Pacific have had to relocate entire populations. As the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves collapse and sea level rises, where will the millions of displaced farmers go?
Here in the northwest, glaciers I climbed five years ago are nearly gone. That’s our water supply. Our rivers have severely reduced flows. Forests to the east of Mt. Rainier are nearly dead from drought and disease. If these trends continue, we too could become environmental refugees.
Some people claim that it will cost too much to control carbon emissions, and it will wreck the economy. I did an extensive analysis of the cost of reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels at all fossil fuel power plants in the U.S., in order to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. A well funded propaganda campaign funded by the utility industry claimed that it would ruin the economy. My analysis demonstrated the opposite: the cost to the U.S. economy in lost output was about $86 billion over five years. This is less than the cost of Hurricane Katrina, or the Mississippi floods.
My analysis did not factor in the benefits of increased efficiency and productivity, and the development of new technologies and industries that would be required to meet the demand for higher efficiency. When these are factored in, the net impact would be significant economic growth and opportunity.
Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said “Innovation is key to environmental stewardship.” Materials that once were discarded can go into construction projects rather than landfills. Recycled industrial byproducts like coal ash can be made into concrete. Sulfur dioxide can be made into synthetic gypsum used in drywall.
Green industries are among the fastest- growing sectors of the economy, and Washington will benefit by being ahead of the curve and developing this industry as quickly as possible. We need to invest in green-collar job training to prepare Washington’s workforce for clean energy industry and to ensure that green businesses have the skilled workers they need.
We need enforceable limits on global warming pollution. We can conserve a great deal of energy by improving efficiency, changing behaviors, retiring old, dirty energy sources, and producing more renewable energy, all at reasonable cost. All of these solutions need to be incentivized in utility rate structures, to promote rapid implementation. I personally lobbied my legislators in support of I-937.
We also need to take meaningful personal action, and I actively work to reduce my own carbon footprint. I started by commuting to work by bicycle and installing solar heat and hot water in my home. I installed 20” of insulation in my attic, and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees in my home. With appropriate incentives, every household could adopt similar measures at very low cost.
Legislative solutions that will help reduce carbon emissions and slow the rate of climate change:
A renewable portfolio standard for new sources of electrical generation
“Feed-in rate tariffs” that allow utilities to charge a higher rate for renewable energy
Production tax credits that reduce the cost of new investment in renewable energy
Consumer tax credits that speed the adoption of conservation measures and renewable energy
Implementing a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions. Past experience with SO2 and NOx emissions trading has shown that it leads to greater reductions in pollutants than either taxes or regulations do.
Auctioning (rather than allocating) permits will establish a meaningful price floor for traded allowances. The cap needs to be reduced over time so that targeted reductions in carbon emissions actually occur.
Prioritize transportation investments that demonstrably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and re-orient state transportation investment to encourage mass transit, carpooling, and high-speed bicycle routes on all major highways.
Reduce single occupancy vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by creating meaningful transportation alternatives to the automobile, especially mass transit and dedicated bicycle routes.
The I-5 replacement bridge should include high capacity transit (light rail or bus rapid transit) and bicycle lanes.
Develop an incentive-based approach to land use planning that encourages higher density development and leaves open spaces for wetlands, wildlife corridors, and greenways.
My opponent Don Benton opposed these solutions to climate change:
Opposed a 2008 House Bill 2815 Addressing greenhouse gas emissions and creating green collar jobs
Opposed a 2008 Senate Bill 6580 Addressing the impacts of climate change
Did not vote on a 2007 House Bill authorizing utilities to engage in environmental mitigation efforts.
Did not vote on a 2005 Senate Bill providing tax incentives for clean and alternative fuel vehicles
