State looks to lead way on climate change
Editorial in The Olympian on Washington's leadership on climate change
Can Washington state be the national leader on climate change? Can this state develop new technology to substantially reduce carbon emissions globally? Can Washington state create thousands of new “green” jobs, build energy-efficient homes and businesses, convince motorists to convert to mass transit and boost recycling efforts — all in an effort to preserve natural resources and improve the environment?
We’ll better know the answers to those questions a year from now after the state’s Climate Advisory Team gets down to the nitty gritty of recommending new laws and deciding how to pay for programs that will change today’s consumptive behaviors.
The team, which was created by an executive order from Gov. Chris Gregoire one year ago, is set to deliver to the governor today its interim report and recommendations. They’ll spend the next year deciding how to achieve those goals.
The climate team’s assignment a year ago was to outline steps to:
• Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.
• Increase clean-energy jobs.
• Reduce spending on imported fuels.
It’s a huge undertaking, but one of immense importance to the future of the state, the nation and the planet.
Ecology director Jay Manning, co-chair of the action team with Julie Wilkerson, director of the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, puts it bluntly. “The cost of inaction dwarfs the cost of action,” Manning said. “We are talking about moving from a fossil-fuel based economy to a nonfossil economy. That’s a fundamental change. We’ve never been faced with anything like this before.”
Wilkerson notes that Washington has joined with other West Coast states and Canadian provinces to lead the way on climate change. Waiting for federal leadership is fruitless. As demonstrated regarding tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars, the federal government is more of an impediment than catalyst for change.
As Manning says, “Who knows how long it will take for the feds to get their act together on this. We’re going full steam ahead until there is a federal program.”
Productive year
The Climate Advisory Action Team has had a productive year, agreeing to a list of 47 recommendations, but narrowing that to just a handful of broad public policy areas. According to Wilkerson and Manning, the team is recommending a focus on four areas where significant environmental achievements are realistic: transportation, forest practices, waste management, and energy consumption in homes and businesses.
In many ways, Washington state already is a leader. Take recycling, for instance. About 50 percent of Washington’s waste is recycled, making the state a leader on the national scene. But as Manning notes, there still are great savings to be achieved through recycling and repackaging efforts.
Studies by the state Energy Policy Office documented that the number of clean-energy jobs more than doubled from 1998 to 2004. Those jobs, in such fields as energy efficiency, renewable energy and smart-energy technology, totaled 8,400 by 2004 with an average salary of $60,000, studies say.
Yet the goal of the action team is to create 25,000 more green jobs by 2020, according to Wilkerson.
She and Manning said the 27 members of the team came into the process a year ago seeing themselves as individual advisors. After a year of hard work, they are united as a team, fully supportive of the climate change agenda.
True test
But the next year will be the true test as the team formulates concrete plans on how to achieve the recommended goals.
For example, are motorists ready for toll roads? How about new energy-efficient building standards that will drive up the costs of new homes and businesses? What should the state do with TransAlta, the coal fired plant near Centralia which is the largest, single-point source of carbon-dioxide emissions in Washington?
These are tough questions which will lead to tough decisions involving mountains of money.
But Manning is right when he says, “The cost of inaction dwarfs the cost of action.”


