{"id":7143,"date":"2021-01-11T11:45:09","date_gmt":"2021-01-11T11:45:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.radiofree.org\/?p=148462"},"modified":"2021-01-11T11:45:09","modified_gmt":"2021-01-11T11:45:09","slug":"washington-oregon-and-british-columbia-pledged-to-slash-greenhouse-gas-emissions-they-failed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/01\/11\/washington-oregon-and-british-columbia-pledged-to-slash-greenhouse-gas-emissions-they-failed\/","title":{"rendered":"Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia pledged to slash greenhouse gas emissions. They failed."},"content":{"rendered":"

This story was produced in collaboration with InvestigateWest<\/a>, a nonprofit newsroom in Seattle with a focus on the environment, public health, and government accountability.<\/em><\/p>\n

With dozens of people killed by wildfires in the western U.S., millions of acres scorched, and choking smoke spreading far into British Columbia, Washington Governor Jay Inslee lit up the news wires in September. \u201cThese are not just wildfires,\u201d Inslee asserted at a press conference from Olympia, \u201cthese are climate fires<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two days later on George Stephanopoulos\u2019 Sunday-morning ABC News talk show, the recent presidential candidate recounted a poignant visit to a town nearly wiped out by the fires. \u201cThe only moisture in Eastern Washington was the tears of people who have lost their homes,\u201d said Inslee. \u201cAnd now we have a blowtorch over our states in the West, which is climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n

A rower glides across Lake Union through wildfire smoke that obscures the Seattle skyline, Friday, September 11, 2020.<\/span> Dan DeLong \/ InvestigateWest<\/span><\/p>\n

Just days after his return to the national stage, however, the question in a Seattle courtroom<\/a> was whether the state he\u2019d run since 2013 should be sanctioned for helping to load and light that torch. On Thursday September 17, an attorney representing Inslee and the entire apparatus of Washington state government stood to tell three masked judges behind a plexiglass shield that courts could not hold the state legally responsible for its part in the climate crisis: The part where it expanded highways. The part where it licensed power plants and factories to emit many tons of greenhouse gases. Where it set building standards that would keep residents\u2019 stoves and furnaces and water heaters polluting the atmosphere for decades to come.<\/p>\n

Thick haze from the climate fires still clogged the air outside the appeals courtroom in downtown Seattle as Assistant Attorney General Chris Reitz offered his arguments. The panel of judges peppered him with questions and probed for logical holes.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have asthma,\u201d interjected one of the judges, David Mann of the Washington Court of Appeals Division One. \u201cSo I have to stay inside, with the windows shut.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy isn\u2019t that affecting my life and my liberty?\u201d<\/p>\n

The events leading to this legal confrontation in Washington, years in the making, are akin to those that recently prompted similar battles in Oregon and British Columbia courtrooms \u2014 government action and inaction that has increasingly spurred legal actions around the globe. In the Washington case, as in those to the north and south, young people are suing to stop what they call a state-sanctioned degradation of their futures.<\/p>\n

One of the Washington plaintiffs is 20-year-old Seattleite Aji Piper, who has been suing the state and U.S. governments over climate\u2019s impact on his life and liberty for five years. As Piper said in a 2018 TED Talk<\/a>, he is fighting for humanity\u2019s ability to \u201cchange places with another, see their plight, adapt, and make better choices.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the halting pace and limited progress amplifies the anxiety and anguish that the climate crisis represents for so many young people, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe worst for me as a plaintiff is when we\u2019re just sitting nowhere and waiting,\u201d Piper said in a Zoom interview after the court hearing.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s frustrating,\u201d agreed his attorney, Andrea Rodgers, from her adjacent Zoom picture box.<\/p>\n

\u201cWashington has been defending itself by saying, \u2018We have been doing the best we can. We have got Inslee. Look at the progress,\u2019\u201d Rodgers said.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut emissions don\u2019t lie and the emissions keep rising.\u201d<\/p>\n

Twenty-year-old Aji Piper wearing a mask to protect himself during one of Washington\u2019s climate-driven smoke emergencies.<\/span> Alex Garland<\/span><\/p>\n

Cascadia\u2019s broken promise<\/h3>\n

The official record shows that Rodgers and the youth litigants in all three jurisdictions are right at least about this: Washington, British Columbia, and Oregon promised to significantly reduce their emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2020.<\/p>\n

But they did not.<\/p>\n

This happened even though renewable energy sources and other solutions are available. Technologically speaking, climate change is neither insurmountable nor unaffordable. It\u2019s the politics that have fallen short.<\/p>\n

Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia \u2014 the heart of an eco-friendly region that\u2019s frequently dubbed Cascadia \u2014 consider themselves a global leader on climate action.<\/p>\n

The three governments set some of North America\u2019s first mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over a decade ago. And if any place on earth can show the world how to confront the climate crisis, it should be here. Cascadia\u2019s abundant hydropower provides a head start toward living without fossil fuels, and the majority of voters in British Columbia<\/a>, Washington<\/a>, and Oregon<\/a> say they want to make that transition.<\/p>\n

Yet Washington, B.C., and Oregon were not on track to meet their 2020 targets. In fact, until Covid hit last year, emissions were rising. Between 2013 and 2018, the most recent five-year period for which Cascadia\u2019s governments have completed counts, emissions rose by about 5, 6, and 7 percent in Washington, Oregon, and B.C., respectively, according to a new analysis by InvestigateWest.<\/p>\n

Clayton Aldern \/ Grist<\/span><\/p>\n

Over the same period, similarly fast-growing economies such as California and Germany released fewer<\/em> of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. \u201cI wouldn\u2019t say we\u2019ve done nothing. But there\u2019s been an awful lot of dithering. We were supposed to do a whole hell of a lot better,\u201d says KC Golden, who spent over a decade at Seattle-based think tank Climate Solutions and now serves on the board of international activist group 350.org.<\/p>\n

B.C.\u2019s trend paints a particularly stark picture. In 2018 it came within 0.1 percent of setting a new all-time emissions record for releases of greenhouse gases, according to InvestigateWest\u2019s analysis, which adjusts the province\u2019s official data to enable accurate comparisons with the U.S. figures. Over the five years prior, B.C.\u2019s emissions grew more than five times faster than the Canadian average. And there could be more to come as its government fosters the province\u2019s nascent liquified natural gas export industry.<\/p>\n

Golden and other climate policy experts say measures to meet the climate goals set in 2007-2008 prevented some emissions, and may ultimately drive reductions. But they say Earth\u2019s climate doesn\u2019t give A\u2019s for effort. As Golden puts it: \u201cThe atmosphere doesn\u2019t care about anything but CO2 molecules [and] how many molecules go into the atmosphere.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite the dithering, Cascadia does have the solutions to climate change within its reach. The example set in California and modeling by Cascadia\u2019s own planners show that renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other solutions exist to get Cascadia off fossil fuels, slashing the carbon dioxide created by burning fossil gas, oil, and coal, and the methane from leaked gas. In other words, Cascadia has the technology required to decarbonize.<\/p>\n

Holding Earth\u2019s warming to levels that avoid the worst effects of climate change demands faster reductions here, and everywhere. Global climate experts say that means halving global emissions by 2030. That requires a six-fold speed-up in renewable energy growth, for example, and a 12-fold speedup in electric vehicle sales, according to the World Resources Institute.<\/p>\n

So why is environmentally-conscious Cascadia stuck in first gear? The consensus answer from experts and activists interviewed by InvestigateWest: a shortage of political will. The region has been beset by partisan wrangling, fear of job losses, disagreements over how to ensure equity for already polluted and marginalized communities, and misinformation obscuring the full potential of well-documented solutions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe constraining factor has always been political feasibility, not economic feasibility,\u201d says political economist and energy modeling expert Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C., and a former chair of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.<\/p>\n

The story of Cascadia\u2019s decade of policy delay and emissions backsliding is a story of ambitious goals eroded by inertia. It\u2019s a story of overestimating faith in economic logic and underestimating the enduring allure of economic growth. And, south of the 49th Parallel, it\u2019s a tale of a bipartisan consensus split asunder, such that fighting for a cleaner future is seen, in some quarters, as an attack on freedom. Or worse.<\/p>\n

\"Cascadia'sClayton Aldern \/ Grist<\/span><\/p>\n

Powering down coal<\/h3>\n

The imperative to transform fossil fuel-dependent energy systems took center stage around the world after the deadly destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the record heat of 2007, when Arctic sea ice melted to a fraction of its previous norms. Climate change was no longer just a future threat. It had arrived.<\/p>\n

Cascadia lawmakers acted, mandating emissions reductions by 2020 and steeper cuts by 2050. As of 2008 B.C., Washington, and Oregon were among only four provinces and eight states to legally commit to decarbonization.<\/p>\n

Oregon and B.C. set ambitious long term goals of 75-77 percent reductions from their 1990 emissions, reflecting the global carbon cuts scientists believed were needed by mid-century to avert the worst of the impending climate disaster. Washington state came in with a relatively modest 50 percent-by-2050 goal reflecting what then-governor Christine Gregoire thought the state could guarantee.<\/p>\n

Cascadia\u2019s governments had experience with decarbonization.<\/strong> Hydropower continued to provide more than two-thirds of the region\u2019s power thanks to a long legacy of leadership in energy efficiency. Since the 1970s, making customers more efficient had provided more \u201cvirtual\u201d power capacity than actual generation from new power plants burning gas and coal.<\/p>\n

All three governments chalked up quick wins in their power sectors.<\/p>\n

B.C. immediately scrapped plans for a new gas-fired power plant and two coal generators. The province told its primary utility, provincially-owned BC Hydro, to instead buy additional electricity from renewable energy projects such as wind farms and small-scale hydropower stations. Washington voters and Oregon\u2019s legislature passed some of North America\u2019s first requirements mandating privately-owned utilities to add a rising share of wind, solar, and other types of renewable power. That unleashed a boom in wind power development concentrated along the Columbia River Gorge, the natural wind tunnel that separates the states.<\/p>\n

\"PortlandThe closure of this coal-burning electrical plant near Boardman, Oregon, late last year will end emissions of about 2 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. The plant is owned by Portland General Electric, which aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.<\/span> Courtesy Portland General Electric<\/span><\/p>\n

And guess what? It actually saved consumers money. Falling prices for wind and solar driven by innovation and scale made the mandates more economical.<\/p>\n

Rural economic development made the mandates politically palatable. Jackie Dingfelder, a former member of the Oregon legislature who led passage of a package of climate bills in 2007, said representatives for rural counties saw renewable energy plants as a boost to declining tax revenues \u2014 one that panned out. \u201cIf you drive out in eastern Oregon and Washington you see tons of wind farms and those farmers get royalties and those communities get money,\u201d said Dingfelder.<\/p>\n

These power moves delivered for the atmosphere, particularly in Oregon. In 2007 coal provided over one-third of Oregon\u2019s power. A decade later it was less than a quarter, and emissions from electricity consumption had declined by 27 percent.<\/p>\n

Oregon also dialed in further reductions to come. In 2010 utility Portland General Electric cut a deal with environmentalists, codified by the legislature, to shut down Oregon\u2019s only in-state coal-burning power plant. The utility got out of a $470-million retrofit of its air pollution controls, which would have extended the plant\u2019s operating life to 2030 or beyond, by agreeing to shutter it in 2020.<\/p>\n

Cascadia\u2019s problem was the rest of its economy. Buildings, industry, and especially transportation generate over two-thirds of Cascadia\u2019s emissions. Carbon-cutting options for those \u2014 such as electric heat pumps to replace gas furnaces and urban redesigns to reduce vehicle travel \u2014 were more complex and costly than swapping out coal stacks for wind turbines. And none of Cascadia\u2019s governments had policies strong enough to forcefully drive those options into use.<\/p>\n

Greenhouse gas emissions \u2014 about four-fifths of which are carbon-based CO2 and methane from extraction and use of fossil fuels \u2014 fell for several years thanks to cleaner electricity, as well as the global financial crisis of 2008. People traveled less, consumed less, and produced less. Fossil fuel use dropped. Cascadia\u2019s emissions fell by 8 percent. Then the economy rebounded. People moved more. Production and consumption rose. And carbon emissions came roaring back.<\/p>\n

By 2018 robust economic growth across Cascadia had restored over four-fifths of the 19.5-megatons of annual emissions that the region shed during the downturn.<\/p>\n

Reed Schuler, a senior advisor to Inslee on climate, told InvestigateWest that emissions rose because Washington\u2019s economy is among North America\u2019s fastest growing. \u201cThere\u2019s more people living and working in buildings, more people driving around, more people flying around,\u201d said Schuler.<\/p>\n

However, comparative analysis by InvestigateWest puts the blame squarely on Cascadia\u2019s weak decarbonization policies. Between full economic recovery in 2012 and 2018, the most recent reporting year, California and Cascadia both booked a robust 26 percent increase in GDP. Over that period California drove its annual emissions down by more than 5 percent. Washington\u2019s emissions \u2014 and Cascadia\u2019s as a whole \u2014 ballooned by over 7 percent.<\/p>\n

\"BritishClayton Aldern \/ Grist<\/span><\/p>\n

Tracking Arnold<\/h3>\n

California \u201cdecoupled\u201d economic growth from rising carbon via a raft of laws and policies that encouraged or mandated use of efficient products and cleaner energy. Many were legislated in 2006 under then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, including the centerpiece: a scheme known as cap and trade. It set a cap on carbon emissions that declined annually, and enforced that cap by requiring polluters to buy credits \u2014 sold at auction \u2014 for every ton of carbon they released. By putting a price on carbon, cap and trade created a financial incentive to reduce pollution.<\/p>\n

Cascadia\u2019s governments all sought to match the breadth of California\u2019s carbon-cutting policies. They sought to follow its harnessing of financial markets to drive down carbon emissions. They failed.<\/p>\n

Early efforts in Washington and Oregon to enact cap-and-trade schemes fizzled. Washington approved a bill in 2008 that was later deemed unenforceable<\/a>. Oregon ran out of time when the global economic meltdown struck that year, stoking economic anxiety. \u201cThe recession basically dashed that to the floor,\u201d recalls Portland-based energy policy expert and climate activist Angus Duncan, then an advisor to the governor.<\/p>\n