Seattle's climate ideas can hurt whole state
There are certainly lessons from Greg Nickels' efforts at leadership on global warming. But what we need to know is very different from what environmentalists tell political leaders in Olympia.
Imagine an executive of a major corporation, citing his concern for the environment, highlighting the reduction of 410 tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, he claimed, while the company’s emissions were rising, it would change in the future. Finally, he argued, even though the emissions reductions he had achieved were unrelated to his policies, he should get credit for the reductions anyway.
Environmental groups would quickly deride such claims, accusing that company of "greenwashing," and perhaps even call for a boycott.
But that isn't what happened. Environmental groups actually praised such an organization despite its paltry achievements.
What company is this? Greg Nickels' Seattle.
For years, former Seattle Mayor Nickels made much of his tough stance on climate change. The city even tried closing streets to reduce driving and talked of banning beach bonfires to cut carbon emissions. And the mayor's office told kids that climate change might doom Santa during the 2007 Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
But a close look at his legacy demonstrates he failed to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even though Nickels used these policies to bolster his environmental image. Examining the city's web page on climate change and the new Seattle Greenhouse Gas Inventory, released one month before Nickels' term ended, makes clear why.
Touting its successes, the city's climate web page notes that it expanded “transportation choices,” including “20,000 hours of new bus service” and “added 50 miles of new bike lanes and sharrows.” The goal was to reduce the number of miles people drove. Did it work? No.
According to the Seattle Greenhouse Gas Inventory, between 2005 and 2008, the number of miles traveled by cars and light trucks increased. This is remarkable, since the average gas price in 2005 of $2.37 jumped to $3.40 in 2008. Absent this dramatic rise in gas prices, the increase would have been larger. Some may argue that bus ridership increased when the gas prices rose, but ridership also quickly fell when prices fell, and the availability of more buses and bike lanes did little, if anything, to get people out of their cars.
The list of accomplishments notes, "The city reduced citywide fuel consumption by 41,000 gallons, saving 410 tons of greenhouse gases emissions." This sounds like a lot but, in fact, it is barely measurable. Seattle's total transportation emissions for 2008 amounted to 2.7 million metric tons of CO2. Four-hundred-ten tons represent an annual reduction of less than .02 percent. The report doesn't say how much public money Nickels spent to achieve that tiny reduction. That the city mentions such a miniscule savings is emblematic of how desperate Nickels' team was to demonstrate any measurable impact of their policies.
Other policies sound good, but only if we ignore the cost. City officials note they distributed 1.4 million compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), avoiding an estimated 23,000 tons of CO2. Assuming this represents the first year and a half of the program (from June 2007 through 2008) it represents only about 3 percent of all emissions from buildings, and a tiny one-fifth of one percent (.2 percent of) total emissions in Seattle for that period of time.
How much did it cost to achieve these results? According to city officials, taxpayers paid a subsidy of $1.35 for each light bulb, totaling nearly $1.9 million. This amounts to more than $82 for every ton of CO2 avoided. Compare this to the average cost of a ton of carbon on the European Climate Exchange in January of $17.50. Seattle received only one-fifth the greenhouse gas emissions reductions it could have achieved if Nickels had simply used that money to buy carbon credits on the European market. Politics trumped environmental effectiveness. It is more fun to hand out light bulbs than buy intangible carbon credits, even if buying the credits is four times better for the environment.
Other claims are even more political. Under the heading "Community Engagement," city officials boast, "Climate Action Now distributed 10,000 home energy kits" and that "Seattle Climate Partnership membership increased by approximately 110 percent in 2008 — from 53 to 122 members." It highlights the city’s "leadership," noting that 910 mayors have signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The relationship between these political achievements and actual emissions reductions is speculative at best. But when you have so little else to claim, it doesn't hurt to pad the resume.
Given the ineffectiveness of these strategies, it should not be surprising that Seattle’s greenhouse gas emissions rose between 2005 and 2008.
The city, for its part, claims that it has already met the emissions reductions in the Kyoto Protocol, and calls for others to do the same. While this is true today, they achieved that goal primarily because homeowners switched from oil to natural gas heating in the 1990s. In recent years, the city's emissions have increased, putting it on a path to violate the Kyoto emissions target of 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Worse, the city's accounting of greenhouse gas emissions actually rewards policies that increase worldwide CO2 emissions. For instance, emissions from steel used in Seattle but manufactured elsewhere don't count in the city's assessment. If the city stopped producing concrete and steel but imported that same amount, city officials would actually count that as a reduction in emissions, even though it would mean a loss of jobs and probably cause an overall increase in global emissions. Since a ton of CO2 emitted in China is equal to a ton emitted in Seattle, the net effect would be worse for climate change, but good for politicians in Seattle looking to claim "leadership" on the issue.
Given this record one can reasonably ask, Where are the environmental groups calling for real action? They are silent, in large part because they are proposing many of these same policies in Olympia. Why would we expect these costly and ineffective policies to do better when adopted statewide?
If we truly care about reducing carbon emissions, Washington should cut taxes on innovation to encourage the technologies that improve energy efficiency. Innovation has always been the driving force behind improvements in environmental sustainability. Unless we act to engage the creativity of engineers, scientists and technology experts across the state, we will continue to spend taxpayer dollars on failed policies that have more to do with making politicians look good than with actually cutting carbon emissions.
The environmental failures of Seattle and Greg Nickels should make that clear.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 8:15 a.m. Inappropriate
Big news for Seattle: The US did not approve the Kyoto Protocol so don't worry about breaking it. Second: The combined ocean and land releases 360 gigatonnes of CO2 amount to each year. Your concern about a few thousand tons a year is laughable, especially considering each ton avoided costs $82. In fact, all anthropogenic CO2 emissions amount to less than 5% of all CO2 added to the atmosphere each year -- and that includes the hundreds of China's massive coal-burning plants, each which emits more CO2 in a few minutes that you can save in a year.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 9 a.m. Inappropriate
Wow... Is there anything tax cuts can't do? This is thin stuff. And you never did explain how Greg Nickels ruined things for the rest of Washington. I think Greg would have been very happy with tax cuts for research firms, especially since they might be located in Seattle.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 9:33 a.m. Inappropriate
1. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are indeed dwarfed by the natural carbon cycle, but what matters is that that's a cycle that's in balance--those many gigatons (I'm not sure where you got 360) are in turn removed from the atmosphere as they have been for eons. This is not a big secret: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/graphics/globcarb.gif is a nice diagram. The problem with our emissions is that they're now large enough to knock the system out of balance.
2. China continues to burn coal but also to get farther ahead of us in renewables: http://www.physorg.com/news160643608.html
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate
The author outlines with facts one reason why Greg Nickels is no longer Mayor of Seattle. After eight years of seeing our city lose urban forest cover and being green in press release only, it was time for him to go. The media focused only on the easy stuff they didn't have to research -- his personality and the snow debacle -- but Nickels would have been doomed regardless.
That said, the author ignores some pertinent facts:
1. The lightbulb program was not about carbon reduction, though that was a nice side effect. It was about reductions in the use of electricity. He can go look up the actual numbers, but if memory serves the lightbulb program allowed Seattle City Light to avoid having to go out into the open electricity market to acquire power, more than making up for the cost.
2. Greg Nickels' affinity for green press releases has paid what could be a huge dividend, if the current administration and Council don't muck it up: There is no place in the US more identified with "Green" and "green business" than Seattle. We have the opportunity to be one of the (if not THE) major centers of green business in the country. Sadly, this opportunity seems to be slipping away as too many of our elected leaders have no business experience and wouldn't know a competitive advantage if it offered to compost the cup their free range organic latte came in.
The REAL lesson for the rest of Washington is that Seattle (Greg Nickels) has done the work to create a significantly large business opportunity. Is your community ready to step up and capture the benefit if Seattle won't?
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 10:20 a.m. Inappropriate
Making energy more expensive is the only way to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing substantial taxes on fuel is the best way to achieve this. If Todd Myers really cared about emissions reduction he would advocate an increase in fuel taxes. Since he hasn't, I doubt his bona fides on CO2 reductions.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 11:15 a.m. Inappropriate
Now that you've exposed the lie-filled green policies of a deposed Mayor, maybe you can move on to the lie-filled green policies of a sitting governor.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 11:53 a.m. Inappropriate
The author suggests that tax cuts would stimulate innovations leading to energy efficiency and less carbon emissions. He doesn’t say what taxes should be cut nor does he indicate whether current preferential tax rates and exemptions are not effective.
The state offers several substantial tax exemptions that target alternative energy and high technology research, development, and manufacturing:
B&O; deduction of income from sales of biodiesel fuel
Reduced B&O; rate on manufacturing solar energy systems and components
B&O; tax credit for state and local property and leasehold taxes paid by manufacturers of commercial aircraft, to encourage super-efficient aircraft assembly (read Boeing 787)
Exemption from sales tax for machinery and labor used in generating energy from wind, sun, and other renewable sources
Exemption from sales tax for purchase of new cars and trucks powered by alternative fuels
Deferral of sales tax (with repayment waived) for buildings and equipment involving high technology r&d;, including environmental technology
There are others. See Washington Department of Revenue’s “incentive” program at http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/TaxIncentives/IncentivePrograms.aspx
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 1:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Environmentalists have sure changed over my lifetime. So far, Todd Meyers is the only one of the new crop brave enough to scrutinize the former City administration's consistently selective accountings of its environmental successes. Selective accounting is not accounting at all. That's Todd's main message, or at least the way I read it.
Applying that message forward it becomes-- if environmentalists want to be taken seriously they will need to get serious about their accounting. For instance, the new mayor's buddy newly elected to Council has training and some experience at in on his resume and the director of finance retained with expanded duties is surely experienced at whole systems accounting.
As for what to do, the old advice still holds: problems are impasses created and maintained through mishandling of difficulties: 1) action is needed but not taken, 2) action is taken when it should not be, and 3) action is taken but at the wrong level. May the Gaia give us the wisdom to learn the difference and soon.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 1:53 p.m. Inappropriate
Nickels also was a proponent of centralized hydro power (with minor acknowledgment of future solar on public buildings) but was resistant to the idea of localized energy production (i.e. solar on your own roof; microCHP)--even though (1) Northern Germany is the largest user of solar power in the world and are farther north than Seattle (2) the state has tried very hard to help our nascent solar component producers including major investments in a Moses Lake plant by the largest solar utility company and WA inverter companies (3) centralized electrical production wastes as much power as it delivers to end users via transmission and (4)hydro production has a significant impact upon our dwindling and endangered steelhead and salmon populations.
While I do think that Nickels did do something very positive in demonstrating leadership on this cause (even if it was on virtual) it is nice to see someone calling him out the reality of his "accomplishments.".
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 2:32 p.m. Inappropriate
George, here is a piece I wrote about increasing the price of carbon: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008777644_opinb24myers.html
dn, picking and choosing technologies with this type of "targeted" tax incentive is unlikely to be successful. I blogged about that here: http://tiny.cc/4unH2
Thanks for the feedback.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 4:32 p.m. Inappropriate
I agree that Mayor Nickels has hyped his green credentials out of all proportion to his actual accomplishments. Still I find your article to be vague and misleading when talking about the environmental impacts of the Mayor's initiatives.
The total milage driven by passenger vehicles increased between 2005 and 2008. How much did it increase? What about the miles driven per person? Does that statistic pertain to drivers who live in Seattle, or drivers who commute to Seattle from outlying suburbs?
Many new suburban developments were built far from Seattle in the late, great real estate bubble. Were the increased miles a result of construction on Snoqualmie Ridge etc? Does the number simply reflect an increase in population?
Between 2005 and 2008 the size of City Government increased, and yet according to the statistics you cite the amount of carbon emissions from the City decreased very slightly. If the whole world could replicate that result it would be a major accomplishment.
Finally, I don't think that innovation has ever been the driving engine behind improvements in environmental sustainability. As much as you may hate to admit it, Citizen Activism and Government Regulation has been responsible for cleaning up our lakes and rivers, making the air safer to breathe, making water safer to drink, saving endangered species and limiting pollution. Name three major environmental improvements caused solely by "innovations" without either government or citizen action.
Posted Wed, Feb 10, 4:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Good example of trying to build yourself up by tearing others down. What's the point of this article, denigrating others, or advancing your viewpoint? I'd suggesting reversing the ratio of bashing others versus advocating your own ideas. And please tell us why your ideas would be better - more pragmatic, more practical, and more effective - not just slapping them up on the wall and telling us those are the only ideas that will work. Otherwise people might get the impression that you're just grinding your axe.
Phil
Posted Thu, Feb 11, 1:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Like many on these pages, Todd Myers is not particularly fair to the ex-Mayor. In particular, he is quite critical that the city has not maintained in recent years its progress in reducing CO2 emissions.
Just a reminder to everyone, the population of Seattle per the 1990 census was 516,259; it is estimated to be 602,000 as of April 2009 (source: Seattle Department of Planning and Development). So this is a modest 16% increase in population over a 20 year period. So in that context, it is still quite an accomplishment to have made such progress towards Kyoto limits despite only having the resources of a local government available.
I for one am quite skeptical that we can accomplish any meaningful reductions in CO2 or improve the habitat of the Puget Sound with the level of population growth that we expect to see in the Puget Sound area.
If we look in the future, the projections for Washington state population in 2050 is 9,900,000 (at current migration/immigration levels). Today's population (estimated) is 6,668,200.
(sources: Federation for American Immigration Reform; Wash. State Office of Financial Management)
As much as we'd not like to admit it, the best course of action for protecting our environment would to restrain the growth of population in Washington State.
So instead of tax incentive schemes for energy, I'd suggest that Todd Myers and his colleagues at Washington Policy Center use the market mechanisms at their disposal to stabilize our state's population. For one, I'd look at removing the governmnet subsidies that hide the true cost of growth. Examples are the state and federal taxes that pay for roads, sewers, and infrastructure, and the continued electrical rate hikes used to pay for new electricity generation.
PS - I'm also just a tad confused of what the Washington Policy Center's position on Climate Change is. If one reviews their press releases from the last year, it seems like they are pretty much on the side of the disbelievers.
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pressroom/pressreleases/EarthDay09.html
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pressroom/pressreleases/EarthDayMovie09.html
Posted Thu, Feb 11, 10:48 a.m. Inappropriate
George, you are spot on: """Making energy more expensive is the only way to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing substantial taxes on fuel is the best way to achieve this. If Todd Myers really cared about emissions reduction he would advocate an increase in fuel taxes. Since he hasn't, I doubt his bona fides on CO2 reductions. — George""
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the bits I wrote recently concurrs: I think a real gas tax would reduce the number of cars ON ALL OUR ROADS!. And give people incentives to take the bus or carpool, funds to buy hi-tech buses, eliminate the need for $Billion$ in road projects, live closer to work, pay for Basic Health Care, provide jobs in Alternative and Energy Conservation, reduce obesity and diabetes as we walk and work physcially, and still leave $2billion dollars to reduce the WA st. debt.
Posted Thu, Feb 11, 9:43 p.m. Inappropriate
". . . the director of finance retained with expanded duties is surely experienced at whole systems accounting"
2/11/10 Correction: “I’m very disappointed by the City’s loss of Dwight [Dively]” said Councilmember Sally Clark. “Dwight is nationally recognized for his work in municipal finance, but he has also always been open and willing to visit neighborhood groups to demystify the City’s workings and share the back story to his work.”
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen added today, “At last, King County has some good news!”
And for the few of you actually interested in understanding the report that Meyers writes about, the City has it buried here:
http://www.seattle.gov/climate/
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.