Climate Change Efforts Depend on Whatcom Election

Riley Sweeney is a former campaign manager who writes The Political Junkie, a blog focused on Whatcom County politics.

Every election, partisans on both sides of the aisle try to make the case that this particular election is the most important vote ever taken. While they may not always be right, Whatcom County in particular has a unique opportunity this year to shape the future of fighting climate change — and it all depends on one race.

For environmental advocates, Jay Inslee was a Gaia-send of a candidate for governor. As a congressman, Inslee had advocated for green energy projects, secured funding for bio-digestors and pushed for fuel efficiency standards long before President Obama arrived on the scene. In his race for the Governor’s mansion, Inslee called for a state-wide effort to combat climate change — calling it the foremost challenge of our generation. After he was elected, the national media speculated whether he would transform Washington into a giant carbon scrubbing machine or maybe install huge solar panels across the entire east side of the state.

However, the Washington Democrats tragically and suddenly lost control of the state Senate thanks to a pair of Democratic turncoats, allowing the Republicans to block Inslee’s legislative efforts. Instrumental to this effort to block the governor’s agenda was the new chair of the Energy, Environment and Telecommunications committee, Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale.

All legislation having to do with climate change had to go through Ericksen’s committee – a role he embraced. Rather than killing legislation outright, Ericksen would co-opt bills written by more environmentally-minded legislators and then strip out the teeth.

For instance, Sen. Kevin Ranker, D.-Orcas Island, introduced a bill to overhaul the Toxic Substances Fund which taxes companies that move dangerous chemicals, then uses that money to fund clean-up of spills across the state. The problem was the funds were difficult to access and access quickly. His bill (SB5201) would have streamlined the process, releasing those funds to legitimate clean-up agencies (ports, municipal bodies, etc.,) so they could begin hiring people immediately. “This effort is already paid for, it is just a matter of clearing the way for green jobs, environmental clean-up and the resulting economic growth,” said Ranker in an interview with The Political Junkie.

Ericksen, who had signed on as a co-sponsor of Ranker’s bill, decided to introduce his own version of the bill (SB 5296) with some key changes. Ericksen’s bill required that private companies be considered as recipients of the funds first, before municipal bodies. Therefore, if British Petroleum spilled toxins in Birch Bay, they could turn around and apply for taxpayer dollars to clean it up.

The other key change was that rather than expediting the process of releasing the funds from where they already were, Ericksen’s bill created a new fund, another layer of money shuffling before the clean-up could begin. Oh, and that new fund he created? Ericksen named it after his daughter, Elsa.

When pressed on the details of his bill by the Environmental Priorities Council, Ericksen dismissed their concerned as partisan sour grapes.

“The only reason it’s controversial is because a Republican sponsored it,” he said. “Environmental groups are concerned that a Republican is going to out-environmental them.”

Eriksen pulled a similar maneauver with Bill SB 5181, concerned with banning the toxic chemicals found in mattresses and children’s toys. Ericksen took the Democratic bill and gutted it so it only applies to two chemicals and children’s toys. When pressed on why, he simply responded that the Democrats will pass it, “Do they want to ban those two chemicals or not?” he said in an interview with Publicola. Ericksen’s weakened bill passed at the end of the 2013 session.

In an attempt to work through this blockade, the Governor created a special task force on fighting climate change and put Ericksen (and Ranker) on it. The Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup (CLEW) which hired a consultant and moderator, met for eight months in 2013 while the rest of the legislature went home. The workgroup reviewed a variety of program options and attempted to determine their economic costs. In some cases, cost could not be determined at the time and in other cases, the cost was stated as a range. This inability to nail down the costs is one of the Republican arguments for not moving forward. The Democrats, on the other hand, argue that inaction will be expensive in terms of impacts to our state’s shellfish, timber and winter recreation industries.

Since no consensus was reached, Inslee, Ranker and Fitzgibbon put forth their joint proposal in December 2013, and Ericksen and Short put forth their alternatives. Specifically, Ericksen and Short balked at moving forward on developing a system that would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases in Washington. They also grumbled about setting a low carbon fuel standard and the counting of out-of-state carbon emissions used to produce the electricity we consume. (The short hand for the last one is “coal by wire”).

With the workgroup fizzling out, Ericksen entered the 2014 session with the same perspective as the year before. This time, he went out of his way to showcase his opposition to Inslee’s climate change efforts. Ericksen invited the Heartland Institute to his hearing room in March 2014. The Heartland Institute is about the only organization out there that continues to promote climate change skepticism and previously worked with the tobacco industry to challenge the research demonstrating health risks associated with second-hand smoke.

If you are already on board with the idea that human activity is contributing to climate change, why invite the last remaining national skeptic into the room?

The Heartland speaker, Jay Lehr, showed slides that included graphics of an angel and devil and claimed that because plants have proven to do better with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, more of it is better for all of us. He depicted those concerned over global climate change as “environmental zealots” who “don’t like people.”

So why this hardline opposition to all Climate Change efforts?

Perhaps it has to do with his campaign fundraising. This year, Ericksen has raised more than $230,000 from corporate special interests, including over $45,000 from the fossil fuel industry. Ericksen defended his corporate fundraising in The Bellingham Herald, “Clearly I tend to be the limited-government, free-market candidate in this race,” Ericksen said. “Individuals and corporations who share that will tend to donate to me.”

Mild-mannered attorney and former City and County Councilman Seth Fleetwood is running against Ericksen this year. Fleetwood, who introduced the plastic bag ban for the City of Bellingham and was RE Sources Environmental Hero of 2013, would provide very different leadership in the state senate.

Fleetwood has made this corporate influence on legislation one of his top issues.

“My opponent can be relied on to always represent the corporate interests; they deserve a voice too, but a voting record should reflect independence, not sole allegiance to a particular group,” Fleetwood said on his campaign website. “In his 16 years in the legislature he’s gotten to know corporate lobbyists and donors too well, and his record reflects that. We’ve seen it on issue after issue whether it be oil trains, toxic chemicals or corporate tax loopholes.”

Our little slice of the world here in Whatcom does not always get the spotlight, but environmentalists state-wide will be looking to our backyard for the future of combating climate change and curbing corporate influence on that process. Let’s not disappoint.