CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE: The missing link!?!

The State of Washington excels in the realm of taking on the challenges of climate change. We are, in fact, the "Evergreen State". Our natural beauty triumphs over many other places and states in this country and the world. Our legislature has reflected this sentiment in a number of bills being looked at this session. Lofty goals including an integrated strategy by state agencies for adaptation (SB 5138), a state-wide "Cap and Trade" program (SB 5735)to reduce industrial pollution, and provisions for small wind-energy (SB 1008) are just a few of what's being looked at.

We're also encouraged to "think global, act local" in our daily lives. By using alternative commutes, reducing energy consumption, and making lifestyle choices which reduce our individual carbon footprints.

However, there appears to be a "missing link" which most of our communities need to recognize. One which our state rule-makers and most local jurisdictions have dragged their feet to discover appropriate solutions: The impacts of creeping sprawl and accumulative low-density development upon our rural landscapes. Of all the work that has been done, none is more necessary than equipping local government planners and rule-makers with tools to evaluate the impacts of this kind of development. The current rules, including the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was written long-before "climate change" was on the lips of the masses, and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), written before sea-level rise was even remotely studied. Neither of these Acts expressly address climate change and the effects of the type of development previously described. The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) is equally silent.

Tools are needed now to look at effects of individual development. This may be through calculating the carbon footprint of each development and prescribing off-sets. King County and the City of Seattle have taken steps in this direction. Pilot projects (which the State has proposed) may not be enough. Amendments to the Growth Management Act may not be enough. A new, enlightened, comprehensive approach is needed if we hope to combat what the EPA is now calling a "danger to public health and welfare." Our missing link is not found at the state level, or our individual lifestyle choices, but the unsustainable practices found in our local and community forums.