On the surface, a Republican-backed effort that passed the state Senate last week is designed to reduce carbon emissions from the state’s utilities. But a little digging reveals a debate that goes much deeper.
During negotiations over Senate Bill 5735, which passed 26-23 with a little Democratic support, a battle of amendments erupted over some politically charged language. Eventually, the legislation included a clause finding “that climate change is real and that human activity may contribute to climate change.” Democrats had sought an unwavering statement that human activity does contribute to climate change, a certitude most Republicans were not prepared to embrace.
Oh, the debate did not devolve to the level of silliness represented by U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who last month brought a snowball onto the floor of the Senate to refute the notion of global warming. The idea: If there is snow on the ground, then global warming must be a hoax. The fact that Inhofe is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is, as The Washington Post wrote editorially, “a national embarrassment.” But while our state’s climate discussion has not devolved to Inhofe-esque levels, last week’s debate did point out some sharp political divisions.
Senate Bill 5735, which now moves to the House of Representatives, is crafted to give utilities some flexibility in meeting the dictates of Initiative 937. Passed in 2006 with 52 percent of the vote, I-937 mandates that large public utilities must increasingly generate power through renewable resources — not including hydroelectric power. By 2020, 15 percent of a utility’s power must be renewable.
State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, who introduced SB 5735, said, “Utilities have been forced to purchase renewable energy they did not need to meet their load base, and have been selling low-cost hydropower to other states.” Ericksen also told The Bellingham Herald: “This is an energy plan for Washington state … and the end result is, we’re going to produce less carbon.” The bill would give utilities credit for every half-metric ton of carbon that is reduced from its emissions, easing the requirements regarding renewable energy. Sens. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, and Ann Rivers, R-La Center, ended up voting for the proposal; Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver, voted against.
SB 5735 has some merits and stands as a response to Gov. Jay Inslee’s call for reducing carbon emissions in the state. Those facts should overshadow the debate over semantics of whether humans cause climate change or may cause climate change. Sen. Cyrus Habib, D-Kirkland, supported the stronger language, arguing: “Why have a bill? The whole point of reducing carbon emissions is to reduce the impacts of climate change.” Yet, that is where political ideology can serve to obfuscate the substance of the discussion. In truth, the whole point of reducing emissions should be to help the environment through limiting the extraction of nonrenewable sources and through reducing the use of fossil fuels.
That fact is all too often ignored. Whether or not a vast majority of climate scientists are correct when they say human activity has resulted in such change, the reality is that steps can be taken to reduce our impact on the environment. The reality is that positive measures can be embraced simply because there is no harm in embracing them. Sometimes when it comes to the environment, lawmakers and citizens should simply do the right thing. And that is the truth that lies beneath the surface of this debate.
