Northwest Now Steve On The Street
Let's Go Washington
(upbeat music) - KBTC, a viewer supported community service of Bates Technical College. (upbeat music) From KBTC, public television studios into Como, Washington. (upbeat music) Welcome to the Steve on the Street podcast, a closer look behind the headlines. As public policy and current affairs impact the real lives of real people. - Hello, welcome to the Steve on the Street podcast. Produced by KBTC, public television, and it's public affairs program, Northwest Now. I'm your host, photojournalist and reporter, Steve Kigens. On the podcast today, we're talking about the upcoming election and the initiatives now placed in voters' hands. Specifically, recovering initiative 2117. So for background, the Climate Commitment Act of 2021 caps the amount of greenhouse gases industries allowed to emit and puts a price on those carbon emissions. The law laws businesses that exceed their emission caps to buy credits from other businesses that generate emissions below their cap threshold. The money raised by the CCA pays for clean energy projects, transportation projects and projects intended to help populations burdened by carbon emissions among paying for other programs. And all the CCA makes investments designed to slow or adapt to climate change. Initiative 2117 is a creation of Political Action Committee, Let's Go Washington. The pact collected more than 400,000 signatures by supporters and submitted the initiative to the legislature. Lawmakers declined to take action, so now voters will decide this November. Initiative 2117 repeals the Climate Commitment Act and prohibits state agencies from being able to deploy any mechanism that allows for the trading of carbon tax credits. Supporters of I-2117 say passage of the initiative would lower gas prices for consumers and help make many other essentials more affordable. Opponents say I-2117 harms clean energy and transportation projects across the state and does nothing to plan for climate change. The battle over this major state policy has been fierce. In early October, the Public Disclosure Commission rejected a complaint filed by Let's Go Washington that claimed the state violated campaign finance law, alleging the State Department of Commerce committed bribery when 700,000 Washingtonians received $200 rebate checks from their utility, paid for by revenue raised by the Climate Commitment Act. And just this week, the commission says Let's Go Washington violated state law when it failed to report the use of subcontractors to collect signatures and failed to report subcontractor spending. The Public Disclosure Commission fined Let's Go Washington $10,000. The PAC has little time to petition the commission to reconsider its order and could also appeal to a state superior court within 30 days. Next on the podcast, take a listen to Northwest Now's coverage where I met a group of activists in Seattle fighting to save the city's urban forest. (upbeat music) - He said, "Hey, I'm gonna do it." - Families in Seattle's Wedgewood neighborhood gathered this month sharing resolve to protect what makes Washington the evergreen state. Now all of these people. - Organized by tree action in Seattle, neighbors mourned the fate of multiple cedars slated for removal. Developers received city approval to cut down about a dozen trees behind this fence on a property near Wedgewood Elementary to make room for new homes. - I can't change what's happening next door. - Neighbor Susan Mills believes Seattle's newly updated tree ordinance is flawed saying future construction threatens our urban forest. She worries the project next door could injure the cedars in her own yard. - So this one here, and then there's a really big one in the back by our garage. And we realized that it was noted that the our trees were gonna be damaged by the construction. And the city again said, "There's nothing you can do." - You can go to-- - Sandy Shetler helps organize with tree action Seattle when development includes clear cuts. - They're standing up for trees in their own neighborhoods because we are seeing this kind of deforestation. - She says that's why Tree Action Seattle joined a large and growing coalition opposing initiative 2117. - I have no faith in their ability to administer $2 million. - Brian Haywood, the wealthy hedge fund manager sponsoring Let's Go Washington's initiatives laid out to support for I-2117 to the Seattle Times editorial board in August. I-2117 repeals Washington's landmark climate legislation that requires industry to reduce pollution and funds clean energy, air quality, transportation and many other projects. Haywood blames high gas prices and the legislation telling voters approving the initiative which power and money back into their own hands. But detractors warn the initiative derails the state's attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by mid-century. - We can't afford cuts to transportation. We can't afford the damage to our environment. And we can't afford to not have a plan to address climate change. - Groves are the answer to our climate resilience challenge. - Okay. - That's why Shetler rallies communities when trees are threatened and why Seattle Tree Action urges voters to reject I-2117. We cannot simply go back and think that that will solve the problem. - In Seattle's Steve Higgins, Northwest North. Portions of that report included sound bites taken from interviews conducted by the Seattle Times editorial board in August, which was televised by TVW. Next on the podcast, listen to the opening comments made by I-2117 supporter Brian Haywood, who founded Let's Go Washington and I-2117 opponents, state representative Joe Fitzgibbon from Washington's 34th legislative district and Rachel Smith from the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. (upbeat music) - This is all thank you for sponsoring this. You can appreciate it, appreciate the coverage. I think this is a really important issue in the state. My name is Brian Haywood and I sponsored and have been sort of driving this issue. Let's go Washington. The primary focus was to give voters a choice. And this isn't the only issue, but this one, if we've talked about specifically, we believe that there's a couple of things that were promised to the voters when we began. The Climate Commitment Act basically promised that it was not gonna be at a cost to consumers. It would change the famously said it'll be pennies if not make the cost go down. We would contend that it is, in fact, and was designed as a tax on commuters and on grocery shoppers, having anybody that uses any kind of heating or cooling in their house and anyone that buys anything that was carried on a truck. This was designed as a tax and the idea of the tax was to obviously reduce the consumption of fuel. Secondly, we were told that this was going to be the money that came from this that wouldn't cost you anything but the money that came from this would be used in a meaningful way to do good things for the environment, to reduce carbon and to improve the environment. And we believe that so far there's no evidence really that the no things that I can see, that they've shown there's actually been an improvement and the money that they're taking from this, which has in fact been a very regressive tax on commuters, the money that they've taken through this regressive tax is not being applied or used in a way that justifies the cost to the consumer. The third thing is we were promised transparency. I will tell you what we're gonna do. We'll tell you what the results are. We'll show you how effective this is and the Inslee administration in particular has been very terrible, I would argue, in this act of transparency. They've even shut down, as the carbon count has gone, up the carbon output has gone up, they've shut down the website that was tracking it. I'm sure maybe they had some issues, but if they've got those kind of issues, then I have no faith in their ability to administer two million dollars that they took in regressive tax from off the voters' backs. So our primary aim is not really to be anybody to submission or to pass a agenda, it's really to give the voters a voice. That's what we've done with all seven of the initiatives that I've been involved with. At the end of the day, the voters are gonna decide this. I'm not trying to buy, I'm not doing special interests, I'm not, I'm trying to give voters a voice. Is this worth what you think it's doing, what they said it's doing? Is it worth the cost to you? What every day when you get in your car, I think it's hard to deny it, I would love to have that conversation. Was this a tax or was it not a tax? It's hard to deny if you're a commuter, going back and forth, you haven't been impacted financially by this. Your groceries have gone up and you're hitting and cooling costs have gone up. And then, is it giving you the benefit that you expected? And finally, we're looking for transparency at how it's produced. - Okay, thank you. Well, thank you on behalf of our 400 coalition members for being your one two one one seven campaign for having us today and the opportunity to chat. I wanna start with why the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce is here today. And quite simply, our region and our state can't afford this initiative. We can't afford cuts to transportation. We can't afford the damage to our environment. And we can't afford to not have a plan to address climate change. Those stakes are frankly too high for our nearly 2,500 members and for the businesses that are a part of our coalition, Microsoft, Amazon, REI, AAA, BP and small businesses like Oregon neighbor to develop. Now, I think we all are here today because we're working on campaigns and we are here to persuade and I think we all have really strong opinions. But we're gonna try to spend our time today focusing on the facts, what we know for certain. And today, the facts are this. One, there will be cuts. There is no way around that, especially the transportation to the tune of about $5.4 billion. There's not an alternative plan. So in fact, there's actually a prohibition to an alternative plan. And three, it feels misleading to us for many reasons, including that there's no guarantee that it's gonna reduce gas prices. And frankly, it appears that the sponsors of this initiative knew that and that is why they went to court to keep the public impact investment disclosure statement off the ballot, which reads, this measure would decrease funding for investments in transportation, clean air, renewable energy, conservation and emissions reduction. One of your recent editorial said on climates that each of us has a role to play when it comes to climate change, including how we fill out our ballots this fall. We agree with that statement and I think we might have something to add. - Yeah, I mean, this unit I worked hard to pass the Climate Planning Act and have worked hard to pass updates, the modest updates that we've made to a sense of task and to invest the proceeds from the auction revenue wisely, first and foremost in transportation, but also in forest health and wildfire prevention and air quality monitoring and providing food insecurity in salmon recovery. Those investments are really important to our state. They're important to our health. They're important to reducing health disparities. The law wasn't perfect. I don't know that we've passed a perfect law yet in my time in office, but I think it was pretty good and I would compare favorably to any other state's efforts to construct a policy framework to fight climate change. Some of the things that I know that we still need to work on, there's no question that the exemption for transportation of agricultural products on our roads was not perfect. We didn't get that right when we first passed the law. We've tried. - We'll get into that. - Okay, well, I look forward to that. For me, that's at the top of the list of places where we still have work to do, and I think about the Growth Management Act which passed in 1990. I don't think there's been a year that's gone by since 1990 that we haven't made changes to the Growth Management Act in response to conditions on the ground and to try to make that implementation more successful. Lastly, our goals remain in law, even if this initiative passes, but if the initiative does pass, we lose the ability to use the market-based mechanism to fight climate pollution and we'll have to turn to more traditional command and control type regulations, which I think will be less economically efficient and we'll leave to where I want to go. - Thank you. (upbeat music) - The Seattle Times editorial board interview lasts for more than an hour. You can watch the interview in its entirety at tvw.org. Opposition of I-2117 has been ferocious. Tree Action Seattle is an organization part of an unprecedented phenomenon. It's one of more than 500 organizations and travel nations that have come together to oppose I-2117. Up next on the podcast, listen to an extended interview with Sandy Shetler, who organizes with Tree Action Seattle. (upbeat music) - Today's action was important because we wanted to basically answer the questions in the neighborhood because the neighbors, the whole community has been watching this project unfold. It unfolded in a really difficult way because there was an illegal notice put out about these trees. It said they were a lot smaller, they were just gonna be pruned. People got suspicious and then come to find out it's not pruning small trees, it's cutting down large trees. - And that's all on this side. - On this property and they're part actually of a protected grove. This is one of the largest cedar groves in the north end of Seattle. We call it a super grove because it spans basically the entire block contiguous canopy. Under Seattle's old tree rules, those kind of groves were protected. And to remove a member of the grove, which can destabilize the grove, they had to prove that they couldn't build the building any other way and go to some work. But now all lots can be clear-cut when houses are built because of the new Seattle tree ordinance that was passed in 2023. And therefore, this grove will likely be destabilized by the removal of these three enormous cedars. Thankfully, the actions of neighbors and the community did stop the removal of this very large tree right here at the front. We believe, because this was on the initial list that the developer put out of pruning, we believe that it was actually also going to be removed. It's more pretty clear than it was 'cause that's happened on other properties. - What happens next with council? It sounds like there might be some years that are open to some change in the ordinance soon, but that doesn't help for this project. - No, no, and actually, so the good thing is city council is listening and we've been hearing from different individual council members that they want to take this on. It's well known that we can build all the housing we need and save our trees. In Seattle, that's especially true because the trees are on the edge of the lots. It's in fill development, so it just makes perfect sense. What we're seeing now is there's this lot sprawl that spills the buildings to the edge of the lot, leaves the center kind of dead and paved, and you lose all your trees unnecessarily. So we are fighting lot sprawl. We believe that council is listening and they have committed to taking this up in December when the budget process is done, which they're working on right now. - Was this kind of like a day in the morning? - Yeah, it was, it was, when you get to that point when there's nothing else you can do, the neighbors love these trees and the neighbors have actually been fighting for these trees all year long, but this project was fell under the new ordinance. So because the application date was under the new rules which allow the clearing of all trees, neighbors really can't do much. They even tried to protect their own trees because this project will damage the roots of the neighbors very large cedars, but the city has not allowed sufficient root protection to protect the neighbors trees. So we fully expect that not only will all these trees be cut down, but the trees on surrounding properties will probably be damaged and possibly die in the next few years. Groves are the answer to providing climate resilience in modern cities. Having single specimen trees around, it's nice, but you do not get the scale of what a grove can provide. We always say a grove is greater than the sum of its trees, because if you took all those trees in the grove and you spread them out over a wider area, they would not sequester as much carbon, they would not live as long, they would not provide as many health benefits. They do all this because they are working together. They are stronger together, just like people are stronger together, trees are stronger together. Their roots interconnect, they protect each other from storms, and then they multiply each other's efforts in terms of economic benefits, environmental benefits. So they're amazing. Groves are the answer to our climate resilience challenge. Talk to me about tree action in Seattle. - Yeah. - And the genesis of that, where that lives today, the chance you've seen in what's next. - Yeah, so tree action in Seattle was really a community outpouring in response to the impending loss of a very large tree called Luma in Wedgwood that really inspired the community to the point that some people from the community climbed into the tree and refused to leave until the tree could be saved. The tree was saved actually as an archeological site to honor the snokwami tribe because it is a tree from their history. It was not saved because it's a beautiful healthy tree and we need more trees. So we cannot expect that that success can be replicated to save other trees. But anyway, out of that event, we grew tree action Seattle and we have a huge email list of people who are actively engaged. These are people who are willing to reach out to city leaders, they're willing to come to events. They're standing up for trees in their own neighborhoods because we are seeing this kind of deforestation in every neighborhood. And there's a big problem too with the new tree ordinance in that. It ostensibly was crafted to address tree inequity because our trees in Seattle are spread out inequitably, wealthier areas have more trees. But the dirty little secret of our new tree ordinance is that it's actually removing trees in urban heat islands and low canopy areas faster than it's even removing them here. So we've got an event next week in South Park and you'll see that there are only three trees left on this entire block of four large parcels. The trees are all clustered conveniently at the end. They're conifers, which are perfect for getting air pollution out of the air and protecting people. And yet even though they're conveniently located and they're healthy, there's a lot sprawl plan for that lot as well. So the new tree law does not protect either the trees we have or ensure trees for future generations. It doesn't protect wealthier neighborhoods with more trees and it does not protect poorer neighborhoods that have almost no trees. Everybody suffers under our new tree ordinance. - Was the genesis for tree action in Seattle the new ordinance or that was predated? - It actually was the new ordinance. And the reason is how that happened was that the new ordinance was passed and we were essentially just taken aback because we were so shocked that it was even worse than the old ordinance. So in our grief and despair, we started holding gatherings for these trees that we no longer had any hope of saving because of the, we knew that the new tree ordinance, there was no future for trees. So in that process of gathering people community to say goodbye to our trees, people realized they didn't want to just say goodbye. They wanted to step up and fight. - So why is it that tree action Seattle supports that no campaign? - Yeah, because our whole reason for being is to - Can you answer this question? - Yeah, exactly. Our whole reason for being is to support the growth of the relationship between people and trees because that is the only way that humans will survive on this planet, right? If all the trees disappeared from the planet right now, humans would go soon after. But if we all disappeared, trees would do fine. We cannot survive on this planet without trees. And 21 17 has saved a lot of forest land already. And it is also a vehicle to do further work to enable us to live sustainably with nature. As soon as we heard that we could sign on and as an organization, there was not a minute to discuss. We are all philosophically completely aligned with 2017 and very grateful for the work that's been done through the funds that have come through already. And we cannot let this go away. I struggle with the fossil fuels because I don't want people who have less to suffer more. But at the same time, I don't think that the way forward is to keep burning more of them. We need to do, take other action to ensure equity for all as we transition to a cleaner economy. But we cannot simply go back and think that that will solve the problem. So here we are at a crossroads for Washington State's Climate Commitment Act. It's now up to voters to decide the fate of our state's landmark legislation come this November. So thanks to Sandy Shetler, who shared an interview on Northwest Now's broadcast detailing tree action Seattle's goals. And finally, thank you. Thanks for taking the time to meet with me here on the "Steve on the Street" podcast. I recognize the effort and time you take to stay connected with Northwest Now's coverage. You're continuing to support just by listening. It's appreciated. Once again, I'm your host, reporter journalist, Steve Kegens from Northwest Now on KBTC Public Television. Until next time, cheers. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (gentle music)