Just Where is Rossi on Global Warming?

Listening to Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's answer to a question on where he is on global warming leaves one wondering just where he is. It seems he really is nowhere. He says "There's still a lot of debate going on on this" and that "there's going to be a big debate the next 2 to 3 years" and that he "doesn't think anyone should panic"

Seem's he hasn't even talked with John McCain who says "the facts of global warming demand our urgent attention."

You can see an interesting contrast on McCain and Rossi 's take on global warming on a YouTube clip posted by the Washington State Democratic Party.

see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6uJQoUIGqk

Rossi's position on climate change really hasn't changed since he was in the Legislature. As Craig Engelhardt, Sierra Club lobbyist noted in the last gubernatorial race "Rossi voted against efforts to fight global warming: Rossi voted against a bill to create a privately funded Washington climate center that would research simple and innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. The center would have also helped identify what types of impacts climate change could have on Washington and what we can do about it. (SB 5674, 2001)"

David Postman in his blog yesterday has a misleading headline saying "Rossi warms to climate change" but then presents Rossi's doubletalk saying it's important to have clean air but his spokesperson says that he would have vetoed one of the bill's the Legislature passed earlier this year to try to reduce global warming. As Postman reports:

Rossi opposed "this year’s major legislative action on global warming. House Bill 2815 set up goals for carbon reduction, but does not fund those efforts. Gregoire signed the bill and has called it a major accomplishment.

Rossi, according to spokeswoman Jill Strait, would not have signed the bill. Strait said Rossi believes “we should focus on rewarding people, not punishing them.”

"The bill she just signed aims to use the power of the government to force people to cut vehicle miles traveled down to the level of 1980 in just ten years, and that is only the first step. Dino’s vision is based on personal freedom and engaging Washington’s creative economy. His plan provides incentives for people to use new, clean technology. "

The only problem is we've seen the free market approach that Rossi proposes. It does not respond to issues like global warming unless there is a personal cost attached to it. The cost of global warming is being passed on to the commons. The oil industry and coal industry and auto industry are extracting profits from their business interests but do not currently pay for the true costs of their industries. Besides pollution itself and dirty air affecting health we now have increased global warming which will affect everyone but which the producers who profit from their sales of coal and oil pay very little to mittigate.

The industries are operately in a profit motivated system that is passing the cost of their pollution onto the commons. The costs for pollution cleanup and global warming consequences are not being borne by industry but by the general public. The profit motivated free market system obviously does not adequately addreess the true costs to society of global warming and pollution.

This is where it is necessary for government to step in and change the rules because the consequencces are no longer just local or insignificant. A tax on carbon is one way to add the costs into the equation to address the true system costs of burning fossil fuels for energy. Investing this money in alternative renewable non-carbon energy systems is one way to correct the injustices and flaws in a free market system that puts individual profit above the common good.

It is obvious that Dino Rossi is not going to change the system to address global warming. The free market system has failed but Rossi continues to support the myth that individual consumers freely making choices will somehow do the right thing.

The free market system gave Americans SUV's and minivans to the exclusion of small cars and public transit. The free market mantra gave corporations the incentive to make mistakes as they attempted to maximize profits making large cars. They were wrong and now people are buying Honda and Toyota hybrids and companies like Ford are money losers.

We've had 8 years of Bush denying global warming on the national level and it would be a big mistake to put someone in as Governor who really doesn't see the problem and seems to be willing to say what he thinks the public wants to hear in a last minute election year conversion. The best gauge of what Rossi will do is to look at what he has or hasn't done regarding global warming to date. The record suggests that it would be a mistake to think he's going to do anything. Election year conversions are just another slick ad campaign gimmick.

Speak Up for Parks and Green Spaces in Seattle!

The Seattle City Council is soliciting public input into a new Parks and Green Spaces Levy for this November's Ballot. The first of three public "open house" meetings was held Monday at City Hall. Another one will be held tonight, May 14, 200 from 6:30 to 9:30 PM at the Northgate Community Center at 105010 5th Ave NE.

A third open house will be held Thursday, May 15, 2008 from 6 to 10 PM at the Rainier Community Center - Multi-Purpose Room at 4600 38th Ave So.

As the Seattle Great City Initiative notes:

The Seattle City Council has empaneled a Parks and Green Spaces Committee to assemble a levy package for this November's ballot, which will continue to fund investments in Seattle's green infrastructure. Critical to the success of this effort will be significant public turnout and input into the shape of the levy at the three public open houses that are listed below.

Whether it is shorelines or streambeds, tree canopy or playgrounds, please join us at one or all of these events to show that there is broad public support for this kind
of continued investment in the ecological, community and economic benefits that green space funding brings to our Emerald City. If you would like to send comments email parksandgreenspaceslevy@seattle.gov

The Seattle Times printed a commentary yesterday entitled "Satisfying Seattle's Passion for Parks". It was written by Tom Rasmussen, who Chairs the Seattle City Council's Parks and Seattle Center Committee and Richard Conlin who is the Seattle City Council President. They note that:

After eight years, the current Pro Parks Levy will expire in December. The levy has been a great success: It enabled the city to acquire 42 acres of open space, including 15 new neighborhood parks, and funded 70 park-development projects, including habitat restoration, athletic-field improvements and city trails. ...

On April 21, we established the Parks and Green Spaces Levy Citizens' Advisory Committee to develop a list of potential park, recreation and open-space projects to be funded by a continuation of the levy.

As the City Council considers a new parks levy, quality of life will also be at the forefront of our minds. By design, Seattle is working for more housing within the city limits in order to protect Puget Sound's forests, farms and wildlife. In return, we must offer residents more green space and better facilities for recreation, contemplation and getting outdoors.

Rasmussen and Conlin note that a recent poll the Seattle City Council commissioned showed strong public support for continuing the ProParks , with 65% of the polled respondents saying they would support an extension of the levy to "fund improvements to existing parks and the acquisition of new neighborhood parks, green spaces, play fields and trails."

Angela Galloway of the Seattle PI last month posted the poll questions and detailed responses on the PI's Strange Bedfellows blog.

The continued fight over trying to save some 80 large Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle this week found 8 of the 9 Seattle City Council members, including Rasmussen and Conlin urging the Seattle School District to pursue an alternative design for their classroom addition that would save the 50 year old evergreen trees from being destroyed.

Obviously if funds were available one alternative would be for the City of Seattle to buy the development rights to the west grove of trees and preserve it as a green area for the school and neighborhood. There is also an east grove of trees at the school that has been seriously looked to be cut down for additional unneeded parking and possibly as a building site. This area also needs to be looked at for either purchasing development rights or out right purchase.

It is obvious that the Seattle School District and Seattle School Board is giving preserving green space on its school campuses a very low priority. Most in city schools across the country would love to have the green in city forested area that is present on the Ingraham High School campus. It seems the school district here is still following in the footsteps of those past school board members who in the past saw some value in paving over school playground space with asphalt, which many schools in Seattle still have an over abundance of while having a deficit of grass and shrubs and trees.

Eight Seattle City Council Members Sign Letter Urging Seattle School Board to Look at Alternative Design for Ingraham High School

Eight of the Nine Seattle City Council Members yesterday signed a letter urging the Seattle School Board to look at alternative designs to cutting down over 80 trees on the west side of Ingraham High School. Ingraham High School is currently considering adding an addition to the west side of the high school to replace a number of old portables that will be taken down.

One alternative site is on the north side of the high school and would not require that any large trees be cut down. It is currently listed as a possible site for a future addition to the high school as part of the school’s long range plans – so it is certainly a viable alternative.

Below is the e-mail sent out by the eight Seattle City Council members as well as some links to previous coverage of this issue and a link to the Seattle Public Schools website link on the Ingraham High School Construction Project. Last Friday the Seattle Public School’s issued a Revised Checklist and (another) Determination of Nonsignificance for the Project.

While the Seattle School District added some more mitigation in the form of planting more trees on the campus, they still do not do a biomass or CO2 fixation analysis that determines how many small trees are needed to compensate for even one large 50 year old, 100 foot tall Douglas fir tree.

With 50 plus years of growth the majority of the Douglas fir and western red cedar trees proposed to be cut down are well on their way to being trees of significance in Seattle. Somewhere the continued cutting down of large trees in Seattle has to stop. The tree cover in Seattle in 1972 was listed as 40%. Last year it was 18%.

From: Richard Conlin
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:36 PM

To: cheryl.chow@seattleschools.org
; harium.martin-morris@seattleschools.org
; mary.bass@seattleschools.org
; michael.debell@seattleschools.org
; peter.maier@seattleschools.org
; sherry.carr@seattleschools.org
; steve.sungquist@seattleschools.org

Subject: Ingraham H.S. Plans for Expansion

May 12, 2008

Seattle Public Schools
School Board
PO Box 34165, MS 11-010
Seattle WA 98124-1165

Dear Board Members,

As members of the City Council, we are writing to request that the School Board take a closer look at plans to expand Ingraham High School. We recognize that the authority to determine a design rests with the School District and School Board, but we have concerns about the proposed plan. We therefore want to communicate those concerns and ask that you consider them as you move forward with this important project.

Our primary uneasiness rests with the loss of most, if not all, of the sixty plus Douglas Firs and some twenty-two Madrona trees that we understand will be cut down under the proposed design. We would like to encourage you to consider alternative designs that might preserve these important assets.

It is important that we maintain and increase our tree canopy, not only to honor the esthetic that our residents know and love, but in order to carry out our responsibility to prevent global warming and to maintain a healthy environment. Stands of mature trees are the lungs of our ecosystem; they provide important benefits to our drainage systems and creeks. In 2007 the City launched an Urban Forest Management Policy to preserve and maintain our tree canopy. Unfortunately, we are rapidly running out of available green space; and, despite our commitment to maintaining the urban forest, trees like those on your property too often are cut.

The loss of mature Madrona and Douglas firs cannot adequately be compensated for by planting young trees. As a City that recognizes its responsibility to future generations, and as a city that has made urban density a goal, we must not lose the opportunities we have to keep existing natural areas.

The City Council has received a significant number of emails and calls opposing the removal of these trees. We believe that it is quite possible that an alternative exists which would give the School District what it needs without losing a valued feature of the community and a precious environmental resource to the City.

We offer any assistance that we could give to work with you to find the right answer for the School District and the community. We sincerely hope that you will take our concerns into consideration.

Sincerely,

Council President Richard Conlin
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Councilmember Sally J. Clark
Councilmember Jan Drago
Councilmember Jean Godden
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Nick Licata
Councilmember Tom Rasmussen


Council President Richard Conlin
Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2
PO Box 34025
Seattle, WA 98124-4025

(206) 684-8805

Additional information by Majority Rules Blog for this post::

Ingraham High School Renovation, Demolition and New Construction Project – Seattle Public Schools

http://www.king5.com/video/index.html?nvid=234572 – King TV Video

Neighbors near Ingraham High School Fight to Save Evergreens – Seattle Times

A Growing Contradiction at Ingraham High – Seattle PI

Correcting the Public Record on Ingraham High School – Majority Rules Blog

Seattle School Board Wins Grinch Award – Majority Rules Blog

Neighbors Urge Seattle School Board to Redesign Ingraham High School Project – Majority Rules Blog

King Co Executive Ron Sims, Senators Ed Murray and Ken Jacobsen Sign Petition to Save the Trees – Majority Rules Blog

Seattle School District Says Cutting Down 62 Evergreen Trees in City is Not Significant – Majority Rules Blog

Correcting the Public Record on Ingraham High School

Last Friday I attended the BEX (Building Excellence) Programs Oversight Committee that is supposedly helping oversee the latest construction projects being done by the Seattle Public Schools. I went to correct errors in their meeting notes from a previous meeting. I was graciously given an opportunity to present my concern regarding the lack of public involvement in siting and designing the Ingraham High School Construction Project that is moving ahead to cut down 62 large Douglas Fir and western red cedar trees, most over 50 years old and many over 100 feet tall, as well as up to 22 madrone trees

While the committee was responsive to realizing that there was a lack of public notification and involvement on the front end, their response seemed to center on the fact that they needed to do a better job in the future addressing public involvement and environmental concerns. The present situation seems to be a classic group think process. No one seems to want to be the one to say maybe they need to look at alternative designs because that would stop the forward momentum and no one wants to be the one to say now that maybe they messed up and they should step back and site the project on an alternative site.

It doesn't matter that it is now obvious that no alternative designs or sites were seriously considered. In fact at the August 27, 2007 Ingraham High School Design Committee meeting #2, the recently published minutes have the statement that "Building Scheme A with new addition at the west end is preferred."

When I recently asked to see any blueprints or budgets or even serious sketches of alternative designs to the west addition, I was told that none were available. A formal request for alternative designs and budgets to the Legal Department of the Seattle School District brought the response that none exist.

Ironically the guy dealing with the environmental review process for the Seattle School District is Ron English who reminded me recently that he was involved in defending WPPSS's (Washington Public Power Supply System) building its 5 ill fated nuclear power plants many years ago. Back in 1981 when he was an attorney for WPPSS, I was the sponsor of Initiative 394 to require that there be a public vote before they could issue more public bonds to be paid for by ratepayers to continue building the projects. The initiative required for the first time that WPPSS do cost effectiveness studies on the projects to determine whether or not there were cheaper alternatives to generating energy than building all 5 plants. This was something WPPSS never did before starting to build its 5 nuclear power plants.

In some ways the Seattle School District, while much more benign than WPPSS, has approached building the new addition to Ingraham High School in the same secretive way WPPSS went about building its nuclear power plants. The Seattle School District did a non public design review process. It started last year with the Ingraham High School Principal selecting a few teachers and a couple of parents to meet with consultants and Seattle School Administration people to sit on a school design team that was involved in selecting a site and design for the new project. The design team did not hold public meetings or seek public input. It was only in March, 2008 long after the meetings were held that brief notes of the minutes were posted on the school's website. The meetings started back in July of 2007.

Neighbors, other community members and concerned citizens were not given a chance to give input on the project or even follow its progress until after the site was chosen and the architectural firm had drawn up the blueprints. When neighbors first heard what was happening - that the school design team, consultants and Seattle School District Administrators had made their decision - they were basically told it was too late to look at any alternative designs or question the decision of the in-house committee. The first public neighborhood meeting was on March 18, 2008 the day before comments were due on the Environmental Checklist that was used to reach a Determination of Non-significance by the School District's in house environmental Lawyer, Ron English.

The parallels with WPPSS are obvious to me- they did not seriously look at alternatives, either in terms of environmental costs or for comparison of building costs. They only seriously considered one site, the same as WPPSS only considered building nuclear plants. WPPSS treated its ratepayers the same way as the School District did in this process - WPPSS allowed them the opportunity to respond after the meeting was over and the Board had taken their votes on agenda items. It was obvious that the public's opinion did not matter.

Being given an opportunity by the Seattle School District to make comments after the site and design decision is made allows for only token public involvement. We repeatedly hear the argument that we've already spent money to come up with a design and we don't want to waste it by looking at alternatives now. WPPSS made the same kind of argument, as they continued to issue more and more bonds for what eventually became the largest municipal bond default in US history. Continuing to spend more money does not make the original decision any more right. Being unwilling to re-evaluate projects as to their feasibility and desirability as concerns arise is a sign of rigidity and a shirking of public responsibility. Saying we will do better next time does not make it right this time.

The following is the letter I submitted to the BEX committee. Originally it by some committee members was suggested to add the letter to the meeting minutes but the representative from the UW sitting on the committee thought that was going too far since I was advocating a position (they aren't?) and got the committee to agree to only amend the minutes. Heaven forbid if the public read what I had to say at a public meeting of a committee of the Seattle Public Schools. Anyway here's the letter:

Correction needed to Meeting Notes
of March 14, 2008 BEX Programs Oversight Committee

Under Project Updates for Ingraham High School it says “Numerous community meetings were held.” This is not true. No community meetings had been held to this point. The first community meeting anyone heard of was a March 18, 2008 open house and it was poorly attended because of a messed up mail program that sent a few people 29 copies each of the meeting notice and the rest of the neighbors got no notice, including those right across the street from the proposed construction site. A second and final meeting was held April 24, 2008. These were all after a design and site had already been picked without community involvement.

At the April 24th meeting four sites were noted on a map, on the north, east, south and west side of the school. This was the first time neighbors and others in the community heard any discussion of other sites besides a north site mentioned in the geophysical report and dismissal of the north site when neighbors asked why it was not being considered. Besides the site in the west grove of trees, the site on the east side was in a second grove of trees, while the south site was where the tennis courts are and the north site is actually on a grassy lawn that does not require any large trees to be cut down.. So to say that “even more trees would have to be removed if another location had been selected” is also factually wrong.

It is important to note that over 700 citizens have signed a petition asking that the school district build on an alternative site like on the North side of the school that does not require destroying 62+ fifty year old 100 foot tall Douglas fir and western red cedar trees, as well as up to 22 madrone trees. The tree cover in Seattle was listed as 40% in 1972 and last year was 18%. The Douglas fir madrone forest area on the west side of Ingraham is becoming rare in the city and destroying over half the forest would be a loss for Seattle and the school district that is not necessary.

What is strange here is that the North site is actually discussed as a building site for Ingraham in its long range plans. The community and neighbors are upset that they were excluded from the process and are still viewed as only a nuisance. Yet the public that was given no chance to be meaningfully involved in a timely fashion are the ones who will be paying off the bonds for the projects.

Groups like the Haller Lake Community Club, the Seattle Community Council Federation and the 46th District Democrats have all taken positions questioning the lack of community involvement, opposing cutting down over half the forest area and supporting an alternative design. Signers of the Save the Trees petition included King County Executive Ron Sims, Washington State Senators Ed Murray and Ken Jacobsen and State Representatives Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Kenney.

Support is strong for preserving the trees and the public does not understand why the Seattle School District seems to think they can destroy so many trees and think it is not significant or that they did not feel the need to consult with neighbors and others before going ahead with a design that significantly destroys so much of a unique urban forest, significantly altering both a school campus and the neighborhood.

The Seattle School District needs to step back and give an alternative design serious consideration or it stands to lose serious credibility as a responsible member of the larger community. Building on the current proposed site will destroy many trees that have been growing for over 50 years and that given time will be exceptional trees, Just as educating students takes time, trees do not reach maturity in just a few years. And serious questions exist as to the viability of the remaining trees because of possible severe root damage and changed wind dynamics at the site.

The Seattle School District has an opportunity to step back, take a second look and act in a more environmentally responsible way. It is not easy to do that but it would set a great example for Seattle students to see the Seattle Public Schools change course and adapt to changing times, needs and circumstances and put a greater emphasis on preserving our natural habitat in which we live. It is a great lesson to impart to our future leaders – that it is possible to change course and be more environmentally conscious and responsible.


Steve Zemke
Save the Trees
2131 N 132nd St
Seattle, WA 98133
www.MajorityRules.org/blog

dated Friday, May 9, 2008

View KING 5 News Coverage of Save the Trees

Efforts continue to save 62 old Douglas fir and western red cedar trees at Ingraham High School in North Seattle. The trees are in a grove of about 120 trees on the west side of the high school.

The Seattle School District decided to design a new classroom addition to replace old portables on the campus without involving neighbors or others in the community. Instead Ingraham High School Principal Martin Floe selected an in house group of administrators and teachers and other school affiliated people to come up with a design. No effort was made to reach out to neighbors or the local Haller Lake Community Club to let them know the design process was going on, to ask if anyone wanted to be involved or give input from the neighborhood.

It turns out that they never priced out or looked at any other designs besides the site the architect who designed the school in 1959 suggested in 1959. Since then a large grove of 120 some trees, including 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees have thrived in the area and created a unique park like setting on the west side of the school.

Back on Arbor Day last month King 5 TV did a segment on the controversy. You can view it by going to KING 5 VIDEO.

Since the session aired the Seattle School District has withdrawn their original determination of non-significance and have completed a second draft of the Environmental Checklist. They will soon issue a revised draft for comment and this will represent another opportunity for neighbors and Seattle residents to question the need to cut down some 62 large Douglas fir and western red cedar trees when an alternative site exists on the North side of the school to build the new classrooms without cutting down any trees.

You can help to stop the destruction of these trees by sending an e-mail to the Seattle School Board members telling them you oppose cutting down the trees and that they should come up with an alternative design. Our tax dollars pay for the Seattle Public Schools. We have every right to demand that they spend them in an environmentally sound way and do it in a manner than protects our urban forested habitat.

In the last 30 years we have lost some 50% of our tree canopy in the city. It is absurd to keep cutting it. And the Seattle School District and Seattle School Board have a viable alternative to cutting the trees down. The Seattle School District actually shows the North site as available for possible future expansion. What a terrible lesson the Seattle School District is giving to our students.

McCain and Clinton Pandering to Voters

Give Barack Obama credit for the straight talk, not John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Obama has refused to climb aboard the crazy train of his opponents in both parties suggesting that cutting the Federal tax on gasoline this summer makes sense. It doesn't.

Gasoline usage is price sensitive. Cutting the cost for the summer by suspending the Federal tax of 18.4 cents will not lower the price because the same fixed amount will be available and oil companies will merely raise the price to take advantage of customer demand. Any decrease in prices will be very short term.

The oil companies have no qualms about raising prices. They continue to rake in record profits at the expense of American car and truck users. Republicans in Congress, and President Bush with his threatened veto power, continue to support the oil companies making record profits at the expense of the American economy and American consumers.

And the bulk of the profits raked in don't even go for producing more oil or alternative energy. For example, as Yahoo.news reports:

"Exxon posted record earnings of $40.6 billion in 2007, with revenue higher than the gross domestic profit of Turkey, the world's 17th-largest economy....
The company has been criticized by some analysts and investors for laying back on capital spending while going full bore on share buybacks.
Exxon spent $31.8 billion to buy back shares in 2007 while shelling out $20.9 billion for capital expenditures."

Exxon Mobil reported today that they raked in another $10.89 billion in first quarter profits this year.

So American consumers are shelling out their cash so that companies like Exxon can but back their stock. It's absurd. At least Hillary Clinton proposes that the oil companies be hit with an excess profits tax to pay for her proposed summer tax cut. John McCain does not even support that and says he would cut elsewhere.

Democrats tried to pass legislation to end special subsidies to oil companies but Republicans held fast and stopped legislation passing. Democrats wanted the subsidies to go for funding alternative energy programs like wind and solar, which would help to reduce global warming impacts from carbon fuels. Instead we are left with no approval of existing incentives for solar and wind energy which expire at the end of this year.

And where was John McCain when votes were taking place to pass an energy policy to reduce dependence on carbon fuels and reduce global warming. AWOL - see excellent article by Grist on McCain's missed votes in Congress, rightly pointing out McCain's professed concern about climate change action is more hot air than anything else.

see also
Dumb as we Wanna Be - New York Times
The Gas-Guzzler Gambit - New York Times editorial
Summer Fuel-ishness - Seattle Times editorial
Clinton Gas Tax Proposal Criticized - Washington Post