Seattle’s City Council has unanimously voted to endorse the Seattle Green New Deal, which calls for the City to create and implement policies and programs that will “eliminate [Seattle’s] climate pollution by 2030, address historical and current injustices, and create thousands of good, green, well-paying, unionized jobs”.

This sets Seattle on a path shared by New York City and Los Angeles, both of which signed localized Green New Deal policies into law earlier this year. However, it will take a while for Seattle to catch up.

“We are not talking policies yet,” said Alec Connon of 350 Seattle, which spearheaded the effort for a local Green New Deal campaign along with Got Green. “Our current goal is to open up political space.”

Earlier in June, the organizations submitted a letter to both Mayor Durkan and the City Council, asking them to commit to taking more action to address the climate crisis.

Although Mayor Durkan released a Climate Strategy in 2018, she has remained mute on the topic of a Green New Deal. To date, Mayor Durkan’s signature effort was to increase the number of electric car charging stations citywide, an approach that Stephen Fesler of The Urbanist pointed out is “by no means a panacea to the environmental woes of Seattle’s transportation system.”

The City Council, on the other hand, replied to 350 Seattle and Got Green with both an approval vote and endorsement letter that among other things underscored the need for continued public pressure, asking community leaders to hold elected officials accountable for creating the “boldest and most visionary policies possible to meet the unprecedented crisis of climate change.”

“We have to double down our work, and then do even more,” said Councilmember Mike O’Brien during a press conference before the council vote in which he was joined by local and national climate activists including LaDonna Brave Bull Allard, founder of Standing Rock Sioux Camp, which attracted international attention for its protests against the Dakota Access pipeline.

Muckleshoot Tribalmember Rachel Heaton addresses crowd before Council vote on the Seattle Green New Deal. (Photo by author)

Referencing how her unborn daughter will be 31 years old in 2050, a date in which the global climate is predicted to be striking warmer if greenhouse gas emission do not decrease, Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda spoke with passion about the need to take action, imploring the crowd at City Hall to “rally around the urgency of now.”

Failure to meet climate goals

Both history and recent experience indicate that advocates for decreasing green house gas emissions will need to remain vigilant about demanding change. Last week the Trump Administration passed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, a drastically weaker replacement for President Obama’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. According to Vox, “[t]he ACE rule is part of a concerted, and largely futile, strategy across the Trump administration to boost coal.” Some experts contend that the increased air pollution resulting from the ACE rule could lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030. Thousands more people would also suffer from asthma and other upper respiratory infections, and of course, national progress toward achieving emission reductions would flatline.

As the Trump administration remains hostile to even acknowledging the climate crisis unfolding before us, states and cities are passing their own measures. Washington State’s 2019 Clean Energy Bill has some of the most ambitious carbon reduction targets out there, requiring that Washington power companies most eliminate coal power by 2025 and achieve 100% carbon neutral power sources.

While Seattle’s City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2013, the City has continued to fail to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. The most recent report released by the Office of Sustainability and Environment found that Seattle’s carbon emissions increased by 0.6% between 2014 and 2016. Citing population growth, the City touted these numbers as a win; however, it’s clear that if Seattle wants to remain an environmental leader, the City will need to commit itself to more robust outcomes in emission reduction, particular in the area of vehicle and building emissions.

Despite advancements in fuel economy, passenger vehicles remain the largest source of carbon emissions within Seattle. (Credit: 2016 Seattle Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory)


Seattle’s Green New Deal centers equity

One of the hallmarks of the Sunrise Movement’s Green New Deal was its centering of equity within its environmental policies and Seattle’s Green New Deal is no different. Environmental justice for low-income communities and the creation of living wage green economy jobs is a central part of the vision.

Additionally, when it comes to taking steps to create the actual policies that will constitute its Green New Deal, City Council has committed to “centering solutions from the communities most impacted by environmental issues–Black, Indigenous, People of Color and low-income communities.”

Alec Connon described how policies and programs could address pollution and contamination found in Duwamish River Valley communities like Georgetown and South Park that harm the health of residents, many of whom are lower income and people of color. These communities could be identified as “green zones” or areas that would receive high priority for investment.

Of course how exactly the Seattle Green New Deal will be financed is a question with massive equity implications. Activists have called for policies to be funded by progressive tax measures, a statement which has been echoed by the City Council as well, which has requested help in identifying progress revenue sources, a constant challenge in Washington State because of the statewide ban on taxing income.

Not surprisingly ideas for progressive revenue currently being floated include a progressive tax on big businesses, which is not being referred to as a head tax at this time. Other ideas include repurposing funds from the City’s general and/or rainy day funds, and placing a new tax on the use of natural gas for heating.

District 4 City Council candidate Shaun Scott, who has made addressing the climate crisis a cornerstone of his campaign, identified some additional possible revenue sources as well in an editorial for The Stranger. Scott’s ideas include a congestion tax, land value taxes, a tax real estate speculation, and increasing taxes on privately owned golf courses. Private golf courses are typically taxed at lower rates than residential properties, a situation vividly illustrated in Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History podcast episode, “A Good Walk Spoiled,” which describes LA’s history of letting golf courses remain off the hook from paying taxes.

Signs in central London alert drivers of congestion pricing. Seattle is currently studying implementation of congestion pricing in its Downtown, which could be a possible source of revenue for Green New Deal policies and programs. (Photo by Yoav Lerman )

Are cities responsible for addressing the climate crisis?

In a nutshell, current practices around land use and zoning in the US mean that cities will need to remain at the forefront of addressing climate change, even if a climate friendly government comes into power at the national level. That’s because most land use decisions related to density, transit, and walkability are made at the city and county level.

In his article for Governing, writer Pete Sauders argued that increasing density and transit are the keys to reducing carbon emissions and creating a new green economy. Citing how the urban form in the US currently “prioritizes land consumption,” Saunders described how the resiliency should be cities’ goal moving forward in an era of climate crisis. “Density and transit are often presented as lifestyle options that cities can elect to choose. But with climate change, they may become integral features of effective adaptation,” Saunders wrote before going on to describe how cities could also lead the way in developing new technologies that address specific environmental issues such as drought.

While Seattle has made progress in increasing density and transit, it’s clear that a lot of work remains to be accomplished. Seattle Green New Deal Policies will be entering public discussion in upcoming months. Whether or not the City begins to implement policies that actually have teeth will determine if the Seattle Green New Deal is the beginning of significant climate justice policy on the part of the City or just another feel good resolution.

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a non-profit that depends on donations from readers like you.

7 COMMENTS

  1. Green New Deal is essential but so is the city of Seattle responsibly enforcing its current Tree Protection Ordinance under SMC 25.11.090 which says ” Each exceptional tree and tree over two (2) feet in diameter that is removed in association with development in all zones shall be replaced by one or more new trees, the size and species of which shall be determined by the Director; the tree replacement required shall be designed to result, upon maturity, in a canopy cover that is at least equal to the canopy cover prior to tree removal. Preference shall be given to on-site replacement. When on-site replacement cannot be achieved, or is not appropriate as determined by the Director, preference for off-site replacement shall be on public property.”
    So ask the city where all those replacement trees are now, that this provision has been in place since 2001.
    As the Nature Conservancy notes “Trees and a healthy urban canopy are an important tool in our toolbox. Trees store carbon and filter air, reduce stormwater pollution, cool our urban landscapes and support social connections — all while providing habitat for our wildlife.’ http://www.washingtonnature.org/urban-trees-and-climate-change

  2. Tolling or taxing roads to get into downtown is another regressive tax that hurts the poor more. Don’t punish people who can’t afford to live next to their work. There are better solutions out there, try taxing new development or home remodels over a million dollars. I’m all for a green city, but what I’m not for is policies that move us backwards on social economic equality.

    • Rick,

      Congestion that blocks transit, bike lanes, and endangers pedestrians in sidewalks is also a form of a regressive tax.

      Preventing people from spending time with friends, at work, with family so that wealthy people can drive into the city (and make no mistake, the majority of single occupancy vehicles driving into downtown are largely wealthier residents. Taxing those residents to improve transit flow is PROGRESSIVE.

      New development is already taxed. Those prices are passed through largely to renters.

      There literally is no more progressive policy than congestion pricing that benefits those who can’t afford a car.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.