General Conservation
Priorities for a Healthy Washington
- submitted by Tom Geiger from ESW organization Washington Environmental Council
My son Isaiah was born about the same time as the Legislative Partnership between Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters was established - the Fall of 2002. This partnership, working with the broader conservation and public interest groups, has worked to develop a list of winning priorities for the 2005 Legislative Session beginning January 10th.
Isaiah's future, and the legacy for all kids in the next generation will be improved because we are pushing priorities that will change people's lives for the better. At the same time, we all recognize that this work goes hand-in-hand with the creation of good jobs and a strong economy.
Recent legislative sessions have produced positive gains for old-growth forests, restoring streams and shorelines, attacking pollution, and reducing greenhouse gases. These ongoing achievements reflect the conservation ethic embraced by a majority of Washington voters. And they suggest our state's elected officials are paying more attention to their constituents.
Action on this year's Priorities for a Healthy Washington (listed below) will enhance our health and help preserve the treasures of the wonderful state we all call home.
Clean Air Through Clean Cars
Smart new technology allows cars to pollute less and save fuel. Eight states have Clean Car standards that provide a wider choice of cleaner cars, trucks, and SUVs than we have. Why shouldn't Washingtonians have those same choices? Clean Car legislation will ensure that new cars sold in Washington after 2008 use proven technology that reduces cancer-causing air toxics and global warming pollution.
Better Building for Sustainability and Efficiency
Facilities constructed with state money should be safe, healthy, and support our environment. That means using non-toxic and sustainable materials and design concepts. These buildings will save taxpayer money because the buildings are cheaper to operate; help conserve water and keep our air clean; and provide healthy environments that help students learn better and government workers be more efficient.
Sound Solutions: Saving Hood Canal and Puget Sound
Puget Sound is in trouble; much of it fails to meet basic clean water standards. The "dead zone" in Hood Canal represents a much larger problem. Unchecked development is polluting our marine waters and forcing many shellfish beds to close. Restoring and protecting our vital marine waters and ecosystems will provide safe recreational opportunities, promote clean water-dependent business in such areas as shellfish, fishing, and tourism, and enhance our quality of life.
Banning Toxic Flame Retardants
Scientists are finding chemical cousins of PCBs, the toxic flame retardants PBDEs, everywhere they look. PBDEs are in orca whales, ospreys, and even the breast milk of Puget Sound moms. Developing babies are most at risk, being exposed to PBDEs when they leach out of products and contaminate our home, food chain, and bodies. The legislature can protect our children's health and prevent the next PCB tragedy by banning all forms of PBDEs by 2006.
Washington State's environmental community is building bipartisan support for these essential priorities. The public overwhelmingly supports a new generation of protections for our health and this place we call home, and our elected leaders are starting to respond. Working together, we can create a model for the nation and true legacy for generations to come.
To learn more about how to become more involved supporting the 2005 legislative priorities, please see the upcoming events section below, which includes the 2005 Legislative Workshop on January 8 and Citizen's Lobby Day on February 17.
Posted in the January 2005 Earth Page
Earth Day 2004
Earth Day was established in 1970 at a time when social activism was at a high. U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.) recognized a growing environmental concern that had barely been addressed by the legislature. In setting aside April 22 to recognize human impact on the environment, Nelson hoped first and foremost to raise the awareness of politicians. He recruited a Harvard law student, Denis Hayes, to organize Earth Day observances nationwide. (Hayes now presides over Seattle's Bullitt Foundation.)
Nelson and Hayes achieved their goal. More than 20 million Americans participated in this first Earth Day celebration, causing voter-hungry politicians to take notice. The overwhelming response helped generate a new political focus on the environment. As that focus has become increasingly global, more people than ever are celebrating Earth Day around the world.
Earth Day is as important today as it was in 1970.
To get involved in helping our planet, consider attending one of many volunteer events this month (listed below and on the ESW website), hosted by Earth Share of Washington members. Or signup on our website for Volunteer Alerts, and we will notify you via email every time a new volunteer opportunity is posted to our site. The address to signup is http://www.esw.org/help/signup.html. Get involved this Earth Day!
Posted in the April 2004 Earth Page
Producer Responsibility Coming to Washington State?
- by Suellen Mele from ESW member group Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation
"My computer just died! I just bought the darn thing last year, and it's already out of warranty," complains Cal Consumer, a cartoon character featured in a new publication from Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation (WCRC). "Why isn’t there a better way to design this stuff so that it can be repaired and upgraded? Where can I take it to be recycled?"
Although Cal is a fictitious character, many residents in Washington ask the same questions.
Computers and televisions contain toxic materials such as lead and mercury, making them an environmental and health threat when improperly discarded. Some counties and cities already prohibit the disposal of this equipment in landfills. And large quantities of electronic waste intended for recycling are exported, dumped and recycled in unhealthy, unsafe conditions in countries such as China.
Who should be responsible for safely recycling this toxic electronic waste? Washington citizens want electronics manufacturers to step up to the plate!
Last August, WCRC conducted a random telephone survey of citizens in King County. 92% of respondents agreed that when electronics contain toxic lead and mercury, manufacturers should provide a safe and convenient way to recycle them. 94% said that corporations making electronic products should be responsible for designing them to be easily recyclable and less toxic.
"Manufacturer responsibility" has already taken hold in Europe, Japan, and parts of Canada, covering products ranging from electronics to paint to packaging.
Electronics legislation using a manufacturer responsibility approach has been introduced in Washington. House Bill 1942, if passed, will require manufacturers of computers, televisions and cell phones to finance and arrange the collection and recycling of electronic waste from their own products. The bill requires manufacturers to phase out the use of many toxic materials and replace them with more environmentally friendly substances. It also forbids landfilling while discouraging the export of hazardous electronic components.
This manufacturer responsibility approach has some incredible advantages. Environmentally-sound recycling programs for computers and televisions would be convenient and free of charge for businesses and residents, making it as easy to recycle a computer as it is to buy one. All this would be accomplished without raising taxes.
In addition, manufacturers would have a financial incentive to design "greener" products. When manufacturers pay to dismantle computers and dispose of toxic components, they design computers that are easier to dismantle and contain fewer toxics.
Want to know more? Go to www.wastenotwashington.org for information about manufacturer responsibility, the current legislation, environmentally-responsible places to recycle your computer, and survey results. To get a free copy of "A Citizen’s Guide to Producer Responsibility," featuring Cal Consumer and friends, contact WCRC at 206-441-1790 or info@wastenotwashington.org.
Posted in the April 2003 Earth Page
The Organic Food Myth
- by Dave Manelski
The growing demand for organically grown foods is transforming this previously small-scale, locally-based industry into global, corporate agribusiness. Fruits and vegetables that once came from as far away as the Skagit Valley, now span the oceans from distant destinations like Chile, Japan and New Zealand, at more of a threat to the environment than some might think.
As organic food goes mainstream, large companies like General Mills, Kraft Foods, and Heinz are beginning to embrace new USDA standards. This influx of large corporate suppliers is driving out smaller local farmers, unable to compete with the economies of scale afforded to global producers. Often forsaken on the road to growth are "best management practices," once the cornerstone of organic producers. Small sustainable farms have given way to large monoculture crops, which are consistently more energy & water intensive and highly susceptible to disease and pests. Perhaps the greatest myth to modern organic foods however, is that no petroleum derivatives go into production.
Food for thought (literally) as you sit down for a salad at your next meal: the lettuce you are eating could feasibly come from Japan, cucumbers from New Zealand, and tomatoes from Chile, all bearing the organic label. When you consider that a Boeing 747 emits about 220 tons of carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) on a trip from New York to London (according to the Edinburgh Center for Carbon Management in Scotland), the organic food you are eating seems far less environmentally sustainable than previously imagined. Throw in packaging, processing, and transport to and from grocery distribution centers and the picture becomes clear that modern organic food production is highly resource intensive, at a great cost to local farmers, communities, and the environment.
To be fair, the trend towards organic agriculture is not all bleak. Fewer pesticides and herbicides are entering the water supply and our bodies. Even large-scale producers are beginning to see the benefits of composting to enhance the soil.
What is the sustainable solution, you might ask? Answer: Support local farmers. Many local growers are working hard to protect the environment and provide the people of Washington with fresh, healthy, and nutritious food. While they might not be able to afford to get certified organic, they may very well farm organically and implement "best management practices." The only way to know for sure is to ask you local grocers where they get their food or to establish a relationship with local farmers. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), food co-ops (like PCC), and farmers markets are excellent sources for locally produced foods.
For a list of CSA’s check out Seattle Tilth’s website:
http://www.seattletilth.org/resources/csalist.html
For a 2003 list of Washington Farmer’s Markets click here:
Washington Farmer's Market Directory
While locally produced foods may be a little more expensive than their mass-produced organic counterparts, the value to local communities, green-spaces, and the environment is priceless.
Posted in the March 2003 Earth Page
Budget Crunch to Dominate 2003 Legislature
-submitted by Policy Director Josh Baldi from ESW member group Washington Environmental Council
The $2 to $3 billion state budget shortfall will dominate the 2003 Legislative Session, which kicks off January 13th. Environmental issues also will be debated within the broader context of continued concern over the state's economy, particularly as they relate to the hard hit agricultural sector and local government funding and stewardship responsibilities.
Earth Share of Washington member group Washington Environmental Council (WEC) is enhancing its effectiveness by launching a legislative partnership with Washington Conservation Voters. The two organizations have worked with the broader community to create a common list of priorities, including:
Budget: The unprecedented budget shortfall has significant implications for all environmental programs. At just 1.5% of the General Fund, natural resources programs historically have been cut at a rate disproportionate to other sectors of government. WEC will fight for critical program funding and advocate creative revenue ideas.
Regulatory Rollbacks: The economic downturn that began two years ago provided a catalyst for "regulatory reform" advocates. While there can be value in permit coordination and streamlining, regulatory reform efforts historically have been aimed at weakening existing environmental protections.
Mercury Pollution Reduction: An effort to phase out the use of mercury stalled in 2002. The effort will be redoubled this session to phase out use of this persistent toxin, which can harm human health and wildlife even at very low levels.
Transportation: See previous transportation article on life after R-51's defeat.
WEC's legislative agenda will extend to other key issues. One primed for success is improved shoreline protection. Securing $2 million in funding for local governments to revise Shoreline Master Programs and a schedule for compliance with the new state rule may bring closure to an acrimonious seven-year debate.
Water resources fall within the third year of Governor Locke's "Water Action Strategy," which is based upon his commitment to move forward the interests of people and fish, together, in increments over time. The governor will be under pressure from municipalities, the building industry and the farm lobby, all who want to expand water use without clear safeguards. WEC will work to ensure that any new benefits for water users are linked to stream flow protections.
WEC's anticipated efforts are rounded out by the following: support for energy efficiency and renewable resource performance standards for utilities; opposing efforts to weaken the controversial Forests & Fish law and supporting efforts to better manage the state's forested trust lands; opposing efforts to weaken the Growth Management Act; and, ensuring that any reforms to the state hydraulics code better protect fish.
If you would like to get more involved on these and other issues, please join WEC's GreenTree action system. Simply go to http://www.wecprotects.org/GreenTreesignup and fill out the signup form.
Posted in the January 2003 Earth Page
Residents Say Yes to Producer Responsibility in Washington State!
- submitted by ESW member group Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation
A telephone survey conducted for Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation found overwhelming support for producer responsibility by Seattle area residents. The survey was prompted by increasing public concern about toxics contained in computers and televisions and the limited options for recycling those items. Computers and televisions contain significant quantities of mercury and lead and are difficult to disassemble for recycling. Because of their toxic components, computers, monitors and televisions are in the process of being banned from disposal at landfills and incinerators in many communities in Washington and across the U.S.
The study found that Seattle area residents overwhelmingly believe that electronics manufacturers should be responsible for designing easily recyclable, less toxic products, and for providing a safe and convenient way to recycle those products. In addition, the study revealed that retailers have a role to play. Residents would prefer to take their used computers back to local retailers for recycling. The study also noted that when faced with a "pre-paid" recycling fee added to the cost of the product, residents are highly unlikely to adjust their buying habits. They will still buy their television or computer of choice. But they would prefer to have the recycling fee included in the overall price of the product, rather than presented as a separate fee.
WCRC will be releasing a new publication, A Citizen's Guide to Producer Responsibility, on November 1. The guide provides useful information and resources on the issues of electronics waste and recycling. Free copies of the guide are available by contacting WCRC at 206-441-1790 or info@wastenotwashington.org
Posted in the October 2002 Earth Page