In Washington state, we're justifiably proud of the natural world we are so fortunately proximate to. We've worked over the years to protect the close relationship between Washingtonians and our natural heritage. We have the nation's first carbon-neutral electric utility, the greenest commercial building in the world, an array of environmental laws that generations of Democrats and Republicans (once upon a time) fought to pass, and a strong tradition of drawing lines in the sand to protect our natural resources before desertification turns them all to, well, sand (except for those swallowed by rising seas, buried under mudslides, or incinerated by forest fires).
And yet as the evidence mounts and the numbers of people in our midst who have been catastrophically impacted rises, our action as a state has disappointingly and dangerously stalled. Despite legal requirements to reduce greenhouse gases to 50% under 1990 levels by 2050, the Legislature has failed to act. In 2012 voters elected Governor Jay Inslee, who has made the fight against climate change a cornerstone of his agenda. Unfortunately, two conservative state senators elected as Democrats switched sides to put Republicans in control of the Senate leaving Washington State the gridlocked mirror of Washington DC. As chair of the Environment Committee in the Washington State House of Representatives, I work to pass laws to move our state forward on climate change, and time and time again, see our efforts frustrated by the Republican Senate.
One of the most frustrating things about environmental activism is that clear science and intuitive logic should govern, and they don't. If we want to move forward, we have to accept that fact. To win, we have to play politics, too, and go beyond being outraged that climate deniers and climate agnostics and "not-a-scientists" are making laws that affect the future of our ability to live on earth.
When you spend a lot of time stuck in political gridlock, like we do in Olympia, you spend a lot of time wondering what causes that gridlock. Recently research provides interesting insights into this question. One revelation is that there is a structural difference between the two dominant political parties. Democrats are a broad and loose coalition of stakeholders who want to enact myriad individual policy reforms. Republicans are a group bound by a unifying drive for less government. These motivations help explain just how hard it is to convince, to work toward consensus, to agree to compromise. We are playing the game for different reasons, subject ourselves to different rules, and have a different definition of victory.
So what does this mean for the environmental activist? From my perspective as a state legislator, I can tell you this: myself and my Democratic colleagues are elected by that broad and loose coalition of stakeholders all competing for limited time and resources and attention. We need to improve K-12 education and expand health care access and enact progressive taxation and protect the environment. With so much to do, only some issues make the priority list at any given time. I go to work every day because I care and my constituents care about all of these issues, but my number one issue is the environment. For my colleagues it is health care or education or labor or consumer protection. My colleagues are the results of the broad and loose coalition.
When you consider these dynamics, it makes it easy to understand that politics is driven by those who show up. When political gridlock turns what should be a win-win for ecosystems and kids and green technologies and health disparities into a zero-sum game, we need to change the game. We need to work harder to be strategic and be unified with the rest of that diverse coalition whenever possible. When climate activists show up to demand action, we need to be specific with our asks, strategic with our goals, and coordinated with and responsive to other progressive allies such as labor, women's advocates, and communities of color.
Tomorrow, climate activists will take to the streets. Rallies in New York, in Seattle, and around the world will be a powerful testament to how passionate we are. But as activists for a safer climate, we need to do more than march in the streets. We need to march on the sidewalks of neighborhoods in swing legislative and congressional districts in all of our states, talking to voters to reelect those who have championed climate action and to defeat those whose intransigence is endangering our future.
P.S. If you want to help tip the balance in Washington and to determine whether Washington will demonstrate climate leadership or continue to stall out, these candidates deserve your strong support.
- Seth Fleetwood is challenging the climate agnostic chair of the Senate Environment Committee, Sen. Doug Ericksen, who refused to even grant a hearing to a bill regulating oil trains and ships.
- Irene Bowling is challenging one of the former "Democrats" who handed control of the Senate to fellow climate deniers, Sen. Tim Sheldon.
- Rep. Tami Green, with a long history of voting to protect human health and our air and water in the House, is challenging Sen. Steve O'Ban, who voted against legislation to improve oversight over the dangerous oil trains that pass through his district - legislation Rep. Green supported.
- Matt Isenhower is challenging Sen. Andy Hill, who single-handedly blocked efforts to close a $59 million tax loophole enjoyed by five oil refineries.