Greenhouse emissions measure hits nerve

OLYMPIA – What proponents called a modest plan to help cities like Spokane cut greenhouse-gas emissions spawned a skirmish Tuesday between rural and urban lawmakers in the state Senate.

One Republican critic decried the proposal as Soviet-style rule; another said the best idea might be to move en masse to Idaho.

“We should not be mandating these kinds of things on the people of the United States of America,” said Sen. Mike Hewitt, R-Walla Walla. “This is unbelievable that this kind of stuff goes on.”

Senate Bill 6580 is an attempt to lay the groundwork for local land-use rules that reduce greenhouse gases. For example, it encourages denser development linked with mass transit as a way to reduce traffic.

Specifically, said state Sen. Chris Marr, a Spokane Democrat and prime sponsor of the bill, it would:

“Direct the state to find a way for cities and counties to gauge how land-use rules affect greenhouse gas emissions.

“Set up grants for cities and counties that want to get a jump-start on land planning aimed at reducing emissions.

“Create a group to suggest future steps.

Residents have a moral obligation to future generations to protect the planet, said Marr. “Sprawling development,” he said, is a key factor in greenhouse-gas pollution. Irresponsible growth, he said, puts neighborhoods far from schools, shopping and jobs – and leads to a lot of pollution and roads to maintain.

The bill is purely voluntary, he said, for cities and counties who want to get an early start on planning.

But Republicans see the bill as a slippery slope leading to more restrictions and fewer housing choices.

“Holy smokes!” said state Sen. Bob Morton, R-Kettle Falls. “You city slickers are going to come and tell my farmers and ranchers what size tractor they can have to till the land that produces food for all of us?” Such planning didn’t work in the Soviet Union, he said, and it won’t work here. “We need to be able to produce food, not lawyers for mitigation,” Morton said.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, of Spokane, said such worries are overblown. The bill is purely for cities and counties that want to do such planning, she said.

“I can tell you right now that my city and my mayor want to do this,” Brown said. For such cities who want to get ahead of the curve, she said, Marr’s bill “is a very modest way to give them a little boost.”

“Unless we begin addressing this today,” Marr added, “we won’t be able to stand and look our children and grandchildren in the eye.”

But Morton was hardly alone.

“I, for one, am not real thrilled about an opportunity for my children in the future in which they have their name on a hut in a village that they have to live in,” said Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield. The bill’s real agenda, he said, is to force everyone “to live in a manner which is pleasing to the government.”

“Let’s all move to Idaho,” he said. “Then maybe we can select where we want to live and how we want to get to work.”

Washington state produces just three-tenths of 1 percent of global greenhouse gases, said Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside. At best, he said, the bill would have an “infinitesimal” impact.

But Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, said that smaller lots and smaller homes are the future. Yes, he said, the 1950s saw a rush to big homes in the suburbs. But young families today, he said, often can’t afford to heat big homes. And when both parents are working, they don’t want big yards to maintain.

“The younger generation, they’re buying homes that are more compact,” he said. “They find it acceptable to live in condominiums. My generation may not have.”

To Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley, the bill smacks of hypocrisy.

“What I’m hearing is you’re going to keep your big house and the next generation, they get the small one?” she said.

Hewitt scoffed at Marr’s statement that the bill is voluntary. He compared it to seat belt laws, which gradually turned into something police could use to pull over drivers.

Marr told his critics he hoped his bill has as much impact as seat belt laws, which have saved many lives and much money.

“Responsible growth is not ridiculous,” he said. “Leaving the planet livable for our kids is not ridiculous.”

The bill passed, 31 to 18. It now goes to the House of Representatives for consideration.