Can politicians of any stripe really go deep on sustainability?

(Editor’s note: This is a continuation of series of columns showing the challenges facing political leaders, especially those with a commitment to the environment and looking ahead to challenges like climate change. You can read the first part here. The new deep sustainability game for mayors is to provide the medium from which to push community shakers and thinkers into designing cities to be elegant in weathering climate change and unreliable energy supplies. I’ve seen Mary Verner open up before she was elected as Spokane’s CEO to discuss a community not just steeled to prevent catastrophes caused by climate change, but ready to tackle divides between the haves not and the haves who manipulate food, resources, human and social capital, and ecosystems for drives to make profit, environment be damned. Her background in environmental sciences, her Native American roots, and her Yale studies seemed to bode well for her to grasp the green economy for the 1 percent vs. the deep systemic change necessary for shifts toward a period of contraction and eventually post-carbon living. It was clear that she was between a rock and a hard place trying to transition Spokane away from “it can’t be done because we’re too small, too shallow economically, too steeped in the ‘pave over it or lose it’ mentality to make a paradigm shift.” For any mayor still steeped in classical-style politicking – getting powerful and monied backers behind them – the concept of deep sustainability seems almost impossible. Mary Verner expressed surprising beliefs in areas of ecological stewardship, transportation planning, energy awareness and community-based city planning with an eye toward smart growth/new urbanism. She’s still mayor until January, but her sustainable philosophy is emblematic of a politician with a little green creed navigating a mindset that looks at poverty as “what’s expected” and a belief among some that our monikers of ‘All American City,’ ‘Tree City USA’ and ‘Great Town to Raise a Kid In’ are “good enough.” Some Spokanites fight for a modern sustainable city, but they can suffer from anemia in terms of critical mass shift and ‘too little too late.’ Many I’ve talked to might be happy to trade Manito Park for decent industry, even a nuclear waste treatment plant, for some good jobs. “Near Nature, Near Perfect,” is one line shy of being ripped open by Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. In conversations with Mary Verner, it’s clear she was reluctant to take on a role higher than the middle-ground politician, fearful, in her own words, of being labeled a tree hugger for pushing too hard for stronger measures to shift to a sustainable future. She grappled with the expediency of winning votes in a town reluctant to approve any mayor’s second term. Spokane is a status quo and sometimes “return to the good old days” town in a globalized world where even one-horse towns must think strategically as climate change and energy instability dominate futures. Mayors may try to shape their communities’ ecological, social, educational, energy and cultural health while grappling with the free market’s “guiding hand.” What most mayors get or give are zoning codes, architectural tweaks, microcosmic plans or development models that seem to be on the order of sustainable practices. The battle line is between sustainable practices and strategic planning which are part of the process of scaling down resource consumption and energy vs. resources plundering industries, financial manipulators calling the shots and the ethos of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which denies climate change and sees the EPA or ecological stewarding as job killing and near socialism or communism. In her first term, Verner looked to the Post-Carbon Institute to help engage a community exercise to develop an action plan around climate change and energy resiliency. The plan ended up shelved in many respects. It involved “the volunteer efforts of 140 people to develop a Sustainability Action Plan to address climate change and peak oil,” she said. “The Plan articulates carbon emission reduction goals and strategies to reduce consumption of petroleum products. I and my staff aggressively pursued implementation of the Plan through water stewardship actions, drastic reductions in energy in City-owned buildings and the fleet of vehicles, and steps to reduce waste. Steps range from large-scale downsizing of energy-vampire desktop computers and printers to reducing the motor pool from 29 gas-powered vehicles to three hybrids. I’ve sent garbage truck operators to ‘green driver’ training and retrofitted toilets and faucets to use less water. The long list of ‘already green’ steps is moving us deliberately and decisively forward in reducing climate pollutants.” The problem with what Spokane residents want from a mayor is this – she/he must be part monseigneur, mother, major general, manipulator, magistrate, and motivator. Innovation, abstract thinking and thinking outside the box is dangerous for Spokane politicians. I’ll let Verner’s actual words speak to some of her green scorecard. She was willing to answer 14 sustainble-themed questions prior to the Nov. 6 election, which she lost to David Condon. Q. Mayors need time in the trenches to develop vision and philosophy. You’ve been in city politics, tribal politics and now mayor. What are the strengths and the weaknesses of this pedigree? A. I developed a low tolerance for game-playing in the workplace. As the years fly by and family and friends have passed on, I don’t take our time for granted and I want to accomplish something meaningful daily. When I know that someone is deliberately posturing, stalling, or grandstanding for personal or political gain, I grow impatient. Q. Politicians need to grasp the realities of the greening of our communities and campuses and a youth movement trying to put the brakes on past paradigms of economic prosperity. How much understanding do you have on movements to live smaller and work for deep sustainability? A. My understanding comes from my empathy with this movement and my desire to see it succeed. In past decades, there were attempts to accept growth as all-good, to regulate harmful effects of uncontrolled growth while allowing it to proceed, to mitigate impacts as if money and after-action could heal wounds, and more recently, to bicker whether damaging impacts are occurring. An entire generation has wanted instant gratification for bigger, newer, disposable, and endless material goods. Not learning soon enough that the big house came with great costs (direct, indirect, and collateral), we still have people wanting their own bit of that poisonous apple. As Mayor, I am able to help educate the community about those costs, and to redirect resources to better models of smaller, more compact, more convenient, more reusable, and more sustainably-sourced essentials of living. Q. What are the differences between sustainability, deep sustainability and greenwashing? A. To extract oil from shale and “oil sands” and call it “sustainable” because it’s a “domestic supply” is greenwashing. To reduce dependence on oil by changing habits, replacing gas engines with electric, providing more public transit, improving access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians is sustainability. Changing habits and behaviors by reducing travel needs beyond walkable/bikeable distance, because most functions of work, shopping, recreating, etc. can be met within walking and biking distance, is deep sustainability. I am involved in the latter two, taking seriously my responsibility to be genuine and effective to ensure long-term viability of Spokane’s quality of life.