OLYMPIA, Wash. -- In the final week of the legislative session, Washington state lawmakers are considering expanding the Clean Air Act to regulate mobile sources of pollution.

The Clean Air Act Authority bill is the result of a state Supreme Court decision in January, which ruled that the state can't regulate indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including sources in the transportation sector such as the fossil fuel industry.

But Rebecca Ponzio, director of the climate and fossil fuel program for the Washington Environmental Council, says the Supreme Court emphasized that climate change is a crisis and that the Legislature could change the Clean Air Act.

"Right now, the state doesn't have the authority to deal with all air pollutants, and this bill would give that authority to the state so that we can all have cleaner air -- no matter what the source is," she states.

The fossil fuel industry argues that the bill will be costly for energy producers and consumers. The 2020 session is scheduled to adjourn on Thursday.

Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds, a family physician in Seattle, says a lot of the air quality health risks in Washington are due to the transportation sector. He maintains improving air quality would reduce health costs and offset any costs associated with this legislation, noting that pollution also endangers people's lives.

Covert-Bowlds says he sees in his office the risks from poor air quality, especially during the summer when more people are driving.

"Young children coming in wheezing and short of breath," he points out. "It really breaks the heart when I see little kids suffering due to bad air quality, and I've seen that a number of times."

Covert-Bowlds says the bill also provides an increase in carbon-sequestration opportunities, which could add forestry jobs to rural areas of the state. He notes that rural communities often cluster around one main street, which can expose residents to a lot of transportation pollution and hurt air quality.

A new study from the University of Maine found the nation could reduce the amount of seafood it imports and still meet consumer demand.

Americans ate roughly twenty pounds of fresh, frozen or canned seafood per person in 2021 but roughly 80% of it was imported.

Joshua Stoll, associate professor of marine policy at the University of Maine, said the effects of climate change on marine populations may force consumers to shift to a more regionally sourced diet.

"I think what we consume from a seafood perspective today may not be what we consume in the future," Stoll projected.

Stoll pointed out some species may leave the warming Gulf of Maine, for example, while new ones arrive. He argued by focusing on species such as herring, anchovy and other less consumed fish, the U.S. can create a more sustainable seafood supply. Critics noted Americans may not be easily persuaded to give up their seafood on demand.

Still, increasing domestic production of seafood will not only benefit coastal communities, according to Stoll, but it could also help address food insecurity. More than 10% of Maine households struggle to meet their daily nutrition needs.

Stoll acknowledged even in a state such as Maine, fresh and affordable seafood can be hard to come by. He stressed greater government investments in infrastructure will be key.

"There's so much more potential for the domestic seafood production sector in the U.S. to play a bigger role in feeding our communities, feeding the people in our country," Stoll asserted.

Stoll emphasized local communities would benefit from greater investments in cold storage, waterfront access and regional distribution networks to ensure seafood is widely available, especially in historically marginalized communities. He added as more people pay attention to the relationship between health and diet, now is the time to aim for seafood self-reliance.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental activists from across the country, including from Texas, are spending the summer protesting on Wall Street to highlight the effects the financial markets have on climate change.

Katherine Hahn, coordinator for the Gulf South Fossil Finance Hub in Houston, said many people do not realize the connection between their money and environmental changes.

"Any financial institution that's providing the funding, whether that's funding to a company in general that participates in fossil-fuel projects or whether that's direct financing or that could be insuring a fossil-fuel project, oftentimes we have pension funds that are taking folks' pensions and investing those funds in fossil-fuel projects," Hahn outlined.

Hahn pointed out the purpose of the "Summer of Heat on Wall Street" campaign is to educate bankers and hopefully reduce fossil-fuel financing. Because of the protests, some of the bankers have agreed to meet with members of their organization.

The group wants Wall Street, and namely Citigroup, to increase financing for renewable energy, make changes to improve the lives of people who live in front line communities, which are often communities of color, indigenous and low-income areas, and pay into a climate reparations fund.

Hahn noted as a person of faith, she feels compelled to save the Earth.

"God's earth is this extension of His love for us, and right now we are abusing it," Hahn contended. "When really, we're called to be shepherds and caretakers of God's creation. And especially when it comes to Christianity, we know that Jesus spoke for the most vulnerable among us, and increasingly those are the people that are most impacted by the climate crisis."

Hahn pointed out there have been arrests during their nonviolent protests but participants feel the issue is worth it. In a statement, Citigroup said it has a goal to supply 100% renewable energy to power Citi's facilities globally by 2020 and their goal reflects the need to transition while also continuing to meet global energy needs.


get more stories like this via email

In Rust Belt states such as Wisconsin, disadvantaged communities were left with blight - amid a shift away from industrialization.

A federal grant program could help cities replace old concrete with green spaces and other sustainable development.

The city of Janesville will host a trio of public listening sessions in September as it prepares to apply for a $20 million Environmental Protection Agency grant that focuses on environmental justice.

The city's Economic Development Director Jimsi Kuborn said as they try to reimagine the old General Motors and JATCO site, they want surrounding neighborhoods experiencing low incomes and other side effects to have a brighter future.

"We've got trees growing up in the middle of the asphalt and fences falling over," said Kuborn. "And so, go in and create a green opportunity, a green field for new development and new opportunity."

She said that could include new energy-efficient housing and the possibility of solar projects.

The GM site was demolished just prior to the pandemic, and this specific EPA grant doesn't deal with needed soil clean-up work.

But Kuborn touted the importance of pursuing environmentally friendly development, so that neighborhoods don't have to deal things, such as excessive stormwater runoff from these old sites.

Kuborn said cities like Janesville aren't alone in confronting this problem.

"There are multiple sites throughout the United States where we've seen things offshored," said Kuborn, "some things reshore, and communities are sitting on these blighted assets."

Janesville has encountered roadblocks, including working with a private company, in getting the GM site fully free of contamination and its remaining concrete removed.

Since the plant closed, the county in which the city resides has seen employment growth in other sectors, and a recent Brookings Institution report outlined how the area has been able to survive without solely relying on heavy manufacturing.




get more stories like this via email