To add to the gloom and doom here is the reality of what will happen. Policy will never change until people start to die in the tens of thousands in single weather events that are clearly the result of global warming. Keep in mind, those are actual dead bodies, not dislocated people or injured.

To add to the gloom and doom here is the reality of what will happen. Policy will never change until people start to die in the tens of thousands in single weather events that are clearly the result of global warming. Keep in mind, those are actual dead bodies, not dislocated people or injured.

But part of the news (the major part I think, the part that is NEW) is that the damage done in our lifetime and our children's is irreversible. We know the devastation to come will be severe: nature is a system, and we depend on it for food. (Nearly all of the California orange crop was just ruined by a minor freeze.) The Co2 we produce from now on is going to wreak an unaccountable amount of havoc on our GRANDKIDS' world. We know that mass extinctions and famines are coming - there is no way the weather can change this much without that happening. But we have no way of knowing how much will be 'too much', what will make the world uninhabitable for humans 200 years from now. Have we reached that point yet? Nobody knows. We are playing with our descendents' lives, and the future of life on this planet. We have to start making colossal changes, and NOW.

Andrew, it'll take tides washing over Harbor Island and returning SoDo to the outlet of Elliot Bay that it once was for real action to begin. As Hurricane Katrina showed, even dead bodies do not necessairly provoke action.

Gregoire's goals are very modest, to put it kindly. It's as if she and her staff did not even read the IPCC report.

Andrew, it'll take tides washing over Harbor Island and returning SoDo to the outlet of Elliot Bay that it once was for real action to begin. As Hurricane Katrina showed, even dead bodies do not necessairly provoke action.

Gregoire's goals are very modest, to put it kindly. It's as if she and her staff did not even read the IPCC report.

Josh, I'm confused by one part of the post . . "She says she wants to reduce emissions by 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 (which isn’t adequate, according to most environmentalists. Indeed, WASHPIRG has been pushing to reduce our current emissions by 80% by 2050.)"

How does Gregoire's reduction of 50% of 1990 levels compare with WASHPIRG's reduction of 80% of current levels?

It doesn't matter, because if we reduced our CO2 output to 20% or even 1% of current levels, the worldwide CO2 output would continue to climb, in fact skyrocket. China's on the verge of passing us, and is ramping up to ever-larger increases. There is no amount of reduction we can do that will make up for the vast increases elsewhere.

And there will be no decreases here. It's not feasible. It doesn't matter what the stakes are; it's not going to happen. The best you can hope for is some incremental improvements in technology, some caps, and maybe, maybe if you're lucky stabilizing the emissions within the US and Europe. Anything beyond that isn't even dreaming.

gregoire is the wimpiest bag of dough...she's like a bad parody of a non-committal politician...

she's so going to get her butt kicked in the next election...

she couldn't beat hitler...

@6,
I just got off the phone with WashPIRG lobbyist Bill LaBoard. He didn't have the exact numbers at his fingertips, but he said 1990 levels and today's levels are pretty similar and so, Gregoire's 50% number is "in the neighborhood" of what we should be pushing toward, but 80% would make a real difference.

Look, if the 12 Western states and the ones in the NE (something like 22 states in the union) all reduce emissions 50 percent, that's a lot more than the inefficient low-population rest of the country, since just the 12 Western states are more than 50 percent of the national economy - and just WA, OR, and CA are 40 percent of the national economy.

Action speaks louder than words - and action forces the market to adjust to the input values - as anyone other than the anti-capitalist Bushies in the Red states knows.

You're either part of the solution, or you hate America. Plain and simple.

WA, OR and CA are 40% of the national economy? How do you figure? It's closer to 16%. the 12 western states? Again, how do you figure? I'm looking at a map and seeing 13. They add up to about 24% of the US total economy. Figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_nominal_GDP, 2004 (latest available).

Let me amend my initial response to Josh. After reviewing some CTED stats on state GHG emissions, 80% below current levels by 2050 is definitely better than 50% of 1990 levels. Essentially, we're much closer to 1990 emission levels than I had guessed.

1990 emissions were roughly 78 million metric tons. Current emissions are roughly 89 million metric tons (according to CTED). So, 50% of 1990 emissions would equal 39 million MMT; 80% below current levels would The difference is that 80% below current would equal about 18 million.

This is not the final statement from the Governor. That's scheduled to come on Wednesday. My hope is that she will get us to where the science tells us we need to be. In other words, the goal is climate stabilization - that means 80% below current levels.

All in all, the governor is taking an important step in the right direction. We just hope that step is a bit more like a giant leap.

Fnarf, when I said 'we', I meant the REAL 'we': everybody. Every single thing we do to create more warming will make our descendents curse us the more. Many people will just say, hell, I can live with that. But they, and our leaders, need to know that is exactly what they are doing.

Let's see we'll get on this next year after we build a bunch more roads and depending on the Seattle so-called vote maybe a tunnel - lots of money, lots of greenhouse gasses - you know maybe we'll put the environmental impacts into the decision making process sometime - not now that wouldn't be convenient - maybe hot air is the answer - fight fire with fire, ya that's the ticket we'll just talk this global warming thing away or perhaps to death

#5 I said tens of thousands, Katrina was only in the thousands. We have not racked up the death toll to be serious about greenhouse gases.

Bill @ 12 When you said:
"Essentially, we're much closer to 1990 emission levels than I had guessed." you should have noticed that we as a state have made much more actual progress than the other western states and we have a much better per person profile than the average western state to begin with. As a result of these facts, establishing a cap basis that is off the charts "great" will in fact kill the teamwork and cooperation it will take to move meaningfully forward.
Some might rush to establish the hardest line and be a short term champion but people world wide must work together till the end of time in order to fight global warming. Likewise, Washington as one of the leading states in establishing long term global warming policy should establish challenging yet attainable goals which can be strengthened as new technology makes this practical.
So, I would encourage that people take the long view while gaining an understanding for what we have already achived and how our starting point fits in with the other western states.

Voting yes for Sound Transit and RTID's ballot measure in Nov. is not the answer to carbon emission trends.

Font of Reason: The fact that emissions are not a huge amount higher now than in 1990 is because we no longer have a large aluminum industry in Washington state. With transportation emissions growing at a significant rate we're in real danger of losing our ability to stop their growth and start reducing emissions to the point scientists tell us is necessary to stabilize the planet's climate.

In that respect, there is nothing "off the charts" about a 80% reduction from current levels by 2050. It's not an issue of what's acceptable to one constituency or another. It's about what we need to do avoid lots of really, really bad things that will make our kids' lives miserable, and really fuck over the state's economy (for example, recent projections by the UW Climate Impacts Group show the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia underwater if the Greenland ice sheets melt - that seems like something that would hurt the state's economy.)

BTW, "Trust Me on This (17)" mentions RTID. The RTID projects by themselves could easily wipe out any gains we made by passing the Clean Cars bill two years ago.

All that said, I do think it's important to keep the Governor's announcement in perspective. It really is a big deal that she's ready to move Washington in the direction of OR, CA and the New England states. The shorter term goals, if I read them right, are in the right neighborhood. Assuming that a good mix of emitters and enviros are included in the stakeholder process and it's well staffed, we should get be able to get to a good state climate action plan. I just think that the Governor needs to set the right expectation for where we need to be in terms of addressing the problem in a way that allows us to avert disaster.

Bill, I did not question the science regarding where our planet is headed thus your second paragraph was not called for.
I don't even think we disagree on where we need to get as a nation and as a planet. I also think we in Washington are in a good position to lead here in the US given how we generate much of our power.
Our primary area for reduction is in the area of per person auto emissions, but goals in this area must be indexed for state population growth. This is a global issue after all and when people move into Washington they bring there emissions with them. Projected migration from other areas of this earth is one reason why the 80% of 1990 goal needs further work.
Also, real change will only come with aggressive federal standards, funding and nation wide goals.
With this in mind, I think we part ways since I see both a need to do what we can now (essentially on our own) and a need to demonstrate for those, elected to serve in the other WA, that citizens and business can work together. This will put more pressure on DC than will a bitter fight and court battles.
I would agree that in these times my frustration level is at an all time high on issues like these when Bush only recently began talking and still has done nothing about global warming. Still, it is not rational for our state to set goals and caps that cannot be met without real federal progress or secession from the union. The departure of the aluminum industry is an example of the false victories reaching too far alone would create. My understanding is that sending aluminum production to other states, sent it to newer cleaner plants but did not make the production go down and causes much of what is produced to be trucked right back here in/on 100's of trucks every month. In the same way, if we send jobs and people to other states as result of our much higher standards, we do not have any effect on the global or even national picture. If, however, in these early years, we gradually ramp up and get our industry and population to progress with us, rather than leave, then we will have a greater net effect.

Font of Reason: I didn't for a second think you were one of those nutcases who denies the science of global warming. It's clear from your posts that you're in favor of action over inaction. My only point with the second paragraph in my earlier post is that we need to let the science determine where we set our state's targets.

That said, I do agree with you that it is ultimately important to take all the nuances of the state's role vis a vis nationwide and worldwide emissions into account. But, I would rather account for those nuances in the stakeholder process and in legislation rather than right off the bat with the governor's announcement. I just don't think we have all the information at this point to make those assumptions about what's morally and practically achieveable. The starting point should be where the science leads us.

And, of course, more adjustments will be necessary when we finally get a president with a moral conscious who moves us toward a federal cap on emissions and can negotiate a workable worldwide plan. (State action in Washington and other states will surely further the cause in DC).

I would rather start with an assumption that we have the wherewithal, the values and the economic infrastructure in place to meet the 80% by 2050 goal. One thing I agree on with the freemarket types is that technologies that don't exist today will play a big role in getting us to emission levels that stabilize the climate. But, we need to set our sights high to prompt the market to develop those technologies.

Finally, if states like WA, OR and CA set aggressive goals, they can set the high water mark for when the debate in DC gets serious. Certainly the US as a whole needs to be focused on the 80% target.

Font of Reason: I didn't for a second think you were one of those nutcases who denies the science of global warming. It's clear from your posts that you're in favor of action over inaction. My only point with the second paragraph in my earlier post is that we need to let the science determine where we set our state's targets.

That said, I do agree with you that it is ultimately important to take all the nuances of the state's role vis a vis nationwide and worldwide emissions into account. But, I would rather account for those nuances in the stakeholder process and in legislation rather than right off the bat with the governor's announcement. I just don't think we have all the information at this point to make those assumptions about what's morally and practically achieveable. The starting point should be where the science leads us.

And, of course, more adjustments will be necessary when we finally get a president with a moral conscious who moves us toward a federal cap on emissions and can negotiate a workable worldwide plan. (State action in Washington and other states will surely further the cause in DC).

I would rather start with an assumption that we have the wherewithal, the values and the economic infrastructure in place to meet the 80% by 2050 goal. One thing I agree on with the freemarket types is that technologies that don't exist today will play a big role in getting us to emission levels that stabilize the climate. But, we need to set our sights high to prompt the market to develop those technologies.

Finally, if states like WA, OR and CA set aggressive goals, they can set the high water mark for when the debate in DC gets serious. Certainly the US as a whole needs to be focused on the 80% target.

Font of Reason: I didn't for a second think you were one of those nutcases who denies the science of global warming. It's clear from your posts that you're in favor of action over inaction. My only point with the second paragraph in my earlier post is that we need to let the science determine where we set our state's targets.

That said, I do agree with you that it is ultimately important to take all the nuances of the state's role vis a vis nationwide and worldwide emissions into account. But, I would rather account for those nuances in the stakeholder process and in legislation rather than right off the bat with the governor's announcement. I just don't think we have all the information at this point to make those assumptions about what's morally and practically achieveable. The starting point should be where the science leads us.

And, of course, more adjustments will be necessary when we finally get a president with a moral conscious who moves us toward a federal cap on emissions and can negotiate a workable worldwide plan. (State action in Washington and other states will surely further the cause in DC).

I would rather start with an assumption that we have the wherewithal, the values and the economic infrastructure in place to meet the 80% by 2050 goal. One thing I agree on with the freemarket types is that technologies that don't exist today will play a big role in getting us to emission levels that stabilize the climate. But, we need to set our sights high to prompt the market to develop those technologies.

Finally, if states like WA, OR and CA set aggressive goals, they can set the high water mark for when the debate in DC gets serious. Certainly the US as a whole needs to be focused on the 80% target.

@11 - exports. Tax-subsidized crops don't count in real GDP terms.

florida plane tickets