Washblog

The environmental champion
Bill characterized himself in our conversation as the environmental champion in this race. So I checked out the endorsement information for all the candidates.  Having gone to that trouble, here's the information that proves him correct, as far as the assessment of environmental leaders in Washington.

My notes of our conversation, which appear below here are less than complete.  They are not verbatim, but a transcription from what I was able to record by hand as we talked.

An historic choicepoint
We're at a choice point with energy and the environment and I feel a sense of urgency about this.  Our state needs a good strategic vision.

I started knocking on doors in January and it has been like a rolling focus group.  I've knocked on over 10,000 doors.  I give my  `pitch' and then I ask people to tell me what's on their minds.  I find that I get the best data when I ask open-ended questions.  

I've come away from this with an understanding of how far in front of our leaders the voters are in terms of energy and the environment.  People want a positive vision, they want things like I-937 and they feel that we have not gone far enough.  People are ready for our elected leaders to do more.  

All of the candidates in this race are environmentalists.  But it is not enough right now to be an environmentalist.  People are ready for an environmental champion.  I am the only environmental champion in this race at a time when this is what we need in Washington.

We are on the brink of making real progress.  We have a Democratic majority in the state legislature that is very sophisticated on the environment.  We've got a governor who is ready to roll up her sleeves and get things done.  And we are at a crisis point with energy and environment that the public recognizes, that the public wants real leadership on.  Voters are ready for us here in Washington State to be national leaders.  They want us to do more and they will support us.  This is an unprecedented opportunity and we need to approach it strategically and with the best tools we have.  We need to move beyond old patterns and respond to the opportunity before us.  The 1970s model of mandate-and-legislate is obsolete.  We need to look at this holistically and to be creative, to use the whole range of incentives and disincentives that puts our resources and the power of government to effective use.

Much of what we're dealing with here comes from   the federal level with tax subsidies, where we have less control.  So we see things like the federal government giving $50 million per year in tax breaks for farmers to use pesticides.  And here we are, trying to clean up Puget Sound and minimize the use of these pesticides.  But we still have here in Washington many options that aren't using, from environmental laws and incentives to how we do housing to our tax system.

Noemie:  What do you think can be done to move us away in Washington from being the state with the most unfair tax structure in the nation?

Tax reform as a priority: Moving away from fear and desperation
This is a priority for our state.  We need to take a long-term strategic approach.  Tax reform takes 5-10 years under the best circumstances.

Sightline Institute has a creative idea that we can shift away from taxing desirable activities like work and business to taxing what is not desirable - like pollution.   Some of this may be unattainable now.   But some is attainable. We've got a crazy quilt of sin, sales, business & occupation, and boutique taxes which we put together in fear and desperation.  We fear to take on this income tax issue which is so unpopular.  But there is this desperation because genuine needs are consistently underfunded.   We've somehow ended up in a situation where we are trying to fund education through a latte tax.

So we need a strategy.  First I think we can approach this from the legal standpoint, we can  challenge the bad decisions that are standing in the way of making progress on taxes.  In the early 1930s, our Supreme Court ruled that an income tax in Washington would require amending our state constitution.   This needs to be challenged.  The state legislature could pass a bill for a graduated income tax.  It would be challenged.  If we crafted it well, we could end up with a Supreme Court decision that leaves us more options than what we have now.

Noemie:  David Postman has written about a change in the business community in Washington state recently, where they are  considering a corporate income tax.

That is interesting. I'd like to see that article.

We need a political coalition on taxes, and it needs to include business, particularly small business which is really being impacted.  The social justice components of our unfair tax system are critical.  But the problems are broader than social justice.  Basic business fairness is also at stake here and our current tax structure is unfair to business.

And finally, we need entirely different ways to bring this issue to voters.  We're not going to achieve what we need with traditional outreach, we need to be creative.  We need to look at our political tactics, the ways we're getting people engaged in talking about tax reform.  

Noemie:  What you're saying here sounds very familiar to me.  Barbara Flye, the Executive Director of Washington State Tax Fairness Coalition, said to me just recently, that we need to broaden the coalition that tackles tax fairness that we need to better involve all the people who are affected, including business.  And she and Juan Martinez, the organizer there, are working on a new "Hold Big Oil Accountable" campaign to try to bring tax reform to an issue that affects everyone very directly.

I didn't know those developments with the the Tax Fairness Coalition.  That sounds promising.  We do need to look at our political tactics, the ways we're getting people engaged in talking about tax reform.  One way we can approach this is through the initiative process.   We're not likely to pass an initiative that puts us on a better tax footing on the first try.  But an initiative could open up the political dialogue, get us talking about this and understanding it better.  That's just one idea; the point is that we need to look long range at what is going to get us in a better place.  And that doesn't need to always be a straight line.

What do you see going on now with alternative energy in Washington?

Creating an environment where business can thrive
In terms of growing alternative energy businesses, the biofuels bill last session was a good start.  We have a couple of years to grow into this bill and we have structural advantages here in Washington that can help us, a good distribution network, a strong and varied agricultural base.  

We need to better facilitate technology transfer between academia and business, get better at putting the research that happens in the universities into practical application.  We need to look into our cellulosic fuel base.  We have the resources for a bioethanol market, but we need to cross the technology barrier and make it happen.  We need incentives to fund the research and also to grow the industry.  We need to use the government's purchasing power, we need to say to Washington's farmers, `when you produce it, we'll buy it.'

Biofuels can be a boom area for us.  We have a headstart on this and, to a lesser extent, with wind power.   And we've done fairly well.  We've identified where we have our advantages.  But government can't do this by itself.  Government can only set the conditions for business to thrive.  

Enabling individuals to take charge of their own energy destinies
Another area the state should move on is creating an environment that allows individuals to take more control over their own energy destiny.    There are low-cost ways to do this.   In Germany, the government will extend loans to people to put solar panels on their homes.  These loans are repaid by as the panels reinsert energy back into the community power grid.  Eight years later, the resident owns the panels outright and the value of the home has increased.  All the government has done is to extend its lending capacity.  This is an incredibly efficient way to use government resources.  There are many ways in which we can create these kinds of efficiencies.

We should also be looking into innovative partnerships with new construction.  These companies now build sprawl and end up paying for the externalities of that sprawl.  There are ways to defray this.

There is a lot I don't know.  But I have a good idea of the areas I need to know more.  I see that here is a way that I can make a difference, that I can help our state realize the opportunity that we have before us.  This opportunity will go away if we don't take advantage of it.  And it's such a rare opportunity.  There are so many no-win stuations in resource management where you are balancing competing interests.  We have what can be a win-win.  We should not let this opportunity pass us by.  

I've learned from my conversations with people in the 43rd just how far ahead the public is in relation to our leaders.  The voters ought to be listened to.  I feel a responsibility to help make that happen.

Noemie: Can you share a bit about where you see voter sentiment headed?

I see three threads. First, energy costs are rising so fast that voters know we are headed for a crisis.  People see the problems caused by our current energy sources.    And their concern for global warming is approaching the tipping point that Al Gore has called for.  

There is a danger that, in coming to a realization of what we face with climate change that we will go straight from shock over our situation into despair.   But we don't need to go to despair.  We haven't really gotten to action yet.  We do have options.  People are demanding that we use our options.  They are demanding change and readying themselves for change.  People are ready to make individual choices for a larger purpose.  The people I talk with  believe that they can do something, that they must do something.  They are  frustrated that our leaders have not offered them enough ways to work together to address our shared problems.  

I'm not saying that there hasn't been leadership.   There are leaders in our state legislature, for example Erik Poulson.  There are leaders on the county and city levels, for example Ron Sims and Greg Nickels.   But there is a need to pull this together on a state level into a comprehensive strategic approach. Are there specific policy steps that you see should be taken?

Noemie: I come at this as a blogger and an activist who is just learning about this.    But I do have a political take, based on what I hear from people who have technical and policy and business background  -- as well as a general sense from conversations on blogs and in the listservs.

The program that I'm involved with, Back to the Roots, focuses on our need in Washington to open up economic opportunity on a local level -- and therefore place us on a better environmental path.   A theme of the program is that environmental progress can be sustained long-term only if we also have a reasonably fair and functional economy that isn't structured in such a way that a good portion of the people and communities of the state are left behind economically. I-933,   is a good example of the kind backlash that can result from systemic unfairness.

So I would favor legislation that helps Washington develop local resources and empower local communities.  In  alternative fuels.  I understand, as you point out, that we have a particularly good opportunity with cellulosic ethanol, that we have a real wealth of biomass resources in Washington and that we need to break that technology barrier and put those resources to use.   I'd also like to see a way for the distribution of biofuel to be more independent from the control that I understand "big oil" now has.   In addition to offering support for local fuel production, I think that we can do things like looking carefully at what the optimal size and distribution area for those facilities would be here -- in terms of conservation of energy for transportation and other environmental and economic benefits.  

I'm very interested, too, in what Sustainable Seattle is looking at with its local multiplier effect study, which delves into the question of the benefit we get when dollars circulate for a longer time locally.  And, finally, I'm concerned that, by moving too fast on alternative energy without bringing in all the players we need to have at the table, that we may end up with some unintended environmental and social justice problems - stress on water or soil, or not enough attention paid to crop security of our traditional food crops if we greatly expand the use of genetically modified organisms, for example.

What do you think your chances are in this race?

My chances are good.  I'm doing well on fundraising and outreach goals.  And I'm in line with the values of the 43rd, not only in terms of what we have discussed, but on other key issues such as education.  I'm the only candidate in the race with young children.  We have a six-year-old in first grade this year, in the Seattle public schools and a three-year-old, and so we are looking forward to 16 years in the Seattle school system.  I think that voters also appreciate someone who comes at public safety from my professional background as a prosecutor -- but also from a public safety standpoint of protecting people rather than simply locking people up.   I understand that police want to be tough on crime.  I also know that there are many ways to make people safer in addition to enforcement.  When you sit down with victims of family violence, you see where our social services don't connect in ways that people need them to.  

Noemie: Where do you go from here?

I have a dedicated volunteer list.  If I win this race and I-933 passes, there will be a lot that I would like to do as a legislator that I won't be able to do.  So if I win in the primary, I will ask my volunteers to spend their time helping to defeat I-933.  My message at that point to voters and to the volunters on my campaign will be, thank you, you believe in my ability to get things done. Now let's defeat I-933 so that our legislature can effectively address the challenges that face us.  

A final note here, a little vignette.  Dan Savage of The Stranger lives in the 43rd legislative district.  Bill happened to knock on  door when he was campaigning.  Dan wrote about it briefly in a Slog piece: Well, What Do You Know? Bill Sherman is For Marriage Equality.  Clark Williams Derry Sightline Institute's research director posted a comment on this entry:  "Bill's got my endorsement too. He may be the hardest working guy I know, but also one of the most thoughtful. It seems like, whatever issue I care about, Bill's thought it through more deeply (and strategically) than I have."  Right!