Climate change in the American state of Washington is a subject of study and projection today.

This page is being developed as a class project during winter quarter 2008 by the ECON/ENVIR 235 class at the University of Washington.

Science

Economic Impacts of Climate Change in Washington State (2007) summarized impacts on forest fires, public health, agriculture, municipal water supply, sea level rise and fisheries. ^[1]

Annual temperatures are predicted to increase by 2 °F (−17 °C) by the 2020s, and 3 °F (−16 °C) in the 2040s.

This section could be expanded. In one paragraph, what are the major impacts of climate change in WA?

Economic Impacts

In 2006, a group of scientists and economists published The Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy, a preliminary assessment on the risks and opportunities presented given the possibility of a rise in global temperatures and their effects on Washington State.^[2] Three main conclusions were outlined:1. Climate change impacts are visible and the economic effects are becoming apparent. 2. The costs of climate change will grow as temperatures and sea levels rise. 3. Climate change will also provide economic opportunities.

These conclusions come from predictions based on temperature and precipitation models for climate change. The expected warming of 0.5 °F (−17.5 °C) every ten years is the main source for any visible impacts. Although total annual rainfall is not expected to change significantly, the increasing temperatures will result in a smaller snow pack and more rain. This paragraph (and maybe the next one too) belong up above with science, yes?

Visible physical impacts on the environment within Washington State include glacier reduction, declining snow-pack, earlier spring runoff, an increase in large wildfires, and rising sea levels effect the Puget Sound area.

The economy of Washington State will dictate how it will be affected by these impacts. These effects are unique to Washington due to individual natural resources, climate patterns, industries, and trade… (more soon) ^[3]

Forest resources

Forestlands comprise a significant element of Washington's economy. Out of Washington State’s 43 million acres, 22,000,000 acres (89,000 km²) are classified as forestland.^[4]. These forestlands support a great variety and number of economic activities, from timber production to the protection of freshwater supplies and wildlife habitat. In 2002, total employment in lumber, wood products, and pulp and paper was 43,700 ^[5]

Higher temperatures have significant implications for pests, tree growth, and wildfire management.^[6] Higher temperatures will result in the snow pack in Washington’s mountains melting earlier in the spring, creating a longer fire season. It is predicted that an average year in the 2020s will have a 50 percent increase in the number of acres burned (as compared to an average year in the 20^th century), and an average year in the 2040s is projected to have a 100 percent increase in the number of acres burned. As an economic result, the Department of Natural Resource’s cost for fire preparedness and response are projected to increase from around $12 million to over $18 million in the 2020s and to $24 million in the 2040s. If other state and federal expenditures related to fire also increases in the same manner than direct state costs could rise from $26 million to over $39 million in the 2020s and to $52 million in the 2040s, and federal expenditures could rise from $24 million to over $36 million in the 2020s and to $48 million in the 2040s. Very nice. But this paragraph is all about wildfire, so you should put pests and tree growth in the next paragraph. Also: trace the prediction back to the original source (what paper was cited in the Economic Impacts report?) and cite that original source. (Check to see if the original source says the same thing.)

Increased spending on wild fires will not be the only economic impact due to climate change on Washington’s forest resources. There may be economic losses due to lost timber value, lost recreational expenditures, and health and environmental costs related to air pollution and other forest changes, which could far surpass costs of wildfires.

Electricity

Climate change will have an effect on both the supply and demand of electricity in Washington. ^[7] Why are you citing this? Does it talk about climate change?

The biggest factors that will determine the extent of the effects on electricity are annual temperature changes, and the change in peak snow pack melt and stream flow. A change in the amount of precipitation could also have an effect on electricity supply and demand, but dramatic changes in rain fall are not expected. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council predicts a 300 megawatt (about 1% of Washington’s generating capacity) reduction in electricity demands during the winter for each degree the temperature rises. ^[8] Summer demands would likely increase due to more widespread need for air conditioning in order to keep homes and businesses cool. Estimates for the demand growth of additional air conditioning units are not yet known. Washington State’s reliance on hydropower (72% of electricity) means that changes in peak snow pack melt and stream flows are important to the supply of electricity. Very nice. What's the citation for the 72% figure?

The available electricity supply could also be effected by climate change. Currently, peak stream flows are in the summer. Snow pack is likely to melt earlier in the future due to the increased temperatures, shifting the peak stream flow to late winter and early spring, with decreased summer stream flow. This would result in an increased availability of electricity in the early spring, when demand is dampened, and a decreased availability in the summer, when the demand may be highest. University of Washington researchers have estimated a revenue impact of 5% or less ($165 million). Hydropower is more susceptible to climate change impacts than other sources of electricity, so consumers may be subject to greater rate increases than consumers in other states. Which UW researchers? Put a citation in here.

Currently Washington residents have a low cost for electricity due to only a few electricity companies being investor-driven. Most of the power companies charge only to break even. Thus, while prices may rise in Washington, they may still be comparable to other states in the US.^[9] Can you quantify how much WA residents pay for electricity compared to the national average?

Municipal water supply

Seattle's municipal water systems may hit capicity in 2050. Proofread! ^[10] On October 27th, 2005, King County sponsored the King County Climate Change Conference. ^[11] A key topic of discussion was municipal water supply.^[12] These last two sentences are too much information. The citations are good, but just reference them and then get to the point! Experts predict shorter winters and longer summers, which potentially can lead to winter flooding and more severe summer droughts. ^[13] A recent University of Washington study states that Seattle could see a drop in water supply of 14% by 2040. This decrease in the water supply would be equivalent to about 170,000 more people moving into the area. [4] Good, but get an original source here. Possible solutions to these problems include: stormwater management, enhanced groundwater recharge, reclaimed water, and conservation.

The region's water supply as a whole will decline with the predicted increased temperatures. Water supplies come from glaciers and mountain snow pack. As temperatures rise the level at which snow normally falls will increase. There will be less water available during run-off seasons. A lack of water will be problematic for humans and the region's wildlife. Lower amounts of water will have an effect on the migration patterns of fish. This is off-topic. Stay on water supply! The Seattle region is currently gets the bulk of its water from the Cedar River and Tolt River watersheds. As the affects of global warming cause their water levels to decrees new water sources must be found. Proofread. One idea being proposed by a utility consortium, Cascade Water Alliance, is to use Lake Tapps located in Pierce County as a new source of drinkable water. [5]

Agriculture

Agriculture is likely responsive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods and severe storms. The forces that shape our climate are also critical to farm productivity. Human activity has already changed atmospheric characteristics such as temperature, rainfall, levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ground level ozone. The scientific community expects such trends to continue. Warmer climate may give positive effects on food production; however, the increased potential for weather extremes will pose challenges for farmers. Moreover, water supply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain areas.
Too much information. Try to find a Wikipedia page on the general topic of agricultural impacts of climate change and then link to it. This page should focus on WA, so take out the more general stuff that is not directly about WA.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) ^[14] concluded:

Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating the possibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry.

Climate Factors
Several factors directly connect climate change and agricultural productivity:

Change in rainfall amount and patterns
Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2
Pollution levels such as tropospheric ozone
Change in climatic variability and extreme events

Most agricultural impact studies have considered the effects of one or two aspects of climate change on a particular farming activity. Few, however, have considered the full set of anticipated shifts and their impact on agricultural production across the country.

Change in rainfall amount and patterns:
Changes in rainfall can affect soil erosion rates and soil moisture, both of which are important for crop yields. The IPCC predicts that precipitation will increase in high latitudes, and decrease in most subtropical land regions—some by as much as about 20 percent. While regional precipitation will vary the number of extreme precipitation events is predicted to increase (IPCC, 2007).

Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2:
Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, driven by emissions from human activities such as using vehicles (consuming gasoline), can act as a fertilizer and enhance the growth of some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans. CO2 can be one of a number of limiting factors that, when increased, can enhance crop growth. Other limiting factors include water and nutrient availability. While it is expected that CO2 fertilization will have a positive impact on some crops, other aspects of climate change (e.g., temperature and precipitation changes) may temper any beneficial CO2 fertilization effect (IPCC, 2007).

Pollution levels such as tropospheric ozone:
Higher levels of ground level ozone limit the growth of crops. Since ozone levels in the lower atmosphere are shaped by both emissions and temperature, climate change will most likely increase ozone concentrations. Such changes may offset any beneficial yield effects that result from elevated CO2 levels.

Change in climatic variability and extreme events: Changes in the frequency and severity of drought, floods and hurricanes, remain a key uncertainty in future climate change. Such changes are anticipated by global climate models, but regional changes and the potential affects on agriculture are more difficult to forecast.

Implications for North America - State of Washington
The IPCC concluded that, for North America as a whole (IPCC, 2007): This quote is very good and is worth keeping, but how about an actual citation for IPCC 2007?

Moderate climate change will likely increase yields of North American rain fed agriculture, but with smaller increases and more spatial variability than in earlier estimates. Most studies project likely climate-related yield increases of 5-20 percent over the first decades of the century, with the overall positive effects of climate persisting through much or all of the 21^st century.

Food production is projected to benefit from a warmer climate, but there probably will be strong regional effects, with some areas in North America suffering significant loss of comparative advantage to other regions.
Climate change is expected to improve growing conditions for some crops that are limited by length of growing season and temperature. (e.g. fruit production in the Great Lakes region and eastern Canada).

Agriculture in the U.S. and other industrialized countries is expected to be less vulnerable to climate change than agriculture in developing nations, especially in the tropics, where farmers may have a limited ability to adapt. In addition, the effects of climate change on U.S. and world agriculture will depend not only on changing climate conditions, but will also depend on the agricultural sector’s ability to adapt through future changes in technology, changes in demand for food, and environmental conditions, such as water availability and soil quality. Management practices, the opportunity to switch management and crop selection from season to season, and technology can help the agricultural sector cope with and adapt to climatic variability and change. ^[15]

With the climate changes in Washington the effects on agriculture are largely unknown. Some benefits that climate change could have on agriculture include longer growing seasons. However, some of the negative effects that climate change could have include reduced water supply and higher demand for water. Some of the unknown effects are changes in the behavior of weeds, pests and crop diseases. With the shifts in climate, Washington exports of agriculture goods may fluctuate. The impact of these fluctuations are large unknown due to the complexity and unknown extent of the changes to come. ^[16]

Yakima Valley

The Yakima River Basin, is Washington State’s most highly productive agricultural region and also one of the driest places in the Pacific Northwest. Without adequate water available for irrigation it will face serious economic impacts.

The three counties of the Yakima River Basin (Yakima, Kittitas, and Benton) produced $1.3 billion in agricultural economic output in 2004.

Research at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory determined that this output was dependent on water availability, and that past droughts have caused economic losses of 10-15% of this output. Future projections indicate that a 3.6 °F (−15.8 °C) increase in temperature would have no significant impact on major crop yields (due to the concurrent increase in carbon dioxide, which helps crop growth). This assumes present levels of water remain available to farmers. However, this net-zero change is unlikely because water availability will decrease during the summer months as snowpack decreases and will no longer provide as much water when it melts. The decreased snowpack and earlier runoff will cause stream flow to decline. The CropSyst model, developed at Washington State University shows that reduced water flow will strongly influence yields. For example, for irrigated wheat, 90 percent of full water yields 100 bushels per acre, while 40 percent of full water halves this amount. Also, estimates of crop loss do not take into account the accumulation of water loss over multiple years. When compared to a standard “good year” where the financial outputs of agriculture in the Yakima River Basin are estimated to be $901 million, drought years will become more prevalent and crop losses from water shortages will increase from an average of $13 million on an average year to $79 million per year by midcentury. Also, reduced water availability will translate into higher costs of water for farmers in the Yakima Basin, and amplify economic losses, especially during drought years.
Expected increases in temperature associated with climate change will have economic effects that are not easy to quantify. Increased temperatures will increase evaporation in the soil and decrease its capacity to hold moisture for plants during the hottest parts of the growing season. Insects will find a haven in the warmer temperatures, and become a greater problem. This is being seen already by the codling moth in the Columbia Gorge which is beginning show signs of adapting to warmer temperatures by producing a 3rd generation yearly.
Also, the increased numbers of hot days (temperatures over 100 °F) are expected to cause increased levels of heat related illness which to which agricultural worker populations are especially vulnerable. ^[17]

While the amount of rainfall will not change significantly in this region, and increasing temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will not reduce agricultural output – it is the reduction in snowpack that will result in a lower availability of water during critical growing seasons. This factor will reduce the economic viability of the Yakima River Basin in the long term as water related losses make agricultural methods less productive.

Using a case study of the Yakima River Valley in Washington State shows that relatively simple tools originally developed to forecast the impact of the El Niño phenomenon on water supplies to irrigated agriculture also can be used to estimate impacts during climate change. The significantly shifted probability distribution of water shortages in irrigated agriculture during climate change can be used to estimate the impact on agriculture in a region. The more permanent nature of changes in the temperature and precipitation regime associated with climate change means that risk management options also take a more permanent form (such as changes in crops and cultivators, and adding storage). ^[18] Studies that focus on the water availability to the 370,000 acres (1,500 km²) of orchards, vineyards, and food crops within the Yakima Valley exploit the effects of a climate change in the region. Irrigators for crops draw water from only five reservoirs and snowpack from the Cascades. With the arrival of early snowfall and an untimely diminish, irrigation is predicted to drop an average of 20 to 40 percent in a year at mid-century due to this dramatic change. The resulting loss to agriculture in the Yakima Valley following a change in the regions climate, would be $92 million for a 2 degree Celsius increase and $163 million for a 4 degree Celsius increase. ^[19]

Dairy Production

A significant rise in global temperatures will negatively affect the production levels of dairy in Washington state, which had had a total of 560 dairy farms at the end of 2004. ^[20] Each region will be affected differently based on the differences in climate and temperature fluxuations. Current predictions forecast that by 2075, milk production in the Yakima Valley will drastically decrease during the summer months. The worst affects of climate change will cause daily milk production in Yakima Valley to go from 27 kg to 20 kg in the month of August. Whatcom County dairy farms are predicted to be less affected by climate change then Yakima Valley farms. Summer milk production in Whatcom County is projected to fall from a little under 27 kg per cow per day to slightly more than 25 kg per cow per day. In both regions the lower milk production is directly correlated to the decrease in consumption of food stuffs. The decrease in food avaliblity during summer is due to increasing yearly temperatures that shift precipitation levels and cause a faster run off of the snow pack. With less food to eat, milk production drastically decreases during the summer months. Higher temperatures cause a decrease in milk production. ^[21]

Wine

Washington State currently holds second place, following California, for wine production in the United States. A change in climate will cause the vine yards to move. In 2004, winegrapes accounted for $127.5 million and were the state's 4^th largest fruit group in terms of value. In 2005, the wine industry as a whole was a $3 billion industry, providing the equivalent of 14,000 full-time jobs. While it is a relatively young industry within the state (introduced in the 1960s), it has been consecutively gaining momentum. Climate change could negatively impact Washington’s wine industry.

The Yakima and Mid-Columbia valleys are the most heavily vineyard populated regions. The predicted water shortage in the next several decades, due to early snow melts and unavailability later in the season, could mean a crop loss increase from $13 million to $79 million by the middle of the century. Because wine varieties are highly sensitive to temperatures, increased temperatures could cause some Eastern Washington areas to move out of the ideal range for certain winegrape varietals. The climate shift could make western areas, such as Puget Sound more ideal for wine production, which could be a solution to the disappearing Yakima vineyards in terms of state total production. A shift of vineyard concentration to the coastal regions of Washington state would mean a shift in local land value and use, production, revenue and employment. Such a shift would be due to an increase in average temperature, but scientists’ main concern is not the gradual increase in means, but that global climate change will most likely cause more instances of extreme weather. Increased instances of extreme weather would result in greater loses for vineyards, especially those grown east of the Cascade Mountain Range. ^[22]

Wheat

Eastern Washington produces a large amount of wheat that is affected by climate. Some models of daily temperature do not account for the topography in eastern Washington, resulting in distorted temperature predictions. Both topography and temperature affect the yield of wheat, but a new system called the Regional Climate Model (RCM) considers topographical data, resulting in a more accurate temperature estimate. In a recent study, winter wheat productions were taken at different elevations, both with and without irrigation, and the best yields were in areas with a lot of rainfall, temperate conditions, and at elevations from 1000 to 1500 meters. Both non-irrigated and irrigated harvests increased with global warming, which also allowed for increased production at higher elevations. The harvests also improved with the presence of higher levels of carbon dioxide.^[23]

Fisheries

Rising temperatures are contributing to decreased snowfall and increased rain during winter months. leading to a decrease in the winter snowpack. The snowpack maintains winter precipitation at higher altitudes where it acts as a bank, slowly releasing water during dryer months. The decrease in snowpack levels, Washington state is seeing earlier peak flows in area streams and rivers, increased flooding, and possibly a loss of irrigation and drinking water. Also affected would be threatened salmon runs. Local water districts are observing a increasing water storage in dams and reservoirs, a push to consider the effects of increased water control on Washington's famed salmon is currently underway. In 2007 the National Academy of Sciences reported that increased temperature coupled with loss of snowpack, and lower spawning flows are likely to lead to increased mortality among salmon, particularly Chinook, in the Snohomish River Basin and hydrologically similar watersheds. Increases in reservoirs and flood-control structures could mitigate peak-flow effects in lower reaches of Washington's watersheds but would not be likely to have much impact on higher altitude headwaters where the effects of decreasing snowpack would be more severe and opportunities for flood-control less likely and less desirable. ^[24]

Salmon and many other fish that are used economically will be negatively affected by the increase in warmer temperatures. These fish need cold and clean water to reproduce successfully. The high and low flows of the rivers will be shifted in the seasons causing a negative influence on salmon rearing. Increase in water temperatures could affect the food for fish in rivers, lakes, Puget Sound and coastal ocean regions. ^[25] Fishing is big business in the pacific northwest and many local economies depend on fishing. There is a current debate on how to allocate the run of salmon. The local native American tribes get a modest percentage of the slip with the majority going to the commercial fishermen. The ones left out are the sport fishermen. The economic problem with this is the sport fishermen spend much more money per fish caught, since they are less efficient they drive the economy through the Spending multiplier throughout the local economy ^[26].

Human Health

The major effects on human health will be increases in infectious diseases, respiratory illnesses, and heat-related illnesses.

Impacts on infectious diseases
The most serious disease that has been linked to global warming in the US is West Nile Virus, which is transmitted by mosquitoes, is seriously debilitating, and can be fatal. It's favored by periods of drought that are followed by heavy rain, which is likely to become more common as increased average temperatures in Washington State result in favoring rain instead of snow during the winter, and thus drier summers (chance of drought, particularly east of the Cascades). West Nile is just beginning to be documented in Washington state, but Colorado has been grappling with cases of it since 2002. Total costs there have been estimated to be $120 million ^[27] or $670 million ^[28], both as of 2006. Louisiana has been battling cases since 2001, with total costs of ^[29] $190 million by 2006. In the hopes of avoiding these costs, the Washington Dept. of Health currently spends $246,000 per year on surveillance for the virus and epidemiological followup and testing on suspected human cases^[30].

Impact on respiratory illnesses, such as asthma and allergies
Washington's asthma prevalence is already among the highest in the nation ^[31], engendering costs to the state currently of more than $400 million yearly ^[32], and it will increase as global-warming-related air-quality problems increase. Though an increase in average yearly temp is the hallmark of global warming, it is not this temp rise itself which exacerbates asthma, but "activities that emit greenhouse gases [such as emissions from cars and power planets and the airborne particles from forest fires] can cause or worsen the disease." ^[33]. Ways in which global warming has a more direct effect on respiratory illnesses is through the increased CO₂ levels that cause most of global warming -- Increased CO₂ stimulates pollen production, which stimulates allergies. In addition, the increased flooding in Washington state will increase the growth of fungus in flooded homes, exacerbating allergies.

Impact on heat-related illnesses
Heat-related morbidity will increase as the average yearly temperature increases. Washington state's eastern half is already subject to very hot summers, and this is where most of the heat-related illnesses are likely to occur with increased warming, particularly for those without air-conditioning who are ill, elderly, or homeless. Studies of heat-related mortality in Spain ^[34] indicate that a temperature as low as 75 degrees F can contribute to mortality rates, and many cities in eastern Washington had highs of 107 degrees in 2006. "Hospital charges for heat-related admissions there in 1998 were approximately $6250 per patient." ^[35]

Coastal Watershed

CIG has worked to study the factors that affect the coastal regions. These factors include forestry practices and in other ways the land is being used. To help protect coastal waters there has been a reforestation act that states that satisfactory Reforestation must take place with in years after logging. ^[36] Research done suggests that as the forest cover is decreased to less than 65% then the surface cover greater than 10% the conditions stray outside the norm. ^[37] Despite the research there are still unknown answers as to how the pollutions and logging will effect the climate.

Estuaries play a significant role in a coastal watershed. Estuaries are incomplete bodies of water that mix freshwater (rivers, streams, groundwater) with salty seawater from the ocean. This makes it a unique habitat that fosters a wide variety of species. The EPA's National Coastal Assessment states the overall condition of coast is fair. The highest stress rates occur during the summer when water temperature is the highest. ^[38] Increases in average temperatures for the region can cause changes to the hydrologic cycle including higher levels of nutrients, and dissolved oxygen. This can cause water stratification and lead to a decrease in health of the ecosystem. ^[39]

Snow sports

Climate change, or more specifically, the rise in temperatures across the mountain regions, means more rain and less snow. Leading to earlier melting of Washington's snowpack, which is responsible not only for ideal slope conditions, but also for Washington's water supply. The breakdown of the snowpack occurs in early Spring when it is not needed, leaving the Summer months thirsty and dry and snowsports ending much earlier than years past. ^[40]. Washington is subject to disaster as it relies on glaciers and mountain snow pack to satiate summer stream flows. Scientists recognize that Washington's snow fall is fairly unpredictable from year to year, but there is substantial evidence revealing Washington's vulnerability to climate change. Over 40% of winter recreation in the past ten years takes place at lower elevation ski areas(Snoqualmie Summit, Mt. Baker, Mt. Spokane, & 49 Degrees North are most likely to be affected by climate change). The Summit at Snoqualmie experienced “warm winters” in 27% of the years from 1971 to 2000, and may experience over 50% of “warm winters” by 2040. Washington's ski resorts contribute largely to the state's economy. Over the last decade there was an average of 1.65 million visits per year. Annual revenue from Washington's ski areas ranges form $50 million – $150 million for ski passes, tickets, lessons, rentals. This does not include secondary revenues from skier’s food, retail sales, accommodations, etc. The winter recreational season is getting shorter and shorter due to less snow fall.

Sea Level Rise

The four main factors that contribute to sea level rise (SLR) are thermal expansion of the ocean, melting of land-based ice, local atmospheric circulation, and local tectonic movement. The report on Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State ^[41] summarized the possible sea level change for the NW Olympic Peninsula, Central and Southern Coast, and Puget Sound region and for each made estimates for very low, medium, and very high sea level change. For the year 2050, estimated NW Olympic Peninsula SLR ranged from -12 cm to 35 cm with negative SLR due to the predicted upward tectonic movement. Central and Southern Coast estimates ranged from 3 cm to 45 cm and Puget Sound was estimated at SLR of 8 cm to 55 cm. These values roughly double in all regions for the 2100 projections. Homes and businesses within reach of tidewater and low-lying agricultural areas in Washington are at high risks for flooding and current developers and anyone developing or buying property will likely take SLR into account before making an investment. Parts of Tacoma and Olympia are at higher risks than other cities like Seattle, since many areas in Tacoma and Olympia are built just a few feet above sea level. It is said that “shipping terminals, marinas, docks, and recreational facilities associated with coastal port districts are places where impacts will reach more deeply into the state’s economy through effects on commercial and recreational activities” The cost of preparing for such rise is largely unknown, however, Seattle has five seawalls and plans for rebuilding of the Alaskan Way seawall may increase in cost by 5-10 percent based on projections for sea level rise. ^[42]

Changing Shorelines

Shoreline change can be defined as the erosion of the beach, when the amount of incoming sand does not equal the amount of outgoing sand. ^[43] With over 3,000 miles (4,800 km) of shoreline, Washington State is especially vulnerable to climate related shoreline changes caused by rising sea water levels. The impact of sea level rise will depend greatly on the amount of rise which occurs, an estimate that falls between 3 inches (76 mm) and more than 40 inches (1,000 mm) within the next hundred years. ^[44].

The areas that will be impacted most will be the southern Puget Sound between Olympia and Tacoma because this area is in fact gradually subsiding at a measured rate of around 24 mm a decade. As the sea level rises and this area moves down relative to the sea level it will be impacted at an earlier time than the rest of the state.

Flooding

Due to the estimated half degree increase in temperature each decade described in the report, it will cause flooding in many of Washington’s coastal areas. As global temperatures rise, it causes the oceans to warm up and expand. Ice caps and glaciers also melt and the amount of rain increases and at the same time, the amount of snow decreases. ^[45]. All of these factors contribute to the rise in sea level, which is what causes flooding. Homes and businesses within reach of tidewater and low-lying agricultural areas in Washington are at high risks for flooding. Parts of Tacoma and Olympia are at higher risks than other cities like Seattle, since many areas in Tacoma and Olympia are built just a few feet above sea level. It is said that “shipping terminals, marinas, docks, and recreational facilities associated with coastal port districts are places where impacts will reach more deeply into the state’s economy through effects on commercial and recreational activities” ^[46].

Greenhouse gas emissions

The state government regularly publishes greenhouse gas inventories. ^[47].

Traffic congestion accounts for a significant percentage of Washington State's contribution to greenhouse gases. According to the Annual Mobility Study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, Seattle travelers annually consume 54.7 million excess gallons of fuel due to local traffic congestion.^[48] The social cost of traffic congestion in Seattle amounts to $1.4 billions dollars annually, and this wasted gasoline accounts for 1.1 billion lbs of CO₂ emissions (496,230 metric tons).^[49]

Washington generated most of its energy from hydropower until 1972 when a coal plant in Centralia opened. Naturally, this caused CO₂ emissions to increase. Emissions remained steady until the early 1990's when natural gas was introduced into the spectrum of energy generation, again causing CO₂ emissions to rise. Electric energy generation is responsible for approximately one-third of the total increase of CO₂ emissions that Washington has seen. In 2006, electricity generate was responsible for twenty percent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Transportation is the main cause of GHG emissions in Washington state. It is accountable for forty-three percent of all emissions. ^[50]

Mitigation

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is working to develop regional strategies to mitigate climate change in 6 states of the western US, including Washington, and in the western-most provinces of Canada. Its main thrust as of 2008, is to develop a region-wide multi-sector cap-and-trade program. ^[51]

In 2007, Washington governor Christine Gregoire’s executive order passed putting into effect her climate change challenge goals.
1. Reducing Climate Pollution. Reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. By 2050, reduce emissions by half of the 1990 levels.
2. Growing the Clean Energy Economy. Create jobs that use cleaner energy. Clean energy jobs grew 45 percent between 1998 and 2004. Governor Gregoire hopes to see jobs increase to 25,000 by 2020.
3. Moving Toward Energy Independence. 9 billion dollars were spent on imported fuel in 2006. Gregoire would like to see this money put back into our economy be generating our own renewable fuel industry. By 2020, Gregoire’s goal is to reduce spending on imported fuel by 20 percent. ^[52]

In 2005, Seattle reduced its greenhouse gas emission by 8 percent when compared to 1990 emissions. Despite Seattle’s economic/population growth since 1990, energy use has gone down. Programs, such as the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (SBMP) will reduce emissions even further by increasing the number of bike lanes and improving pedestrian sidewalks. Mayor Greg Nickels, “Center City Strategy,” will cluster growth within Seattle by promoting urban/compact living within its downtown and local neighborhoods. Mayor Greg Nickels, along with 700 other Mayors nation wide, signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement that requires cities to meet or beat the Kyoto Treaty emission targets by 2012. ^[53]

Policy

To reduce the impacts of climate change, the State of Washington has enacted several pieces of legislation in recent years. These pieces cover areas such as construction, waste, water, air quality, etc.

Green Building

In February of 2000, Seattle became one of the first US cities to enact a green building policy. Called the Sustainable Building Policy, it requires all city-funded projects covering more than 5,000 square feet (460 m²) to achieve at least a LEED-silver rating ^[54]. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, is a voluntary, national green building rating system that certifies buildings for their sustainable construction and operation. Projects can receive four levels of certification - Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. These four levels are determined by the number of points a project receives using the LEED rating system. As of May of 2006, the city has 9 LEED-certified buildings, with the most notable examples being the Seattle City Hall and Seattle Public Library, both of which are LEED-silver rated. On April 21, 2005, Washington became the first state to require that new public buildings meet the LEED standard ^[55]. Similar to the Sustainable Building Policy, this law covers all state-funded facilities larger than 5,000 square feet (460 m²), including school buildings.

Electronic Waste

Electronic waste, or e-waste, is the discarded remains of unwanted electronic goods and appliances, such as TVs, computers and cell phones. It currently equals about 1% of the solid waste generated in developed countries. However, it is also the fastest growing part of the municipal waste stream. A 2001 study estimated that 1,600 computers became obsolete each day in Oregon and Washington ^[56]. E-waste is composed of several toxic substances, most notably lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, plastics and brominated flame retardants. Electronic appliances simply sitting in houses do not pose a threat to the environment, but once they are discarded and landfilled, all the previously mentioned toxic substances leak into the water, land and air. At best, only about 15% of e-waste gets recycled in the US ^[57]. Most e-waste being collected for recycling are not recycled in developed countries. About 70% of the e-waste generated globally ends up in China, where the recycling practices do more harm than good to the environment ^[58]. These problems have convinced Washington State and cities within to pass legislation that promotes the increased recycling of e-waste. Snohomish County was the first county to ban landfilling of e-waste in November 2002 ^[59]. This was followed by King County in September 2005. Together, these counties have set up the Take-it-back Network[6], which provides consumers options for recycling hazardous waste in a safe and cost effective manner. Take it Back Network members have to commit to environmentally-responsible recycling practices and must recycle materials domestically or in developed countries. Washington State followed suit by establishing a producer responsibility system in 2006. Chapter 173-900 WAC, the Electronic Products Recycling Program, requires manufacturers to annually register and submit a fee to the Department of Ecology and must participate in a plan for the collection, transportation and recycling of unwanted e-waste ^[60]. This program will be in effect starting from 2009.

Climate change in Washington