Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

State Business Group Wants to Repeal 2008 Climate Legislation

The Association of Washington Business, the lobbying group for business in Olympia, wants to repeal legislation mandating statewide reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT, a widely accepted measure of how much people are driving, and thus how much pollution they’re creating) passed by the state legislature in 2008. The law calls for an 18 percent reduction by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050. AWB communications director Jocelyn McCabe says, “We support the repeal of VMT policies, and have been working closely with a variety of stakeholders on this issue.”

In its “Legislative Objective” on climate change, the AWB argues that the state should wait for federal regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions rather than attempting to pass legislation at the state level.

The Transportation Choices Coalition, which advocates for alternatives to single-occupancy driving, has identified protecting the VMT legislation as one of its top priorities for 2010. Noting that a work group created by the state found a need to “continue efforts to reduce inefficient travel wherever possible,” the TCC’s legislative agenda concludes, “The state cannot reach our [greenhouse gas] reduction goals without pursuing policies that reduce the need for people to drive.”

At a lunchtime forum this afternoon, TCC director Rob Johnson said, “We think we’ve got a good leg to stand on” with regard to the VMT legislation. “We’ve got some good allies to help fight off repeal, and also, this is one of those situations where the lack of oxygen”—that is, the number of competing issues in Olympia— “works in our favor.”

Additionally, the AWB writes, “Washington’s share of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions is less than three-tenths of one percent (.003), causing a negligible impact on climate change. … The State’s pursuit of additional policies to directly regulate GHG emissions threatens capital investment in manufacturing and other enterprises and the attempt to indirectly control emissions through land-use and transportation policies will stifle the construction industry.”

In addition to supporting the repeal of driving-reduction mandates, the AWB plans to oppose carbon pricing, support “policies that improve transportation efficiency and reduce congestion, such as lane capacity and highway expansion projects,” support expansion of hydro, nuclear, and biomass energy projects, and support green tech jobs.




  • gloomy gus

    Bastards. Complete bastards. And they represent a tiny fraction of businesses, the dinosaurs, neanderthals.

  • Anonymous

    “Washington’s share of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions is less than three-tenths of one percent (.003)” Yet even if that’s true (I haven’t checked the math*), WA has less than one tenth of one percent (.001) of the world’s population. Meaning the average person in WA is emitting 3x the amount of carbon than the average person on earth.

    Besides, it’s misleading to list that number as .003 when talking about percentages. That number is .3%, which when comparing our little state to the entire world is pretty big.

    * Actually, my guess is that number is very low, and probably only considers our direct impact. When you consider things like the TVs we import from China or the beef we haul up from Brazil, it should get much larger.

  • Anonymous

    Its so frustrating that AWB is even getting involved with this issue. Looking globally, there really isn’t a connection between poor economies and strong environmental protection. Denmark and Germany sure are doing fine.

    Rather than fighting this, they should be doing what any good business association would do: find ways to foster and support business innovation in an ever-changing political environment. Washington seems to have managed the transition from resource extraction quite well, and now their are plenty of opportunities to get ahead in the new global economy, rather than blaming straw man policies for the end of the go-go 90′s.

    The global trend towards more sustainable lifestyles sure hasn’t hampered Oregon’s economy: Oregon Ironworks now sells American made streetcars, Vesta, the largest wind technology firm in the world, chose Portland as its headquarters, and now Oregon is the only place in the world to get sustainable harvested dungeness crab.

    AWB: Stop being lazy and set an example for innovators and entrepreneurs of our fine state!

  • Grover

    “The law calls for an 18 percent reduction [in VMT] by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050.”

    This law is a complete joke. How could this possibly be inforced? It can not be, and will not be.

    Is the state going to ration miles of driving among the populace? Each person gets only so many miles, and when they reach the limit, their cars are impounded? Or what?

    The bottom line is that as long as the population keeps growing, greenhouse gas emissions are going to keep growing also. And group that wanst to limit or reduce GHG emissions should start with policies that limit or end population growth.

    Why doesn’t the state pass laws that discourage people from moving to WA?

    Anyway, the “law” that ghg emissions must go down 18 percent by 2020 is a joke, and entirely unenforceable. If the state ever actually tries to force people to stop driving, there are a lot of elected officials who will have their heads handed to them by voters. It’s just a bit of nonsense that means nothing.

  • Grover

    In my last paragraph, I meant “…VMT must go down 18 percent by 2020…”, not ghg.

  • alexjon

    Right, because Governor Gregoire is all about using our current roadways wisely and isn’t ready to spend billions per mile on new roads.

  • gloomy gus

    The law’s no joke. It joins us to the Western States Initiative, puts agencies’ feet to the fire on planning reductions using every tool in the book, and spurs clean energy economic growth.

    The phonies at the AWB count on people repeating their baloney though.

  • Transpo Guy

    Gloomy Gus is right, AWB is run by a bunch of knuckle-dragging, conservative Republican former legislators from Eastern Washington. Most of their membership is not paying attention to what AWB is doing in Olympia, so their lobbyists run amok fighting anything that smells of environmental, consumer or worker protection on ideological grounds. This is the same group that fought against Civil Rights laws in the 50′s and 60s because, you know, Civil Rights protections “interfere with the operation of the free market.” AWB deserves to be marginalized on these sorts of issues, but legislators don’t want to offend their long-time drinking buddies and the campaign contributions they bring with them.

  • Assoc’n Of Washington Bulls**t

    “the AWB argues that the state should wait for federal regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions rather than attempting to pass legislation at the state level.”

    Which is code for ‘never’.

    “We, the business community, do not want our state to take a leadership position in this or any other issue…” Love, ABW

  • Steve

    The toothless VMT provisions of the law are so widely viewed as unreasonable that they are routinely used to marginalize anyone who proposes doing anything real. (Thanks to petroleum lobbyists and their checkbooks.)

    The big wonderment is why major businesses who help run the AWB (like Boeing and Microsoft and the “tree growing company”) are not telling AWB to knock it off when it comes to opposing climate law in such a ham fisted way. Why?

    Anyone of who sells things to the rest of the world should be more than a little concerned about being associated with backwater climate policy (like the AWB paper on this topic that is live on the web). It’s really bad for doing business with the rest of the world, whether you’re selling Washington apples, software, airplanes or anything else. And this is the most trade dependent state.

    AWB doesn’t get it and appears to be shilling for the petroleum lobby (which include the asphalt gang), as it typically does. It can’t see its enormous blunder because it is staffed by Republicans who rely on people like Karl Rove (who is also shilling for petroleum) for clues on how to approach climate policy.

    It is pretty insane when you consider that Washington is one of the most carbon light economies in the world – which you’d think the state’s leading business group would be promoting.

    Instead, the AWB is knee jerking in ways that will backfire for Washington’s export oriented businesses, which are the drivers of the state’s economic future, and happen to be pretty carbon light.

  • GHG

    Even though I could drive downtown to work every day, and have the means, I take the bus.
    Having said that, Seattle has a long way to go in providing, timely, safe and area friendly mass transit.
    As I ride in and watch the cars on the bridge, many are one person vehicles. I think why would one drive when mass transit if available.
    I still don’t have an answer to the question, but my guess it has something to do with my first paragraph?
    The TCC’s claim can be shot down by as many that believe CO2 is solely responsible for GHG. Any scientific mind, or even a prudent one would have to really want to believe this claim in order to suscribe to the climate change theory caused by increase in CO2. There are as many skeptics from well know climate groups, non governmental, that do not believe as government ones that do believe.
    Check out this link: http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html