Seattle Climate Agenda 2024

The Comprehensive Plan should: a) include a robust and detailed section on climate change, b) focus on mitigation strategies by sector, providing goals and solutions for reducing emissions, and c) focus on climate hazard vulnerabilities, adaptation, and resilience strategies based on updated climate data.

The climate section of the comprehensive plan should specify mitigation actions specific to various high-emissions sectors such as manufacturing, construction, electricity/utilities, agriculture, land-use change, waste, and buildings. For example, maintaining and building urban housing is beneficial not only for socioeconomic issues but for climate issues as well. Suburban households produce greenhouse gas emissions up to twice the national average while households in large, population-dense urban cities emit about 50 percent  less than the national average. Urban households tend to be smaller, more energy-efficient, and closer to necessities like healthcare facilities, grocery stores, and public transit. Multi-unit housing uses less energy to heat because they are sharing walls with neighbors. And urban dwellers drive less to access services. For cities like Seattle, this is one of the most effective forms of mitigation, as well as the least expensive for the city government. Tree canopy coverage must be integrated into housing concerns as part of the overall strategy for GHG emissions mitigation as well as for mental and emotional health benefits.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through climate mitigation efforts is critical, but to be effective at preventing harm, these efforts must be coupled with climate resilience and adaptation as well. Unfortunately, it is too late to stop the effects of climate change completely. Even if the entire world stopped emitting GHGs today, we would still feel the consequences of climate change for decades to come because of the atmospheric and oceanic processes already underway. This is why it is crucial to not only prevent future emissions but also to find ways to adapt to the inevitable climate impacts we will face in the future.

Although detailed climate hazard analyses have been completed in Seattle in the past, many are now more than 20 years old. Climate science is an evolving field; climate models, and our understanding of their outputs, are continually improving. Updated and ongoing analyses must be fully funded to ensure that the climate section of the Comprehensive Plan will be robust and detailed in both mitigation and adaptation solutions and hazard vulnerabilities. This section should be a primary focus of the Comprehensive Plan, expanding upon the framework laid out in the 2018 Seattle Climate Action Plan to give us the best chance of preparing for and minimizing negative impacts to the residents of Seattle.

Potential sources of funding for these actions:

• Urban & Community Forestry Inflation Reduction Act Grants
• FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
• FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC)

The Transportation Levy should make investments that will reduce emissions from transportation, and meet Seattle’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 82 percent by 2030 compared to a 2008 baseline.

The transportation sector produces 60 percent of all GHG emissions in Seattle. Seattle’s overall goal is to reduce carbon pollution 50 percent by 2030, compared to 2008 levels, in line with what is called for by the IPCC, the Paris accord, and state climate goals. Because it takes longer to reduce emissions from buildings, the goal for the transportation sector from the Seattle Climate Action of 2018 is for an 82 percent reduction by 2030. To meet these levels of reductions will take planning, and it will take funding from the next Transportation Levy. There are a variety of different ways we could reduce emissions: more people riding public transit, walking, or biking; electrification of cars and trucks; reducing the need for transportation by increasing density and providing more services where people live; and more people working from home. Most of these require planning and investment in order to make them happen. The Puget Sound Regional Council did this sort of planning as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Seattle should do the same level of modeling, and make it clear what reductions the Transportation Levy will provide, and which will have to come from other places.

While mitigation is clearly very important, adaptation must not be ignored, since this would leave us unprepared in the face of inevitable disasters. There are several notable research groups conducting climate modeling and data analysis in the Seattle area relevant to transportation planning and hazards; most notable among them is the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (https://cig.uw.edu/). King County Metro completed a climate vulnerability assessment in 2023 using some of the data produced by such research groups that prioritized their assets, facilities, and operations by relative risk to climate hazards in the area. The city of Seattle is overdue for a similar assessment; this should be prioritized in the upcoming transportation plan. 

Potential sources of funding for these actions:

• Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) 
• FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
• DOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)

Building on the recent passage of the Building Emissions Performance Standards (BEPS), the City should now focus on decarbonizing smaller buildings and single-family homes by providing support and incentives.

The City of Seattle needs to build on the recent passage of the Building Emissions Performance Standards (BEPS) by developing a strategy to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from mid-size buildings less than 20,000 square feet and single-family homes. This effort should include expansion of the Clean Buildings Accelerator Program and financial incentives that could be funded through development or permit fees. It is imperative that the Council also work with the State Legislature to allow Seattle City Light to use an increment of utility fees to incentivize the replacement of gas-fueled energy systems and improve energy efficiency.

Potential sources of funding for these actions:

• EPA Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG)
• HUD Community Development Block Grants
• FEMA Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation (STORM) Act

Seattle should continue to fund climate initiatives at least at the level they are currently funded. 

Switching over our transportation system and our buildings from fossil fuels to clean energy will be an investment that pays off but requires upfront costs, some of which will need to be shouldered by the government. The costs of mitigation include, but are not limited to: incentives for clean heat and cooling systems for low income residents, and infrastructure for multi-modal transportation. Investments are also needed to create a robust network of climate resilience hubs that will provide a safe place for residents in the face of extreme heat, cold or wildfire smoke. Seattle has been spending roughly $25 million/year on these and other programs, which is modest compared to Portland, for example, which is spending $750 million over 5 years. This spending should be part of a comprehensive climate plan which shows what is required in order to meet our emissions reductions goals by 2030 and 2050. 

Potential sources of funding for these actions:

- EPA Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG)

- DOT Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant Program

- EPA Environmental and Climate Justice Community Change Grants

- FEMA Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation (STORM) Act

Establish a Select Committee on Climate to oversee the City’s response to climate change across multiple City departments.

We believe an active Select Committee on Climate (such as the one that helped shepherd through the Building Emissions Performance Standards last year), will center these consequential issues by being the central workgroup to facilitate climate issues considered in the work of other committees and also to serve as the gathering place to analyze and synthesize data from those committees. This will allow the Council to develop efficient and appropriate policies, procedures, and ordinances proposed to meet our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets as well as to prioritize climate adaptation and resilience.

By providing centralized oversight, meaningful action will become easier, less costly, and more effective.