Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

October 2002 Boulder’s Getting Bolder: Holding the Feds Accountable for Global Warming The Satya Interview with Will Toor

 

Will Toor is Mayor of Boulder, Colorado. The city of Boulder has joined an unprecedented lawsuit against two federal agencies, charging that billions of dollars have been invested in industrial projects that have substantially contributed to global warming and thus have had a severe negative impact on the U.S. environment. Rachel Cernansky spoke with Will Toor, who explains this legal strategy and how Boulder is being affected by global warming.

So, tell us about the lawsuit.
It’s a suit against two federal agencies, the Export Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and was filed in late August in the District Court in San Francisco by three litigants: Friends of the Earth (FOE), Greenpeace, and the city of Boulder. The suit basically argues that OPIC and Ex-Im illegally provided over $32 billion in financing for oilfields, pipelines, and power plants all around the world during the past two years, without looking at their contribution to global warming and their impact on the U.S. environment [see Sidebar]. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), they’re required to conduct an environmental assessment of any program or project that could have a significant impact on the human environment, and both of these agencies have refused to review their programs’ contributions to global warming.

The crux of the lawsuit is the argument that just because OPIC and Ex-Im are investing these funds outside the U.S. doesn’t mean they should be able to avoid NEPA assessment requirements, because there’s likely to be an environmental impact in the U.S. FOE and Greenpeace have standing through member plaintiffs, people who face a potential direct impact—there’s a Vermont maple farmer and a homeowner on the outer banks of North Carolina. When I heard about it, I thought it would make a lot of sense for Boulder to participate, since the problems with our municipal water supply would really give us standing in the lawsuit.

Why is Boulder in particular so affected?
I think that many cities across the country are affected, but I can explain why Boulder chose to join the lawsuit. We looked at the report that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (www.usgcrp.gov) did for the federal government a couple of years ago called “Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.,” which is probably the most comprehensive assessment of the likely impacts of global climate change on different regions of the U.S., then we took a look at the impacts on the city itself and on our citizens. There were a couple of things that really stood out in terms of Boulder and the Rocky Mountain region. One is that we can expect very significant impacts on the quantity and quality of our water supply. A great percentage of our water comes from the gradual melting of wintertime snowcaps during the spring and summer, and the climate models suggest that a greater percentage of precipitation is going to come in the form of rainfall and less in the form of snow, meaning less spring runoff. The entire water supply infrastructure of the Rocky Mountain west is based upon that gradual snow-melt, so the entire region—and this city in particular—could face major expenditures to have to retrofit our infrastructure.

In addition, the models suggest that there will be increased interannual variability of precipitation, meaning a greater likelihood of wetter years and drier years. One of the key models predicts significantly increased incidences of severe drought. We have very graphic representation this year of what the effects of drought are, and with the watering restrictions we’ve had to impose, there’s going to be a very direct economic impact as both citizens and the city are faced with replacing drought damage to landscaping.

Boulder also endures a high flood risk because we’re right at the edge of the Rocky Mountain flood region. We have several beautiful, steep canyons at the edge of town, the drainage from which goes right through the city. If we are likely to see increased precipitation, then we will likely see more flood years—again, very direct effects both economically and on the health and safety of our citizens.

Beyond these, there are other concerns, particularly about the effects on natural ecosystems. Many people live in this area because there are both beautiful and ecologically somewhat intact natural areas, and the city of Boulder has spent several hundred million dollars over the last 35 years acquiring land for preservation. Meanwhile, another document, the “Climate Change Action Report”, which the EPA put out in May—under the Bush administration—states that there is a significant likelihood that many alpine meadow ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains will shrink and possibly disappear. That’s the sort of thing I ask our citizens about, how important is it to have Alpine Meadow ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park; and I think it’s very important to our citizens.

In the press release for the lawsuit, you mention the detrimental effect of climate change on “all of the work that Boulder does to maintain the quality of life for its residents.” What has Boulder been doing to improve air quality, and the state of the environment in general?
That’s a big question. We’ve worked on a number of environmental issues. Among the city council’s four strategic goals is to focus on environmental sustainability, trying to make the city a national model for local actions. Over the years, that’s included a major emphasis on the protection of natural landscapes. In 1967 the citizens voted in the first dedicated tax for acquiring open space in the country. Since then, we’ve acquired approximately 44-45,000 acres of land. Under Boulder’s Open Space Charter, this land is protected and can only be used for habitat protection, for urban shaping, or for passive recreation—meaning that you can have trails on them but you can’t have parks and recreation facilities. For comparison, the city is about 15,000 acres, so Boulder owns and is surrounded by an area of protected land that is about three times as large as the city itself.

Over the last decade, we’ve been developing a public transit system that works for a community like Boulder. In the U.S. we’ve seen public transit systems generally working well in [larger] cities but not so well in smaller communities. In the last ten years we’ve tried the Community Transit Network, based on a series of small, color-coded buses with very simple routes, and high contingency buses so that people don’t need to know schedules. And I’ve worked to get transit passes into people’s hands, creating an Eco Pass program in which 60,000 people in a city of 100,000 can just show their picture ID and ride any bus or Light Rail line in the Boulder-Denver region without having to pay a fare. It’s worked pretty well, we’ve seen transit use triple in the last decade. At the same time, we’ve been trying to invest in bicycle infrastructure; we’re working now to make all areas of the city more bicycle and pedestrian friendly and more transit friendly.

Has Boulder been working on clean energy alternatives?
That’s an area that we’re working on right now. Over the last couple of years we’ve done a few things to reduce our local contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We’ve adopted a new green building requirement in our residential building code, so that all new houses and apartment buildings have to accumulate enough “green points” to get a building permit. We’re currently working with the U.S. Green Building Council to develop a similar system for the commercial/industrial sector.

We’re also looking at what we can do to boost the use of renewable energy, and have a number of projects using relatively clean hydropower and windpower. We’re looking at what it would take to convert [Boulder’s energy supply] so that a significant portion comes from renewable sources, including the option of developing a windfarm in northeastern Colorado.

How does the city finance these programs; are they profitable?
The citizens have made it clear that they consider environmental quality to be important in that they’re willing to pay for it. Dedicated tax funding, for instance, is voted in place by the citizens, and the city council doesn’t have the option of using that money for something else.

Our recycling program, for example, has two elements to it. There’s a countywide recycling facility, paid for by a dedicated tax for investment in recycling and composting. Then the city has a pay-as-you-throw requirement—trash collection is done by the private sector and regulated by the city. Their rates have to scale with the amount of trash collected, so you pay significantly more to put out two cans a week as opposed to one, but you don’t pay extra for recycling more of your waste.

Getting back to the lawsuit, how is the trail of evidence being established to trace direct links between the plaintiffs and the projects in question?
Well there are a couple of pieces to it. One is the analysis of the GHG emissions that are associated with projects funded by OPIC and Ex-Im, and that’s relatively noncontroversial. Specialists estimate that the projects will emit more carbon dioxide over their lifetime than the total annual carbon dioxide emissions of the world, so this isn’t small change.

The second piece is the argument that these emissions are likely to have an impact on the global climate, and that will affect the U.S. I think the key document will be the EPA’s “Climate Change Action Report,” which essentially lays out the entire scientific case for global warming and admits that there seems to be a link between human GHG emissions and climate changes.

Would you say the suit is more functional in purpose, a direct action of sorts, or is it more symbolic?
I think that the case is very clear-cut and we’re likely to win, which would be sure to force these two agencies to at least start looking at what they’re doing to the global climate. I think it will establish a precedent, and other federal agencies will have to start analyzing what we’ve been doing to the environment, so that in and of itself will be useful. There is so much happening right now to mitigate global climate change, around the world and within the U.S., through municipalities and states—California is leading the way with their recent legislation that is going to require that 20 percent of electricity come from renewable energy, and the recent legislation requiring automobiles to start having lower GHG emissions. But it’s also clear that as long as the government of the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world refuses to act, the problem will be ultimately unsolvable. So I have hope that the lawsuit, in addition to the direct benefit of winning, will be one more thing to start prodding the Bush administration to pay attention to global climate change.

What kind of response have you had from Boulder residents?
What I’ve heard has been primarily positive. There are a lot of climate and environmental research institutions in Boulder, so we have an awful lot of people who understand climate change issues and the potential threats. So there’s a lot of support and interest in the lawsuit and in the city’s efforts to reduce our own emissions.

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
I guess I’d say yes. Environmental protection and whether we’re able to figure out a way of living on this earth that protects its life support systems—that’s just going to be the deciding issue in this next century.

What kind of things were you involved in before becoming Mayor?
I worked, and still do, as Director of the University of Colorado Environmental Center, which works on both developing student environmental leadership and on improving the environmental sustainability of the university campus. There’s a focus on the idea that if we want to be a force for sustainability through our research and teaching, we should also be an example in campus operations. I also served on the city’s Transportation Advisory Board and on the Board of Directors of Ecocycle, the local non-profit that operates recycling and waste reduction.

What would you recommend that average citizens do, to do their part?
I think there are two things; there are personal steps that can be taken and then there’s political involvement. There’s so much that can be done at the personal level, simple steps to reduce your own contribution—starting with making your house more energy efficient. When we moved into our house, by changing to energy efficient light bulbs we actually reduced our energy use compared to the prior residents by 60 percent, and it didn’t cost us very much. And if you live in an area where there’s a utility that offers green power programs or energy deregulation now offers you a choice of power providers, I think going to a green power provider or program is critical. Reducing driving is another thing—in a lot of the country, you can do many of your trips by transit and bicycle—and if you have to drive, getting a hydroelectric vehicle is another possibility.

The other big thing is being politically active at every level, from who gets elected to city council up to the President. I think people should be talking about and making it clear that where candidates stand on these issues is key in who they choose to vote for.

What about the role of diet—a vegetarian vs. meat-based diet?
I think that’s an important thing. The extent to which you reduce meat consumption has all sorts of positive environmental impacts. I don’t think that it’s the critical thing around global climate change, but it’s certainly a positive step for all sorts of reasons.

Besides voting, how can people be politically active, and how can they get their voices heard by their elected officials?
There are all sorts of ways. There are a number of national organizations that are effectively working on these issues, including the two entities leading this lawsuit, FOE and Greenpeace. On the electoral front, I think the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters are the two most effective groups that have an impact on who actually gets elected. At the local level, there are groups working in just about every community, and I think one of the most rewarding things in life is getting involved, digging in and making a difference. I have to say, having been on the Board of the City Council, one of the things that’s so much fun is that it’s not like trying to make something change at a global or national level, where you work for decades. You can conceive of a good idea and work with other people to actually make change and see things happening within a few years. I just think—what can be more rewarding than that?

Is there anything else you want to add?
One other thing is that, while Boulder is the only city to date that has signed on to this lawsuit, there is just a ton happening around the country with local governments acting on climate change. Something like 300 cities have joined the Cities for Climate Protection campaign, and cities as diverse as San Francisco and Salt Lake City have adopted GHG emissions targets. Even cities that we often see as being more conservative and perhaps not interested in these sorts of issues are seeing the connections and taking action. These are issues that people can really grapple with at a local level, and if folks are living in an area where it’s not happening, they should jump in and make it happen.

How do you recommend people reach their officials?
My experience is that the people you pay the most attention to are your constituents, so it’s definitely your own local government that you ought to be talking to. Phone calls and personal letters are the two things that I really respond to. I don’t think that petitions do very much, and I don’t think the form letters that people sign get much attention. But when you get a phone call, or a letter or an e-mail that somebody has clearly written themselves and cares enough to write, I think that does have some impact.

To learn more about the lawsuit and plaintiffs, read the summary and case studies, and find links to other Web sites, visit www.climatelawsuit.org.