The 2010 election and what it means for sustainability

The sun is still rising on clean energy on the West Coast. Photo courtesy RhizomeImages.com

From a political perspective, things seem to be looking bleak for most of the people I've talked to today. Sure, the Republicans now control the U.S House of Representatives and are likely to be led by a man who has been known to scoff at basic climate science. But from my perspective, the West Coast's sustainable business community is sitting pretty the day after the 2010 elections. Or, at least, relatively so.

First of all, there is little evidence that voters across the country were thinking much about sustainability or the environment when they voted yesterday (which is a problem, but one of a different stripe). In fact, large numbers of Democrats who voted against the house climate bill in 2009 also lost last night.

Obviously the big reason for hope on the Left Coast is the defeat of California's Proposition 23 which sought to delay implementation of California's landmark global warming law, AB 32, until unemployment in the state dropped below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. With a current unemployment rate of 12.4 percent, it doesn't look likely that would have happened any time soon. Had Prop 23 passed, it would have effectively killed AB 32 and, according to some, also killed the state's burgeoning cleantech sector. Keeping AB 32 intact means cleantech businesses and those focused on increasing energy efficiency have what the rest of the country sorely needs: legislative certainty.

But that's not the only reason the green business people among us have reason to smile.

The reaction to the Prop 23 outcome is telling. "This is the largest referendum anywhere on the planet where people have directly voted on clean energy and climate policy ... It's the largest state in the country sending a clear message that they want a clean energy economy and clean energy jobs," Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, told The New York Times,  

It's a point I've seen made many places today. Even if energy-industry insiders such as Frank Maisano, who works with Washington, D.C.-based Bracewell and Giuliani, says tells The Times,  "They may be able to force other issues like transportation fuels, but they won't be able to force the Southeast into adopting this." 

It's true that unlike fuel efficiency standards, California can't force market change with AB 32, but what Maisano is missing (perhaps purposefully) is that it won't have to. Other states will see the economic growth that will take place in California and look to put similar policies in place. Further, states that have lost manufacturing jobs will soon fight to get the new manufacturing jobs clean tech companies will create as they grow. 

As Andrew Leonard writes on Salon.com today, "California's economy is so large that the state can, by itself, make a huge, globally relevant impact on the development of clean and renewable energy technology." 

The electoral outcome in Washington state isn't as green as many would like. Though it seems that Sen. Patty Murray held off a challenge by former Republican state senator Dino Rossi, other Republicans took away seats from Democratic representatives at the state and federal level and have even taken control of the state senate. Additionally, Washington voters chose not to pay for efficiency upgrades to schools by extending a temporary tax on bottled water.

Sustainability advocates in Washington, can look south for hope and guidance though. In Oregon, Democrats largely avoided the Great Red Wave that swept over much of the rest of the country. It's another state hit hard by unemployment and the Great Recession, but its voters seem to be choosing a party that acknowledges climate change and is working to implement policies to fight it. And of course, we've got the economic machine of California to follow and emulate.