Climate change in Washington

For the most up to date and comprehensive analysis of climate change impacts on Washington State, see the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group 2013 assessment report, available here.

Economic Impacts of Climate Change (2007) in Washington State summarized impacts on forest fires, public health, agriculture, municipal water supply, sea level rise and fisheries. These conclusions have been reached through several predictions, based primarily on temperature and precipitation models for climate change. The expected warming of 0.5 °F (0.2 °C) every ten years is the main source for any visible impacts. Although total annual precipitation is not expected to change significantly, the increase of temperatures will result in a more minimal snowpack leading to more rain.

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

According to The Economic Impacts of Climate Change in Washington State, the major impacts of climate change in Washington State (2007) include:

1. Increase in carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels.
2. Increase in temperatures: An estimated 2 °F (1.1 °C) by 2020 and up to 3 °F (1.7 °C) by 2040.
3. Earlier annual snow melt.
4. Sea level rise of about 3 inches to 3 feet (0.91 m) by 2100.
5. No change in volume of precipitation.

Less snowpack will also result in a time change of water flow volumes into freshwater systems, resulting in greater winter river volume, and less volume during summer's driest months, generally from July through October. These changes will result in both economic and ecological repercussions, most notably found in hydrological power output, municipal water supply and migration of fish. Collectively, these changes are negatively affecting agriculture, forest resources, dairy farming, the Washington wine industry, electricity, water supply, and other areas of the state.[1]

In 2006, a group of scientists and economists published The Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy, a preliminary assessment on the possible risks and opportunities given a rise in global temperatures occurs, and more specifically, the effects for the state of Washington. 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 provide economic opportunities.[2]^:7

The economy of Washington State will dictate the effects of these impacts. These effects are unique to Washington due to individual natural resources, climate patterns, industries, and trade.[1]

Climate change can directly affect the amount of resources that generate economic activity. Climate change can also affect the quality of important resources such as fresh drinking water, irrigation of crops and the generation of electricity. Climate change can also accelerate the depletion of capital assets used toward the formation of seawalls that are needed to protect shorelines from rising sea levels. Climate change can affect human health in ways that impact families and the workforce (e.g., premature death, increased sick days or leaves of absence, health care costs and insurance claims). All of these things also impair quality of life.

Washington state has a varied and active economy of approximately $268.5 billion. Washington's gross state product is the sum of twenty-one economic sectors ranging from mining ($400 million in 2004) to real estate, rental, and leasing ($38.8 billion) in 2004. The extent of vulnerability in dealing with climate-related issues is hard to assess for each sector individually. National and international trade and inter-sector links stretch out the vulnerability to climate change effects.

Decline of North Cascade Glaciers, 1984-2005

Global warming threatens to disrupt the natural habitat of three national parks in Washington State—Olympic, Mount Rainier, and North Cascades. It appears that the natural flow and pathways that water has taken through these parks in the past will be disrupted. Global warming has thrown glacier melting into fast forward, and it appears we could lose many streams as well as glaciers in these parks.

In the North Cascades National Park, experts estimate that some streams get about half of their late-summer flow from glaciers. Since 1959, the glaciers have lost 80% of their ice, and in Thunder Creek specifically, receding glaciers reduced summer streams on a whole by 31%. At Mount Rainier National Park the mountain's glaciers lost 21% of their area between 1913 and 1994, and in Olympic National Park, glacier retreat has been recorded for Blue Glacier as well as others.

Beyond glacial retreat, we may see a shift in the expansive meadows that exist in Paradise Valley. This valley owes its special characteristics (wide-open expanse, brilliant wildflowers, and amazing views) to its heavy snows and short growing season—keeping it clear of trees. Higher temperatures may mean that trees will take over these meadows, also preventing wildflowers from growing. Scientists have already detected loss of mountain meadows on both the wetter and dryer east sides of the Olympic National Park.[3]

Forestlands comprise a significant element of Washington's economy. Out of Washington State's 43,000,000 acres (170,000 km²), 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 pulp, and paper was 43,700.[5] Timber collected on public land represents 16% of the current output from the lumber industry.[2]

Washington State relies on hydropower for 72% of its power and sales of hydropower to both households and businesses topped $4.3 billion in 2003. Washington State has the 9th lowest cost for electricity in the US. Climate change will have a negative effect on both the supply and demand of electricity in Washington.[2]

The biggest factors determining the effects on electricity are annual temperature changes and the change in peak snowpack melt and stream flow. A change in precipitation could also have an effect on electricity supply and demand, but dramatic changes in overall precipitation 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 probably increase due to more widespread need for air conditioning in order to keep homes and businesses cool, although estimates are still unknown. Washington State's reliance on hydropower (66% of electricity generation[9]) means that changes in peak snowpack melt and stream flows are important to the supply of electricity.[2] Pg. 38

The available electricity supply could also be affected by climate change. Peak stream flows are in the summer. Snowpack is likely to melt earlier in the future due to increased temperatures, thus 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. The economic impact from climate change in Washington could seriously alter the finances of the state. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council predictions for the future of hydropower are grim. The state generates $777 million in gains from power sales. However, by 2020 they expect to see this fall to a deficit of $169 million and by 2040 a deficit of $730 million. These numbers understate the production shortfalls for the state because the number of air-conditioners were kept constant at current levels. A recent assessment on climate change in Washington done by researchers from Oregon State University has published estimates that a revenue impact of 5% or less ($165 million).[2] 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.

Washington residents have low costs for electricity due to only a few electricity companies being investor-driven. In 2006, Washington residents paid 6.82 cents per kWh, compared to the national average, which was 8.9 cents per kWh.[10] Most of Washington's 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.[1]

Climate change will also affect how the state purchases electricity. During the summer months, Washington sells electricity to states such as California and Arizona because prices for their states is high in these seasons. During the winter months, Washington purchases electricity from these states because of the state's need for increased heating and lighting. Therefore, increased temperatures in the summer months will alter the selling of electricity to these states and cause the state to money loss.[2]

Seattle's municipal water systems may hit capacity in 2050.[11] In the October 2005, King County Climate Change Conference, a key topic of discussion was municipal water supply.[12] Experts predict shorter winters and longer summers, which potentially can lead to winter flooding and more severe summer droughts.[13] A 2005 University of Washington study states that the city of Seattle could see a 14% drop in water supply by 2040. This decrease in the water supply would be equivalent to about 170,000 more people moving into the area.[14] The Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) estimates that it will be able to maintain 171 million US gallons (650,000 m³) per day production for the next 50 years and meet demand which is estimated to maintain itself at 130 million US gallons (490,000 m³) as other cities such as Bellevue begin to use their own water supply. However, these numbers fail to take into account the effects of climate change. It is predicted that by 2040 the water levels will actually decrease to 147 million US gallons (560,000 m³) per day.[2]

With a predicted increase in temperature of 3° by 2040,[11] the region's water supply as a whole is expected to decline. Water supplies come from glaciers and mountain snowpack. As temperatures rise, the elevation at which snow normally falls will increase, and there will be less water available during run-off seasons. Winter and early spring will produce more water than late spring flows, which will decrease the amount of available water during the summer.[1] A lack of water will be problematic for both humans and the region's wildlife. This issue is also concerning because as water levels decrease, there is an expected increase in population in the Puget Sound region.[11] The municipal water supply problem will affect different regions differently depending on the amount of public served by them and the amount of water supply that they can tap into. Everett for example, has a population of 100,000 and the Sultan river provides it with a vast amount of water compared to its population, so global warming will have a minimal effect on the supply of water to it. [15]

The Seattle region gets the bulk of its water from the Cedar River and Tolt River watersheds. As the effects of global warming cause water levels to decrease in these watersheds, new water sources must be found. One idea proposed by a utility consortium, Cascade Water Alliance, is to use Lake Tapps, located in Pierce County as a new source of drinkable water.[14] The project is projected to cost $450 million and take decades to complete. These reservoirs are very important to the continued stability of the municipal water supply. Reservoirs hold the early spring melt of snow so that in the summer months it can be released when the snowpack is gone. Reservoirs must be made larger to hold more of the early spring runoff. This will cost millions, if not billions, of dollars to the states' taxpayers. This, however, will only help slightly. It is projected that by the year 2040 snowpack levels that used to dip to a dangerously low level appeared every 50 years will do so every 5. No matter the size of the reservoir, if there is not enough water to fill them then they will be of little help. The other alternative to curtailing water usage would be to increase the price the consumer has to pay for the water.[2]

Washington State is one of the nine contiguous states that has mountainous glaciers. These glaciers of the Olympic Range and the Northern Cascades produce 30 billion cubic feet (850,000,000 m³) of water every year. These glaciers are losing their size rapidly. The Southern Cascade Glacier in Darington has lost two-thirds of its volume. The glaciers in these ranges have, on average, decreased by 31 feet (9.4 m) and between 18 and 32% of their volume of water. An increase of 3.6 °F (2.0 °C) will cause 65% to 75% of the glaciers to disappear in 40 years. The retreat of the glaciers will help to increase the decline. Glaciers reflect the incoming light from the sun. With less glacial cover the rocks on the mountain will heat up causing the surrounding frozen ice to melt even faster. Drainage basins that use glacial runoff will also be affected. Glaciers contribute to a base level of water that runs off after all of the new snow cover has melted. The Middle Fork River is likely to see huge decreases in its water levels in the coming years due to this issue. The Middle Fork provides a large amount of drinking water to Bellingham.

Precipitation in the Cascades has begun to be altered drastically. While the level of precipitation on the Cascades has not decreased since the 1950s, it has begun to shift from snow to ice when it falls. The level of glacial runoff is also on the uptick since the 1950s. The level of water that flows into Puget Sound has decreased by 18% since 1949.

Water flows can be split up into three categories in Washington: Rain dominant, snow dominant, and transient snowmelt watersheds. The change in water falling will make snow dominant regions appear to be more like transition rivers and transition more like rain dominant. Snow dominant regions have their highest water flow several months after their highest snowfall. Due to the increase in temperature, they will change and act more like transition which has two peak flows, one in the spring due to snowmelt, and the other in the winter due to water falling as rain, not snow. The transition region now will act like rain regions which have their high points in river flows right after it rains.[15]

Climate change and agriculture are interrelated processes, both of which take place on a global scale. Agriculture is probably responsive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods, and severe storms. The forces that shape the 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.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007)[16] 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 precipitation 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.

The ways in which climate changes in Washington will affect agriculture are largely unknown. One benefit which climate change may potentially have on agriculture is the possibility of longer growing seasons. However, some of the negative effects 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 impacts of these fluctuations are largely unknown due to the complexity and unknown extent of the changes to come.[1]

Washington, being located in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, depends heavily on the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound, the Columbia River and many other rivers for its fishing industry. Therefore, changes in the current climate could have significant results.

On February 22, 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) issued a report titled "In Dead Water: Merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations in the world's fishing grounds",[24] warning that three quarters of the world's key fishing grounds are at risk of being seriously impacted by rising temperatures. They reported potential consequences as changes in oceanic circulation patterns, currents that bring nutrients and remove waste from fisheries, rising surface temperatures that are expected to bleach and kill as much as 80% of the world's coral reefs – major tourist attractions and nurseries for many juvenile fish, and finally, the possible acidification of the ocean's waters as warmer water absorbs more atmospheric carbon emissions. Increased acidity would impact organisms that utilize calcium for shell-production. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: In Dead Water has uniquely mapped the impact of several damaging and persistent stresses on fisheries. It also lays on top of these the likely impacts of climate change from dramatic alternations in ocean circulation affecting perhaps three-quarters of key fishing grounds up to the emerging concern of ocean acidification... it is clear from this report and others that it will add significantly to pressures on fish stocks. This is as much a development and economic issue as it is an environmental one. Millions of people including many in developing countries derive their livelihoods from fishing while around 2.6 billion people get their protein from seafood."[24]

In addition, rising temperatures are contributing to decreased snowfall and increased rain during winter months, leading to a decrease in the winter snowpack. The snowpack captures winter precipitation at higher altitudes where it acts as a bank, slowly releasing water during dryer months. The decrease in snowpack levels will lead to earlier peak flows in area streams and rivers, increased flooding, and loss of irrigation and drinking water. Also affected would be threatened salmon runs. As local water districts debate increasing water storage in dams and reservoirs, a push to consider the effects of increased water control on Washington's salmon fisheries is underway. Climate change can also lead to loss of habitat and native species as warming temperatures allow the northern movement of invasive species. For example, the increased spread of the aquatic plant Swollen Bladderwort; a free-floating carnivorous plant, it is easily spread by waterfowl and has adapted itself to reproduce in multiple ways. Uncontrolled spread of the species, creates thick mats of vegetation which:

• Reduces the water's oxygen content
• Increases fish mortality rates
• Poses a danger to boats

While this is a single example of an invasive species given a stronger foothold by warming temperatures, this situation can lead to further invasions that risk countless native flora and fauna.

In 2007 the United States 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 juvenile 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. However, it would not have much impact on higher altitude headwaters where the effects of decreasing snowpack are more severe and the opportunities for flood-control are less likely.[25] Increased loss of habitat and reduced escapement from increasing temperatures would have a significant economic impact on the state's overall commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries. Seattle is home to the Alaskan fish fleet. Any current change in the amount of fishing allowed will negatively affect Seattle's economy.[2]

Impacts on infectious diseases
West Nile fever is a serious disease linked to climate change in the US that is transmitted by mosquitoes. It favors periods of drought and heavy rain, which are likely to become more common as increased average temperatures in Washington State result in rain replacing snowfall during the winter, resulting in drier summers (chance of drought, particularly east of the Cascades). The mosquitoes will also survive longer because the warmer winters will not eliminate as many bugs as it usually does.[2] Documentation of the West Nile virus is just beginning in Washington State, but Colorado has been grappling with cases of it since 2002. Total costs there have been estimated at $120 million[41] or $670 million[2] (P. 58), both as of 2006. Louisiana has been battling cases since 2001, with total costs of[42] $190 million by 2006. In the hopes of avoiding these costs, the Washington Department of Health spends $246,000 per year on surveillance for the virus and Epidemiological follow-up and testing on suspected human cases[2] (P. 59)

Dengue fever is an infectious disease also carried by mosquitoes and caused by any of four related dengue viruses. It is also called "break-bone" fever because it sometimes causes severe joint and muscle pain that feels like bones are breaking. Health experts have known about dengue fever for more than 200 years.

An epidemic in Hawaii in 2001 was a reminder that many locations in the United States are susceptible to dengue epidemics because they harbor the particular types of mosquitoes that carry the dengue virus.

Worldwide, 50-100 million cases of dengue infection occur each year. This includes 100-200 cases in the United States, mostly in people who have recently traveled abroad. Many more cases probably go unreported, because some health care providers do not recognize the disease.

Impacts on respiratory illnesses, (such as asthma and allergies)
Washington's asthma prevalence is among the highest in the nation,[43] costing the state over $400 million yearly.[44] 400,000 adults and 120,000 children suffer from it in Washington.[2] Though increases in average yearly temperatures is the hallmark of global warming, human activities are the cause of greenhouse gases like emissions from cars, power plants, and airborne particles from human-caused forest fires.[2] Global warming has a "direct" effect on respiratory illnesses because increased CO₂ levels stimulate pollen production, which stimulates allergies. More frequent flooding in WA State will increase the growth of fungus, also exacerbating allergies. Increased carbon dioxide levels have already and will continue to increase the level of pollen output in the state. In 2001 when carbon dioxide levels were 370 parts per million the pollen output for a common ragweed was twice the level of output that plants used to give out at 270 parts per million, which was the level before the industrial revolution. One possible scenario for the coming years is that pollen count could increase to 20 grams per cubic meter. This would cause a serious increase in the need for medication for allergies and exacerbate the effects of global warming on the economy.[2]

Impact on heat-related illnesses
Heat-related deaths will increase as average yearly temperatures increase. More frequent days over 100 °F (38 °C) will cause several problems for humans, including heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. The amount of heat waves has increased in the state of WA over the past 20 years. The average cost for each mortality from heat-related deaths is $6,250. These occur when the human body is so overwhelmed by heat that it no longer can combat the extreme level of heat. Urban settings will see even worse conditions. At night, heat levels can remain dangerously high. This is because buildings and roads absorb heat during the day and release this heat at night.[2] Studies of heat-related mortality in eastern WA had highs of 107 °F in 2006.[45] Hospital charges for heat-related admissions in 1998 was roughly $6250 per patient.[46]

The University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group (CIG) has worked to study the factors that affect the coastal regions. One prominent area of focus for CIG is forestry practices. To help protect coastal waters, there has been a reforestation act that states that satisfactory reforestation must take place within need a number here? years after logging.[47] How does this citation correspond to what is cited? And what would be considered "satisfactory reforestation?" Research results suggest that as forest cover decreases to a point where less than 65% of the forest has surface cover greater than 10%, the conditions stray outside the norm.[48] Despite the research, there is still much uncertainty as to how pollution and logging will affect the climate.

In 1976, it marked the development and first ever approval by the Federal Government of Washington State's (WA) Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program. The terms and features of a state's approved CZM program are provided in what is commonly known as a state's "CZM Program Document." WA's 2003 updated program document is referred to as "Managing Washington's Coast."[50]

One of the features of the federal CZM program important to the states is "Federal Consistency." This simply means that any public federal project carried out by a federal agency, or private project licensed or permitted by a federal agency, or carried out with a federal grant, must be determined to be consistent with the state's CZM program.

Coastal water quality has always been an important part of the federal—state coastal zone management program. In 1992 Congress provided for increased emphasis on coastal non-point pollution. WA, along with other states in the national CZM program is developing a Coastal Non-point Pollution Management plan.

WA also participates in the federal Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP); its purpose is to protect critical coastal and estuarine areas having significant conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, and threatened by conversion. Although dedicated grant funds have yet to be authorized by Congress, a state plan has been drafted to assure WA's eligibility for future participation.[50]

There is also research on the effects on coastal boundaries in Oregon and California.

Washington's economy is particularly susceptible to being affected by climate change in the mountains, due to the large ski industry.

Climate change will result in more rain and less snow across mountainous regions. Earlier melting of Washington's snowpack will negatively affect conditions as well, as this snowpack is responsible for ideal slope conditions, and its water supply. The breakdown of the snowpack occurs in early spring, leaving summer months dry and ending [winter sport|snowsports] much earlier than before.[51] Over 40% of winter recreation in the past 10 years took place at lower elevation ski areas (Snoqualmie Summit, Mt. Baker, and Mt. Spokane ski areas 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% "warm winters" by 2040. Washington's ski resorts contribute greatly 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 from $50–$150 million for ski passes, tickets, and rentals. This does not include secondary revenues from skiers' food, retail sales, etc. The winter recreational season is shortening considerably due to less snow fall.

At Seattle, Washington, sea level is already rising by increments of 8 inches (200 mm) per century, and it is likely to rise another 19 inches (480 mm) by 2100.[52] 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
• local tectonic movement

Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 20 centimeters (8 inches) during the 20th century (2 millimeters/year).

The report on Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State[53] summarized the possible sea level change for the Northwest 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 Northwest 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 risk 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.[2] pg. 65. Current estimates project that Tacoma and surrounding areas could see sea levels rise from 5 to 16 inches (410 mm) by 2040.[2] 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 rises is largely unknown, however, Seattle has five seawalls and plans for rebuilding of the Alaskan Way seawall may increase in cost by 5-10% based on projections for sea level rise.[2] pg. 65.

Methods to protect shorelines are to build a seawall or to pump sand onto beaches to prevent erosion. Attempts at managing river flow for the direction of increased water levels is also a possible way to control SLR. When considering the cost to protect shorelines, it is difficult to calculate due to some shorelines being developed and others undeveloped. Agricultural factors and the potential loss of profit from SLR in that vector, is also difficult to predict and often unaccounted for. Potential development for housing is often excluded also. An estimate of potential national cost to protect land from SLR and considering such variability of land quality but excluding future value, is $270–475 billion for a one-meter rise in Sea Level.[54]

Due to the estimated .5° increase in temperature each decade described in the report, increased flooding will be experienced 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 as the amount of snow decreases.[61] All of these factors contribute to the rise in sea level, which is a principal cause of 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"[2] pg. 65. The areas that are to be affected first by the increased pattern of flooding include Willapa Bay and the Skagit River Delta [57]

Köppen climate types in Washington.

Ecological impacts are expected to be great, with many indicators already visible. They will be caused both directly (warmer temperatures, greater storm event intensity/frequency, etc.) and indirectly (rising sea level, more frequent wildfires, etc.) by climate change. Washington is expected to have a 0.1 - 0.6 °C (0.2-1.0 °F) change per decade.(WA-CC-report, P. 22)[62] Because of this, and an expected increase in fuel buildup in some forest types, wildfire frequency and devastation will increase.(P. 24)[63] Wildlife will be affected by climate change, with most species or populations subject to problems as a result of changes in distribution and temporal mismatching of phenological events. Statewide assessments will be used to determine what species and habitats are to be preserved. These places may not provide protection to the same species in the future due to ecosystem variation brought on by climate change.(WA-CC-report, P. 22)[62] These range shifts are individual rather than community-based, and therefore will cause dramatic community shifts in composition and/or density. This will likely result in the eventual extinction of many local populations and potentially entire species, causing an overall loss of biodiversity.[64]

In 2011, the Washington State Department of Ecology released the interim recommendations of a multi-stakeholder collaboration on preparing Washington's natural systems for the impacts of climate change, as part of the Dept. of Ecology's integrated climate change response strategy. The recommendations include goals and strategies for building the capacity of Washington's species, habitats, and ecosystems to adapt to the effects of climate change, and are available here.

Current climate change is due to anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[66] Human activities including burning fossil fuels, waste, and wood products cause CO₂ emissions. CO₂ is the least common type of GHG, while water vapour is the most common. Methane is emitted during coal, natural gas, or oil production. Other sources include agricultural livestock and decaying organic matter. Nitrous oxide is emitted through industrial and agricultural activities. Many industrial companies have switched from burning coal and petroleum fuel to natural gas. More toxic pollutants such as hydrofluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, are emitted in smaller rates and are known as High Global Warming Potential Gases.[67]

The state government regularly publishes GHG inventories. The EPA helps forward the process by providing the state with inventory guidance and technical assistance. These inventories provide the state with useful information about emissions. From here policies will be implemented and added to the State Climate Change Action Plan.[68]

Washington State pumps out 85 to 90 million tons of GHG per year. Washington is responsible for 0.3% of the yearly GE emissions. Since 1970 the amount of harmful gases emitted by the state has grown by 75%. This figure is in line with the greenhouse output trend globally. Washington produces 13.5 tons of CO₂ per person per year. This number is 30% lower than the national average due to the state's reliance on hydropower. This number is three times larger than the average person per year for the world, which is 4 tons per year.[2]

Traffic congestion accounts for a significant percentage of WA State's contribution to GHGs. In the 2006 summary of Washington's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, reported by CTED of WA, in 2004 Motor gasoline, diesel and jet fuel CO₂ emissions were responsible for nearly 98% of the transportation.

The social cost of traffic congestion in Seattle amounts to $1.4 billion annually, and this wasted gasoline accounts for 1.1 billion lbs. of CO₂ emissions (496,230 metric tons).[69]

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 1990s when natural gas was introduced into the spectrum of energy generation. Washington's electric energy is responsible for approximately 1/3 of the total increase of CO₂ emissions. In 2006, electricity was responsible for 20% of all GHG emissions, but transportation is the main cause of GHG emissions in WA State. It is accountable for 43% of all emissions.[2] Washington is equal to the national average in petroleum related emissions at 8.4 tons and ranks as the 26th in the United States according to the WA State Dept. of Community, Trade & Economic Development report published in 2006.

The Kyoto Protocol requires developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions below levels specified for each country in the Treaty. Even though the United States federal government didn't ratify the protocol, mayors around the United States have accepted the challenge. In February 2005, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels challenged other mayors across the states to unite in the fight to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol's emissions reduction goals. In March 2006, the Mayor's green ribbon Commission delivered its report giving recommendations on how the city should go about to beat Kyoto's goal of a 7 percent reduction in green house gas emissions by 2012. The end affect should be a reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) by about 680,000 tons per year. Seattle's Climate Action Plan consists of: reducing Seattle's dependence on cars, increasing fuel efficiency and the use of biofuels, achieving more efficient and cleaner energy for Seattle's homes and businesses, building on Seattle's leadership policy action, and to sustain Seattle's commitment policy action.

Seattle's first plan is to reduce Seattle's dependence on cars which is projected to cut emission by 170,000 tons. Their first plan of action is to significantly increase the supply of frequent, reliable and convenient public transportation. The single largest source of Seattle's GHG's come from the approximate two billion miles driven by gasoline fueled cars and trucks. The success of reducing this is to supply an alternative to driving. The city plans to invest $1.5 million to increase transit services and Transit Now plans to match the $1.5 million if the ballot passes in Seattle. Another alternative to driving is Sound Transit’s Link light rail system that will operate between downtown Seattle and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The city will also implement a 10% commercial parking tax to set in over a three-year period beginning July 2007. Seattle also plans to rezone certain areas to provide neighborhoods easy access to transits, light rail systems, and provide amenities close enough to walk or bike. Mayor Nickels has allocated $100,000 to work with regional partners in an effort to explore and develop road pricing scenarios. Road pricing can take the form of tolling based on road congestion, the time of day, or even miles driven. These courses of action are to increase the incentives to substitute driving for a much more environmentally friendly commute.[70]

Seattle's second plan is to increase fuel efficiency and the use of biofuels; the projected cut in emissions is expected be 200,600 tons. Seattle will start by increasing the biodiesel blend from 20 percent biodiesel to as much as 40 percent in 2007. The use of biodiesel is growing and Seattle wants to promote the use of biodiesel by making it state law to require at least 2 percent by volume of diesel sales to be biodiesel. The port of Seattle uses B99 biodiesel (99% biodiesel 1% petroleum diesel) for its own use and also cuts emissions by turning off their diesel engines when in port by using electricity from Seattle City Light. The electricity from Seattle City Light reduces GHG emissions from ferries by 30 percent. The Seattle Police department will begin replacing all of its non-pursuit vehicles to efficient gas-electric hybrids in 2007. Seattle will also provide incentives for taxicab owners to use gas-electric hybrids, and will also work in conjunction with taxi companies to decrease the amount of GHG emitted from their vehicles.[70]

Seattle's third plan is to achieve a more efficient and cleaner energy for Seattle homes and businesses which is projected to cut GHG emissions by 316,000 tons. City Light has committed to acquire at least an average of 7.5 megawatts through conservation measures in 2007 and 2008, and they have already achieved its net-zero emissions status for 2007 by offsetting whatever emissions they produced by reducing emissions elsewhere. City Light spends about $2 per customer per year to meet its approximate carbon offset of 200,000 metric tons. City Light will continue to purchase 3 percent of its energy from Stateline Wind, a wind energy company. Seattle Steam Company, which provides heat and hot water to customers, will convert one of its fossil fuel boilers to an urban wood waste biofuel that will cut GHG emissions by 50,000 metric tons a year.

Seattle's fourth plan is to extend the city's leadership. Seattle's second largest department, Seattle Public Utilities, will evaluate its own greenhouse gas emission inventory and create a reduction target and action plan. Seattle plans on purchasing carbon-offset projects to compensate emissions from all business-related air travel by City employees. Seattle also plans to launch a campaign to encourage all City employees to reduce climate pollution not only on the job but also at home. Also, a new Department of Executive Administration green team will assess, and decide on whether to purchase climate friendly products, such as super-efficient "80-plus" computers and servers.[70]

Seattle's fifth plan is to inspire action. The Seattle Climate Partnership will provide employers with resources for assessing their climate pollution and implementing strategies for reducing emissions. The Department of Neighborhoods will launch a Neighborhood Climate Protection Matching Fund to help promote and finance neighborhood based projects that are geared towards reducing emissions and climate pollution.[70]

As of October 2007, the city of Seattle released that they have exceeded their goal reducing emissions to 8 percent of 1990 levels. There are 218 cities that have joined Mayor Nickels in a campaign to reduce emissions to at least 7% of 1990 levels. Even though the United States as a whole has not ratified the protocol, if all cities meet their goal, the joint reduction of emissions from the 219 cities, representing 44 million people, is equivalent to reductions from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries combined, says Denis Hayes, co-chairman of the mayor's Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection, which released the plan.[71] Although Seattle is exceeding their goal of reducing GHG emissions, population growth fueled with their resistance to alternate methods of transportation is threatening their Kyoto goals.

For a cap and trade situation or even a tax to be truly effective they need to affect the individuals of the populations. Applying a tax to gas would greatly reduce the population's willingness to drive and make alternatives to drive more attractive. Also incentives to purchase hybrid cars, use biodiesel, and other climate friendly alternatives will greatly reduce fossil fuel dependence and use. [70][71][72][73]

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, and so on. There are different policies to pursue specifically in Washington State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions have to take place in Washington as well as across the globe in order to minimize further warming.

As Washington State backs the need to decrease carbon emissions, the legislature is searching for ways to fund the formation of renewable energy sources. The bill SHB 1032, which would tax families and businesses to generate financial support for new renewable energy sources, has raised several concerns for taxpayers and ratepayers, and also questions as to whether this will efficiently reduce CO₂. This bill would begin to tax every utility customer approximately $1.90 a month, regardless of how much energy the customer uses. This incongruous attempt would leave industrial users paying the same as poverty-level families, and is arguable for several reasons.

First, such taxation will hit low-income families more heavily than wealthy families. Second, because the fee is a surcharge, there is no way to reduce the fee by taking affirmative action in reduction of energy use. This leaves no incentive for people to reduce their use, but may in fact increase people's use since they are paying the same amount as everyone else.

Analysis of SHB 1032: Adding Subsidies for Renewable Energy Production

Executive Order 07–02, signed by Governor Gregoire on February 7, 2007, presented goals of decreasing emissions that contribute to global warming overall, as well as decreasing the use of foreign oil allowing for more employment in fields that make clean energy such as hydropower and solar power. Washington State has also encouraged public participation in the incorporation of clean energy practices into citizen's daily lives. The Climate Advisory Team (CAT) put together a collection of incentives for factories to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Preparation and Adaptation Working Groups (PAWGS) proposed proactive approaches to decrease or accommodate the effects of climate change such as rising sea levels. The Citizen Engagement and Action Framework (CEAF) also furnished suggestions to decrease citizens’ impacts. The CEAF also encouraged the public to take responsibility in arranging actions when some of the impacts are observed. [78]

Washington's Climate Advisory Team (CAT) published its guide to reducing Washington State's greenhouse gases on February 1, 2008. While comprehensive in nature, the report's goals can be summarized as follows:[79]

1. Build market-based mechanism to unleash investment in the creativity and innovation of Washington's economy to deliver cost effective emission reductions.
2. Establish emissions reporting so that progress in emission reductions can be tracked and acknowledged.
3. Analyze greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options early in decision-making, planning processes, and development projects.
4. Invest in worker training for the emerging Clean Economy to ensure having a skilled workforce and to provide meaningful employment opportunities throughout the State.
5. Build and continue to redesign communities that offer real and reliable alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
6. Ensure Washington has vehicles that are as efficient as possible and use non-carbon or lower carbon intensity fuels developed sustainably from regional resources.
7. Focus investments in Washington's transportation infrastructure to prioritize moving people and goods cleanly and efficiently.
8. Design, build, upgrade, and operate new and existing buildings and equipment to maximize energy efficiency.
9. Deliver energy from lower or non-carbon sources and more efficient use of fuels.
10. Restore and retain the health and vitality of Washington's farms and forest lands to increase carbon sequestration and storage in forests and forest products, reduce the releases of greenhouse gas emissions, and support the provision of biomass fuels and energy.
11. Reduce waste and Washington's emissions of GHGs through improved product choices and resource stewardship.
12. Allocate sufficient state resources to maintain Washington's leadership role regionally and nationally and to fulfill its responsibilities for structuring and guiding implementation of emission reduction strategies.

In February 2000, Seattle became one of the first U.S. 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.[80] 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 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.[81] Similar to the Sustainable Building Policy, this law covers all state-funded facilities larger than 5,000 square feet (460 m²), including school buildings.

Examples of innovative green building techniques appear here at the Green Building Features Page.[82][83]

Global greenhouse gas continues to increase and many nations and states are taking actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, including Washington state who has teamed up with Oregon and California in an effort to reduce emissions as part of the West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative. The main Global greenhouse Gas released in Washington include carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other gases that contribute to global warming. The different emission types are placed into three categories: energy, industrial processes and agriculture. Different greenhouse gases range in their individual impact on global warming. For instance, one pound of nitrous oxide is 296 times more potent than a pound of carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. This means even small quantities of gases emitted into the environment, like nitrous oxide, can have significant impacts on global warming.

For Washington state in particular, energy related emissions are the dominant source of GHG emissions and have increased from 61.2 MMT CO₂-equivalent (CO₂-e) in 1990 (excluding residual fuel for transportation) to 74.6 MMT CO₂-e in 2004, while their share has increased from 79% of total emissions to 85% over the past fourteen years. Carbon dioxide is the dominant GHG followed by methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbon and sulfur hexafluoride. Non-energy industrial global greenhouse gas emissions have lowered from 14% to 9%, mainly due to reduced emissions from aluminum production. This has been the result of two key elements: process changes that reduced CO₂ and PFC emissions per ton of aluminum generated, and the post-2000 decline in aluminum manufacturing rates. Non-energy agricultural greenhouse emissions have remained fairly constant but their percentage contribution has lowered as total emissions have increased. Here is a broken down list of pollution contributors in Washington State: 45% transportation, 16% in state electricity generation, 12% industry, 9% residential and commercial, 2% non-CO₂ (other gasses), 9% industry (non-energy), 7% agriculture (non-energy). As you can see, the majority of energy GHG emissions and almost half of total emissions are from the transportation sector.

Given that about one-quarter of Seattle's garbage consists of easily recycled materials (paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, plastic bottles and yard waste) the city council decided on a mandatory recycling ordinance for its annual economic value. The "Prohibition of Recyclables in Garbage" is estimated to save residents and businesses as much as $2 million per year by keeping future garbage cost low and aiding to the declining recycling rates since 1995 because the recyclable materials themselves hold value.

As of January 1, 2005 the city of Seattle (Ordinance # 121372) forbids the disposal of recyclables. In harmonization of commercial, residential, and self-haul, garbage penalties will now be enforced if more than 10% by volume of the container is recyclables. Enforcement with consequences began January 1, 2006. Enforcement of the ban varies dependent upon type of pick-up.

• Single-family Residents: City contractors will not pick-up garbage cans that have significant amounts of recyclables. A tag will be left instructing separation of the recyclables for the following week.
• Apartment Owners/Property Managers: City inspectors will mail two warning notices before a $50 fine is added to the apartment building's garbage bill.
• Business Owners/Property Managers: City inspectors will mail two warning notices before a $50 fine is imposed.
• Recycling and Disposal Station Customers: Self-haul customers will be asked to separate recyclables and not to dispose materials into the garbage pit.

Two years prior to the enforcement of this ordinance, in order to put the new recycling requirements into practice, Seattle Public Utilities started educational outreach programs through direct mail and an automated (206) RECYCLE phone number was established to help answer basic questions about recycling requirements. One year later, in 2005 contractors and inspectors placed notice tags on garbage cans and dumpsters that contained significant amounts of recyclables as an advanced fair warning.

• Attribution of recent climate change
• Climate change denial
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
• United States federal register of greenhouse gas emissions
• Western Climate Initiative This article also discusses Idaho, Oregon, California

• US EPA climate change and global warming website
• UN Climate Change Website.
• Washington State Department of Ecology's online climate change resources
• Tribes and Climate Change
• A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
• Thacker, Paul D. (August 31, 2005). "How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic". Environmental Science & Technology.
• CO₂ or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
• Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February 2005.
• "The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report" (PDF). House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. July 6, 2005.
• This is a clip that ties climate change with economic resources and the risks for the future.
• Recycling Myth the economics of Taking time to Recycle
• Climate Change and Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations -Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute, The Evergreen State College, Olympia WA, 2006
• Native Peoples: The "Miner's Canary" of Climate Change - Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute, 2007

May, C.; C. Luce; J. Casola; M. Chang; J. Cuhaciyan; M. Dalton; S. Lowe; G. Morishima; P. Mote; A. Petersen; G. Roesch-McNally; E. York (2018). "Northwest". In Reidmiller, D.R.; C.W. Avery; D.R. Easterling; K.E. Kunkel; K.L.M. Lewis; T.K. Maycock; B.C. Stewart (eds.). Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II (Report). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Global Change Research Program. pp. 1036–1100. doi:10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH24.—this chapter of the National Climate Assessment covers Northwest states