Re:  Port Townsend Prepares for climate change threat (Nov. 8, 2023)  

The United States has per capita GHG emissions of about 18 metric tons of CO2 equivalent each year. As one of the world’s top three carbon emitters, we emit 15 times the amount of carbon than what is emitted from the bottom 100 countries.

Yet those that will experience the most severe initial impacts from our carbon emissions are, for the most part, countries that are the smallest contributors, are mostly people of color, and are characterized by poverty. Somalia, the Congo, Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, Nigeria and Ethiopia are currently experiencing catastrophic climate events. And they will get worse. 

The Jefferson County per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are significantly higher than the state average, and during the time between the carbon inventories (2005 and 2018), they have increased. The rest of Washington had an overall decline in VMT during this period.

Here in Jefferson County, we continue to push tourism, which is a significant contribution to our per capita VMT numbers. And we have done very little to address community carbon emissions from other sources. 

We can’t even get close to a managed parking system in the downtown area. While I applaud our improvements in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, at the current rate of improvement, we are not going to get there in time to make any significant behavioral change. 

Sadly, we are on the cusp of a number of climate tipping points. 

So, when I read that the City and the Port of Port Townsend are discussing spending $60 million on building a sea wall as protection against sea levels, I am struck by the absurdity of it all.

Shouldn’t we be spending at least as much on carbon mitigation as we are on adaptation? Wouldn’t it be wiser to spend that $60 million on a functional and efficient transit system implemented immediately and retrofitting our buildings to eliminate carbon use? Isn’t Somalia and Chad more deserving of that money to mitigate desertification or starvation? 

There seems to be no political will to protect the most vulnerable in the world from our privileged lifestyle, but plenty of interest in using our resources to delay the inevitable for a while. 

The only reference to mitigation in the article was about fleet conversion to electric cars. Unfortunately, the planet cannot support a mass transit system that is designed around personally owned motor vehicles, electric or otherwise.

Rapid conversion to an electric fleet will only create more GHG emissions in the short run. It is too late for the long game, and the concrete infrastructure to support single occupancy vehicles is incredibly carbon intensive to make and maintain anyway. We need mitigation at the moment, not adaptation.  

Dave Thielk

Port Townsend