Cascadia was in on the ground floor of the movement led by Greenpeace

Douglas Todd
Vancouver Sun

Many say the Pacific Northwest is the home of the environmental movement.

It would be challenging to actually prove this claim, but the fact scholars and others think it suggests a lot about the power that the natural environment has had in shaping the culture of B.C., Washington and Oregon.

Evidence can be cited to back the argument that Cascadia was in on the ground floor of eco-activism. Greenpeace, one of the world's most famous environmental organizations, was founded on the Canadian west coast in 1971, aggressively opposing whaling and nuclear-arms testing in Alaska.

Long before, Oregon had been setting an ecological agenda. In 1911, Oregon's Canadian-raised governor, Oswald West, upset the elite by protecting the province's endless ocean beaches forever from private ownership.

In the 1970s, despite huge opposition from soda-pop manufacturers, Oregon politicians, inspired by British Columbians, also brought in the continent's, if not the world's, first bottle-recycling laws.

In 1973, the New Democratic Party government of Dave Barrett introduced the once-radical Agricultural Land Reserve, which has been more or less respected ever since by governments of the left, centre and right.

Along with Greenpeace, the Pacific Northwest brought the world TV eco-activist/scientist David Suzuki and a host of leading environmental organizations, such as EcoTrust, Sightline Institute, Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Sustainable Northwest.

"B.C. is in some ways the birthplace of the environmental movement. Together with Oregon and Washington, Cascadia is a hotbed of environmentalism," said SFU geography professor Warren Gill.

While pundits often raise doubts about whether Cascadia hangs together as an economic or cultural region, there can be no question the binational Pacific Northwest has a shared geography that's heightened residents' environmental awareness.

"Cascadia is defined as the watersheds of rivers that flow into the Pacific Ocean through North America's temperate rainforest zone," says The Cascadia Scorecard.

"Cascadia, or the Pacific Northwest, extends from northern California to southern Alaska -- along a coastline once cloaked in nearly continuous rainforest -- and inland as far as the continental divide."

While this classic bio-regional definition of Cascadia includes Idaho and small tips of Alaska, Montana and California, Cascadia's biggest populations and largest land masses are in B.C., Washington and Oregon, which are the focus of this series.

Even with the incredible environmental ferment that exists in the Pacific Northwest, there may be no group more devoted to Cascadia than the Sightline Institute (formerly Northwest Environment Watch) of Seattle, founded by Alan Durning in 1993.

In recent years, Sightline has published the invaluable Cascadia Scorecard, which scientifically monitors seven key trends across B.C., Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Each year, Sightline researchers track how Cascadia is progressing at managing urban sprawl, wildlife, the economy, population growth, pollution, health and energy consumption.

Although the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center focuses on increasing economic and transportation ties linking B.C. with Washington and Oregon, it also sometimes joins Sightline in underlining environmental issues.

The Cascadia Centre's Bruce Agnew is pushing for more regional train and bus use and has supported the so-called Hydrogen Highway, which would see hydrogen-equipped filling stations running along highways from Whistler to California.

B.C. joins Washington, Oregon

One of the most-talked about ecological initiatives across Cascadia centres on the B.C. government's efforts to bypass a slow-moving Conservative government in Ottawa to team up with the Democratic governors of Washington and Oregon to combat climate change.

B.C. is introducing a carbon-taxation system tied to similar efforts in Washington and Oregon, with additional support from California and a few other Western states.

Although Durning applauds politicians combating climate change, his Cascadia Scorecard cautions that people in the Pacific Northwest have a long way to go to overcome their three-decade history as "energy gluttons."

Compared to energy-efficient Germans, Cascadians consume nearly twice as much gasoline per person, says the Cascadia Scorecard, which sets up a kind of social-betterment competition among Cascadian jurisdictions and the wider world.

The Cascadia Scorecard urges residents of B.C., Washington and Oregon to increase efficiency in auto use, lighting and appliances and accelerating the growth of transit- and pedestrian-friendly cities.

Within Cascadia, Washingtonians and Oregonians have to look on in envy as British Columbians use about 45 per cent less gasoline per person.

The Scorecard attributes much of that to B.C. building fewer roads and highways and less suburban sprawl than Washington and Oregon, an enviable record many say is threatened by the B.C. Liberals Gateway program to build more highways through Metro Vancouver.

Although B.C. tends to do better than Washington and Oregon in most environmental measures, the Scorecard says it still faces major challenges in many environmental areas, including wildlife protection.

The numbers of orcas, wolves, Selkirk caribou, sage grouse and salmon in Cascadia now amount to only 18 per cent of their historical abundance.

British Columbians' worries about wildlife populations were heightened in March when the media obtained reports showing a record 430 grizzly bears were killed last year, mostly by hunters, and that the B.C. government, for lack of staff and muddled rules, was failing to protect wildlife in southern B.C. forest districts.

Meanwhile, the once all-pervasive salmon, which many believe should be the symbol of Cascadia, run at less than seven per cent of their historical peak in B.C. and elsewhere.

The regional waters' fragile orca population is down to only about 86 animals traversing Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia (or, as some propose, The Salish Sea).

The drastic decline in Cascadia's sea stocks is due to overfishing and multiple forms of pollution, as well as dams, conversion of farmland and urban development.

While B.C. may still have more wilderness, eagles and bears remaining than Washington and Oregon, Durning says it's mostly because the province started out with more.

Despite the vast wilderness in Cascadia, more than half the population lives in major cities, which rely on nature for everything from electricity to food.

Urban dwellers are not doing badly. Firmly believing that human health reflects access to clean water and air, stress levels, urban design and the ability to obtain medical care, the Cascadia Scorecard finds that life expectancy in Cascadia is good and modestly improving.

Living longer in B.C.

While the typical lifespan in Cascadia is 79 years, British Columbians live on average more than two years longer than residents of Washington and Oregon. The Scorecard says the strong showing reflects Canada's universal health insurance and other factors.

"British Columbia also has lower rates of violent deaths: fewer homicides and also fewer fatal car crashes, the latter largely due to compact communities that allow residents to drive less than their neighbors to the south."

Since cities are key to Cascadia, ecologists point out one of the most obvious and alarming environmental problems facing Cascadia is suburban sprawl.

Ask almost any planner in Washington, Oregon or B.C. about the biggest difference between the jurisdictions, and most will say Vancouver has a superior approach to transportation.

"Given recent trends, it will take 57 years for the Cascadian city average to match what Vancouver, B.C., has already achieved," says Cascadia Scorecard.

"The keys to combating sprawl are protecting farmland, promoting infill development and limiting sprawl-inducing road projects."

The Cascadia Scorecard says B.C.'s ability to limit sprawl and improve transportation has given the province a social and even financial edge over our neighbours to the south. B.C.'s smaller road-building budget has improved its score in sprawl, energy and health, all while saving the province billions of dollars in transportation costs.

All this helps explain how, when it comes to transportation, Eric Scigliano, of Seattle's Metropolitan Magazine, admits his city has an "inferiority complex" about Vancouver and Portland.

That is not to say British Columbians can't take some ecological and transportation lessons from others in Cascadia, however.

Scigliano and Durning believe Seattle has developed a healthier bus system. In addition, they say all West Coast Canadians can learn from Portland's citizens about building strong local communities.

Still, the one big transportation lesson that Metro Vancouverites learned a long time ago from Seattle's mistake in the 1960s was: Don't run a highway through the centre of a city.

As SFU's Gill says, the decision to push the I-5 Highway and Alaskan Way through the heart of Seattle was the main reason then-activist Mike Harcourt (who would later become B.C. premier) fought against a highway being rammed through Vancouver.

Even though B.C. does relatively well on the ecologically linked areas of sprawl, energy, transportation and wilderness preservation, we can't afford to become self-righteous.

Human communities may be doing reasonably well for now in Cascadia, but the once strong environment is threatened.

Grave issues need to be faced more boldly.

We should not despair.

With a strengthened sense of identity, stronger environmental policy and clearer political and business action, Cascadians could turn this binational region into an example for the rest of the planet.

All Cascadians should be able to find inspiration in the vision of the Sightline Institute "for a more prosperous place, where prosperity is defined not merely by our finances, but by our shared values: healthy people living in strong communities, governed by a vigorous democracy, and exercising responsible stewardship for our shared natural bounty."

British Columbians could do worse than joining the Sightline Institute in declaring Cascadia has the potential to improve to the point where "it can position itself as a model for the world -- not only as a place that can shine in one narrow realm, but as a place where both people and nature are thriving, regenerating and renewing themselves."

www.canada.com/vancouvers.../story.html