Special to the Seattle Times

By Phil Rockefeller

In her Aug. 7 op-ed, "Cap-and-trade schemes could hurt families and send jobs overseas," state Rep. Shelly Short argues that the cap-and-trade approach is simply another tax with no substantial benefits. And she suggests that efforts to address global warming jeopardize our sovereignty. She could not be more wrong.

Quite literally, greenhouse-gas emissions threaten to render our planet unlivable. Climate change deniers prefer to ignore or minimize the role humans play, or suggest that we cannot afford to alter our condition, or that someone else, somewhere else in the world, should deal with the issue.

There is no avoiding the need to respond to the changes that already hurt both our economy and the natural resources on which we all depend.

Placing a price on carbon, which is the intent of a cap-and-trade system, is one way to ensure that we create an incentive for innovations and alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions.

The time could not be better for embracing innovation. Here's why:

The economy: Last year, Washington state consumers spent more than $16 billion on out-of-state petroleum and coal products. That is a massive amount of money sent to other economies — and a missed opportunity to spur renewable energy creation and production locally. Let's export these products, not buy them from California and China. We can choose to adapt by developing the clean-energy sector of the future. Our state's Clean Energy Leadership Council will help us identify the best options for re-powering our economy and creating new business and job opportunities.

This last legislative session I introduced the governor's cap-and-trade legislation to drive and reward this innovation. This measure didn't pass locally, but the governor did issue a Climate Change Executive Order to keep this issue at the forefront. As many people in our state had recommended, cap-and-trade is now being debated at the federal level, and a proposal would set equal standards for business in all states as well as set an example for other nations to follow.

While we recognize the current national legislation is a great step, the U.S. Senate can improve it by redressing the imbalance that remains between provisions in the bill that largely favor businesses and their high-income shareholders — and effectively represent corporate welfare — and provisions that truly provide relief to typical households. In the current House version, low and moderate income consumers would be hit harder by these increased costs because they spend a bigger share of their income on necessities like energy than wealthier households do.

The environment: By capping greenhouse-gas emissions, we are attempting to stabilize the Earth's climate. This is a long-term challenge that is vital to our future. The costs of climate disruption — flooding, forest fires, and droughts — are already choking our economy and will only get worse. A recent University of Oregon study indicates unmitigated climate change will cost almost $4 billion per year for Washington by 2020, or about $1,250 per household per year in added expenses.

Natural resources: Natural resources and the energy we consume daily are not limitless. Energy should be viewed as one of the crucial "quality of life" components for our state and its economy. There are enormous opportunities to make homes, farms, and industry more energy efficient, and create savings and investment opportunities along the way.

The consequences of business as usual: Rep. Short offers no new solutions to the challenge that confronts us. Regrettably, she fails to see the economic opportunity for our state in embracing the innovation that can help Washington prosper in a changing world.

It's past time we live up to our hard-earned reputation for leadership by reinvesting in our own future, delivering jobs and doing our part to stabilize the Earth's climate.