It is evident to anyone who lives in or travels through Edmonds that trees in our community are being decimated at an accelerating pace at the same time we need to be protecting their natural gifts for the sake of survival as well as aesthetics.
This week the Edmonds Planning Board reviewed revisions to the Tree Ordinance. After reviewing the history of the efforts made since the establishment of a Tree Board in 2010, I also reviewed the results of a community survey. One conclusion of that survey included that, “respondents expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and water quality.”
When I read through the recommendations for the Tree Ordinance, it became clear all it did was pick at the edges of imperative bold moves. On the anniversary of the Paris Accords, which, as necessary as they are, in themselves do to little and have resulted in virtually no net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Global temperature continues to rise. Some scientists have concluded that even if we were able to reduce emissions to zero, we have gone so far past the tipping point that our only resort is to sequester carbon. The best way to do so, and the only one already operational, is nature’s existing carbon sinks. In addition to trees, the natural systems that include healthy soils, and layers of diverse species all interconnected with each other, including people, are critical to preventing climate catastrophe. To that end, I presented the following remarks to the Edmonds Planning Board on Wednesday, Dec. 9:
I am asking you to weigh your decisionsconsidering broad scale impacts. I recognize our culture prioritizes monetization of business and financial gain over preservation and conservation of natural systems more challenging to assign a dollar value. One indication is how many express being tired of impacts endured in the face of multiple crises in 2020 and a wish to “return to normal.”
However 2020 has presented us with an essential opportunity. The challenges we are facing are the culmination of gross mismanagement of the planetary ecosystem. Until and unless we take a serious look at combined effects of a colonization and monetization mindset, we will be looking down the barrels of 2020-like years and worse for decades to come.
On the other hand. If we take time to Stop. Listen. Look, both ways, back as well as forward, we may yet have a chance to halt the juggernaut of climate destruction that is becoming increasingly out of our control.
Forging ahead without a plan only compounds the current dilemma. A flawed result is not better than none, it is worse, because it gives the impression something has been done. This has not been accomplished with these proposed revisions.
Better a moratorium on removing any trees in any development until a functional Tree ordinance can be crafted. Such a moratorium needs to be accompanied not only by hefty fines but a halt to any construction that continues in violation of the moratorium.
We need to end or at least pause “business as usual,” take a deep breath of the air provided courtesy of our arboreal neighbors, and decide how we will manage to pay back the debt we owe to the living forest we have inherited from the first inhabitants recognized in words at the beginning of each council meeting. Before Salish speaking tribes took up residence on these shores, other inhabitants as deserving of our honoring, not only in word but in deed made their lives and ours possible.
Without more stringent replacement and enhancement requirements, incentives and penalties, we will continue down the path of ever decreasing quality of our natural support system.
We need more widespread understanding of the essential benefits trees provide in saving energy, not to mention sequestering carbon, our only current hope to avert global catastrophe from climate transformation.
Goals for trees on single family residences in non critical areas (the majority of land resource within city limits) are woefully inadequate. We must go far beyond “Asking for voluntary public participation,” Rather ask instead, How much is the air you breathe worth?
Trees are more than pretty individuals. They require a network of supporting species to remain viable. The same can be said of us as a species. Without trees and the communities that support them, we, too are doomed to years far worse than what we have experienced in 2020.
— By Lora Hein
Well stated Lora. We need to be looking at the much larger picture of where we are headed as a planet. There’s not a lot I can do as an individual about the deforestation of the Amazon for the sake of commerce, but surely we can make some serious decisions about our own community. Thank you for sharing your well-articulated thoughts Lora.
I like to give the example of someone who has 100 acres of trees. Only 10 acres of the land is cleared. The next generation sees 90 acres of trees and then clears only 10 acres. And so the story continues. None of us is old enough to remember when all of Edmonds was nothing but trees. There are photos that show when all the distruction began.
Thank you Lora!!!
Thank you Lora! One of the best aspects of Edmonds is that is still a natural setting in many areas. Once a large tree is removed it can’t be replaced. There are so many communities that are large houses on small cleared lots. Our town can remain one of the rare areas near the city and the water that is still a natural PNW area. It is what attracts many to stay here and move here.
Sam
We can’t even trust these people to hire a Police Chief without creating a major town crisis. Now we are going to trust them to save the planet with some sort of tree code with fees, permits and intrusive inspections? This is after it took a peaceful mob to stop the lunacy of building a viaduct over our beach to a marine sanctuary parking lot. When and how do we end all this craziness? On top of that we have to literally beg them just to have a conversation explaining their thinking? Something is incredibly wrong here abouts.
Thank you, Lora, for your eloquent and important letter. Let’s seize the opportunity that 2020 has afforded us to restart our commitment to the planet starting right here in Edmonds.
Dear Lora Hein: Thank you for your important and serious comments about our need to protect trees. Wish more developers and people moving into the area from out of state would read your words about what’s truly important in life – rather than choosing water views to increase their property values.
Thank you, Pam Sturgeon. We can all become advocates and promoters of the healthier benefits of retaining and enhancing our current tree communities.
Let’s hope Lora’s important message inspires city government to adopt a strong tree code and stop the clear cutting in Edmonds.
Yes, Marjie Fields, hope, inspire and make our wishes known to the City of Edmonds government.
Are you kidding me? Edmonds was literally founded for the purpose of exploiting the abundant timber so conveniently located to good shipping lanes. Then it was, “hot damn, we turned all these beautiful trees into singles and boards, and now we have great water view building lots to sell for huge profits.”
After that it was, “we can remove this tiny little cottage with a view and slap three great big houses with views on the same amount of space and turn even bigger bucks.” Then it was, “hot damn again, we can cut down most of the biggest 2nd. growth trees up there at ‘Hubbard’s Folly'(Emerald Hills) and build more big houses with great views. In other words, be happy and get rich all at the same time in Edmonds.
Now after all this excess and not giving a hoot about it’s affect on the environment or the original indigenous people we stole the land from, we are going to punish the last three rapers and pillagers of the land to save the environment and ourselves from ourselves. This is just more Edmonds Kind of Day feel good nonsense and it will accomplish nothing.
We could, however, use some tax money and environmental matching funds to buy up large tracts like the one in Perrinville, to save the really big trees and what canopy is left. We could use tax money and volunteer help to the city to enhance and maintain the good timber we have in places like Yost Park. Things to think about.
Thank you Lora!
Clinton Wright,
You are so right. That is what I meant when I said we need to Stop. Listen. (to the whine of chain saws and whirrs of chippers decimating those last of few second growth trees remaining in our neighborhoods) and LOOK backwards as well as forwards. We can no longer afford to proceed with continuing the practices of the past. We need to find ways to renew and grow as well as purchase what few tracts of land remain, to save not only the larger older trees and canopy that is left, but the understory as well as soils with their interconnected mycellium that support the web of life still viable there.
This not an either/or prospect. It needs to be a both/and effort.
Thank you for filling in the historical perspective.
I was considering the effects on my view of the giant horse chestnut trees across the street on 3rd north. Then we put up a hummingbird feeder and started feeding the crows. That tree has so much life in it. Seasonally many different species of birds and other wildlife such as bats and other nocturnal animals use this huge tree.
I can only imagine how much of an improvement in the air quality on this busy street is due to the presence of this huge tree.
Let’s build around our trees and not destroy them.
Then there is always the problem of where all the rainwater will go if we cover all the woodlands with asphalt and housing. Then we must control that water or it will cause damage. Then we get sinkholes under buildings and flooding streets.
I ask, what are we thinking. Instant profit for a few and long term expense for every taxpayer?
Sharalyn Ramm,
Thank you for your perspective on this one tree you have befriended. Trees contribute so many benefits to us was well as the entire ecosystem. Connecting with the life interacting with one opens ones eyes to the countless other trees that contribute to the whole. And the health of that diversity is reflected in how our own lives are enriched.
Lora, I agree with your desire to keep Edmonds green. I can’t, however, leave your statements about air quality unclarified. You reference 2020 air quality as if it was a result of tree loss. The air quality this summer was due to wildfire all across Washington and Oregon, and local trees do not take up the fine particulates from smoke. They do absorb some of the gasses, but we generally do not notice the gasses, nor are they the same health problem the particulates are. So that line of reasoning is unscientific and misleading. Ironically, the air quality could be argued (weakly) to result from NOT removing trees elsewhere.
That said, there are other reasons to preserve trees that you don’t mention. There are studies showing that property values are greater when there are trees near or on the property. There are also studies that show that urban trees increase feelings of well-being and community- but interestingly, if I recall correctly, that only applies when people see the trees as belonging to a member of their community. (It’s been years since I read these, or talked to the social scientists who study this. And while I’m parenthetical, I will add that these are my thoughts, and NOT those of my employer 🙂 )
I spoke out strongly against the original tree proposal years ago because it was entirely punitive, and illogically so. I appreciate that the new plan has incentives, but I still have concerns about how it impacts property owners. If these are community assets, then the community must share responsibility and cost, as well as benefits. And that’s a change in framing that takes a lot more discussion.
Brian Potter, Perhaps I was not clear in my message. You are correct when you say: “The air quality this summer was due to wildfire all across Washington and Oregon, and local trees do not take up the fine particulates from smoke. They do absorb some of the gasses, but we generally do not notice the gasses, nor are they the same health problem the particulates are.” As a former Air Pollution Control Technician and Inspector I am well aware of that difference. However, your lead into this statement (“You reference 2020 air quality as if it was a result of tree loss.”) may have missed my primary point.
Yes, in the big picture, air quality this summer did result in part from tree loss. Removing trees is one contributor to global warming. Global warming impacts climate and weather patterns. Increased heat and drought, such as in California, has a deleterious effect on native trees remaining in National Parks, Forests, and other wild lands. Those forests are accumulating dry fuels and even Giant Sequoias are becoming dehydrated and the understory desiccated. Bugs emerge earlier before predatory migratory birds arrive and do greater damage, weakening and even killing vast numbers of trees. Couple that with increase in lightning storms without attendant rain, as California saw this August, and a recipe for disaster and devastation is created. We have reached and even passed the temperature regulating tipping point with climate change. As stated in the original piece: Scientists have determined that even if we were to attain net zero carbon emissions this year, it would be too late to stop the accumulating effects of ice pack and permafrost melting. Our only hope is to sequester carbon, at which trees excel. It’s a feedback loop.
Thank you Lora and Clinton,
Clinton, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Especially the idea of the city (us) buying large tracks like the one in Perrinville. It is easy to want to improve the environment at someone else’s expense through restrictions; but your idea strikes me as a better way.
Lpra, thank you for getting this valuable conversation going. We do have a lot of work to do so we pass along, to the next generations, the wonderful planet we have been given.
Thank you, Gregg Arnold, I appreciate the many insightful comments this post has generated.
Thank you Lora for eloquently and poetically speaking up for our trees . I’m trying to wrap my head around the concept: A flawed result is not better than none, it is worse, because it
gives the impression something was done.
That’s exactly where we stand with the proposed tree code.
We realize that Edmonds is 97% built out; there is very little undeveloped land left. The proposed tree code, as now written, only deals with undeveloped land that is about to be developed. It does nothing to address the already developed lots , where 80% of our urban forest is.
The proposed code doesn’t address economic incentives to encourage residents to plant more trees or to retain their trees. The proposed code sets no restrictions at all on tree cutting on developed lots.
The proposed code is too little too late. It would have had a much bigger impact if it had been enacted 10 years ago.
Yet, it would save a few trees. As a life long environmentalist , I’m so used to just winning crumbs. And trying to be happy with those crumbs. That’s why we are in the situation we are in.
But Lora, you are saying we shouldn’t settle for less. That we should demand a thorough and far reaching tree code. Well, that’s going to be a real push. We are going to have to convince the City Council of the need. If we’re going to do this process, let’s do it right.
And I hope the City does acquire the Perrinville Woods property and preserve
them as a beautiful park. There are no other properties like that left in Edmonds. Once they’re gone, they’re gone for good.
Thank you, Bill Phipps, and thank you as well for speaking up at the Planning Board meeting to review the Tree Ordinance. Preserving and conserving the tree communities we still have is paramount. As you say, once gone is gone. And, yes, it is unfortunate the City is so far behind some communities in making more meaningful efforts to protect trees on already developed private property. The living natural environment is a benefit to all and requires all to chip in.
The “too little, too late” aspect drove me to demand a moratorium on removing ANY trees, with minor exceptions for imminent danger to safety, until an Ordinance can be developed that will provide real protection for the air we breathe, the interconnected web of life we cannot extrications ourselves from, and the misunderstood energy savings and carbon sequestering trees provide. A shading tree is a more effective “air conditioner” than one relying on electricity. Trees provide so much at so little cost and are readily available if we can find a way to place a value on them and appreciate the savings in keeping them viable.
Thank you Lora, and is good to see the number of comments posted so thank you MEN too!
You are welcome, Sandra Butterfield, I am heartened by the many comments from people who understand the importance and hope will persuade the Planning Board and the City Council to act with greater urgency before it is too late.