From:            sarah shifley
To:                Commission-Public-Records
Subject:           [EXTERNAL] CORRECTION: Comment for 11/17/20 Port Commission Meeting
Date:              Sunday, November 15, 2020 8:07:34 AM

WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe.
Please confirm that this comment has been received and will be provided to the
Commissioners and included in the meeting minutes.
Thanks!
Sarah
_______________

Dear Port of Seattle Commissioners --
My name is Sarah Shifley. I am a Seattle resident and co-lead of the 350 Seattle
Aviation Team. I am writing to provide comment on agenda items 10(b), (c), and
(d).
Agenda Items 10(b) and 10(c)
The October 8th presentation on your proposed 2021 budget and the Commission
briefing slides assert that the Century Agenda was the starting point for creation of
this budget and that the proposed budget was developed to achieve the Century
Agenda. (For example, during the October 8, 2020 public briefing on the Aviation
Divison's 2021 budget, COO David Soike stated that the budget is "really developed
to make the [Century Agenda] achievable." He also mentioned that the Port
"serves" the community as a public entity and his presentation slides include the
bolded statement that the "Century Agenda drives... the budget.")
A foundational concept in the Century Agenda is that the Port is a "public agency."
The Century Agenda also purports that the Port strives to be a model for equity and
sets goals for reductions of all types of emissions and air pollutants from Sea-Tac
operations. Looking at the proposed 2021 budget, it's as if these key components
of the Century Agenda never existed. In many ways, the budget runs counter to
Century Agenda goals and reads like a shameful play book on bolstering
airline corporations' profits at the expense of impacted communities and the
climate.
The budget does not reflect that the Port serves the public and shifts costs from
large corporations to individuals. I understand that the Port will be passing on cost
savings to airlines and using federal stimulus money to cut airline usage fees. At

the same time, you are asking taxpayers to pay $78 million, with additional
increases in 2022 and 2023. Why are stimulus funds being used to cut costs for
huge corporations while you push more costs onto individuals? This move is all the
more reprehensible given that many people are facing severe financial hardships
due to the impact COVID-19 has had on employment rates.
There is also nothing in the budget that will, in any meaningful way, reduce
emissions from fuel burned at SeaTac -- by and far the largest source of emissions
from Port operations. The Port continues to rely on biofuels, which it deceptively
refers to as "sustainable aviation fuels," as the single method by which it will
achieve emissions reductions. However, WSU staff has confirmed that using
biofuels does not reduce CO2 emissions from fuel burn, and they are unable to say
how much, if any, biofuel use at Sea-Tac would reduce other particulate emissions
or radiative forcing. And with the growth the Port is pushing for, any reduction in
pollutants or climate warming from biofuels will be overwhelmed by new
emissions. Meaningful reduction in emissions will only come from meaningful
reduction in flights, and the entire budget is aimed at increasing, not reducing
flights.
The budget also does little to address the massive inequities caused by Sea-Tac
operations. As I and many others have repeatedly testified to you, marginalized
communities and communities of color bear the brunt of air and noise pollution
from Sea-Tac operations. This pollution leads to a wide array of life-threatening
conditions, higher rates of pre-term births, lower learning outcomes in children,
decreased mental health and increased changes of developing dementia, and
decreased property values and tax bases. Nowhere in the budget is this
acknowledged or addressed.
Here are some steps you should take to create a budget that is in line with its
Century Agenda, serves the public, and helps achieve sustainability and equity.
Redirect costs currently paid by taxpayers onto airport users.
Pause any spending on Sea-Tac projects that are not necessary for safety.
Halt the "Sustainable Airport Master Plan" (SAMP) and redirect funds
earmarked for the SAMP review and projects to research and development of
modes of passenger and cargo transportation in our region that are actually
sustainable (i.e., not airplanes burning biofuels), such as rail.
Fund programs to ensure accurate accounting, reporting, and education
regarding all types of emissions from Sea-Tac.
Redirect money earmarked for Sea-Tac expansion projects (e.g., IAF and
NASF) to mitigation projects to immediately reduce harms to airport impacted
communities such as sound insulation and air purifiers for homes, day cares,
and schools.

Invest in research to determine how best to reduce air and noise pollution on
airport-impacted communities.
Agenda Item 10(d)
I urge you to reject the proposal to spend $22 million on upgrades to the Sea-Tac
parking garage and instead focus on reducing CO2 emissions through the only
effective means -- degrowth.
One justification offered for this massive expenditure is that it will reduce CO2
emissions by 17-20 metric tons per-year. But that number needs to be put in
context: in 2017, CO2 from fuel pumped at Sea-Tac exceeded 5,800,000 metric
tons. And those emissions had a three times greater warming impact on the climate
than on-the-ground emissions. By comparison 17-20 metric tons is pretty much
nothing. Another justification for the $22 million expenditure is that it will increase
the number of EV charging stations from 48 to 96, but that's still less than 1% of
spots in the garage. These justifications appear to be functionally nothing more
than greenwashing.
The Port of Seattle should not be pouring money into parking infrastructure at Sea-
Tac as we make our way further into the last decade during which we can take
action to avoid a severe climate catastrophe. Instead, it should be taking steps to
meaningfully reduce emissions at Sea-Tac through the only possible means:
degrowth. And it should be using available funds -- such as this $22 million -- to
mitigate the harm air and noise pollution from Sea-Tac operations have on impacted
communities.
Thank you,
Sarah