This year, the environmental community is making protection of the environmental budget one of its top "priorities." The lobbyist for the Washington Environmental Council told the Associated Press, "Many of these programs are close to being decimated."

Unfortunately, they haven't always been so careful about setting priorities, supporting budget expenditures in the past that were more about politics than environmental benefit.

In the fifth part of our series, we highlight a program the environmental community called a "priority" just two years ago, but whose budget has now been zeroed out. If the program is not worth the funding today, it calls into question whether it was ever a real priority or simply a luxury.

 

---

In 2008, the Legislature, encouraged by the environmental community, passed the Washington Farm to School program, funding a position to help schools buy local vegetables and other food. The program was needed, it was argued, because local farms provide food that is either not prepared for distribution at schools or is higher cost, but some believe local food uses fewer environmental resources, like transportation fuel.

We've addressed the fallacies of the environmental benefits of buying "local" food in the past. Science and research demonstrates that the distance food travels has little to do with the energy and resources used. One study put it this way:

The evidence presented suggests that food miles are, at best, a marketing fad that frequently and severely distorts the environmental impacts of agricultural production. At worst, food miles constitute a dangerous distraction from the very real and serious issues that affect energy consumption and the environmental impact of modern food production and the affordability of food.

Put simply, much of the environmental justification for the local food program doesn't stand up to scientific assessment.

Initially, the Farm to School program was given $290,000. The 2009 supplemental budget cut this to $142,000. This year, the program has been zeroed out. Such a quick turnaround in funding indicates that the program was never really a priority in the first place. Indeed, when we asked for metrics from the program about environmental impact, they admitted they had none.

In yesterday's piece on Green Waste we highlighted a state employee position that had been eliminated to provide funding for the Governor's climate change executive order. Another position cut back due to the EO was involved in streamlining environmental permitting, with the Department of Ecology noting the cut would mean "Slower response to businesses and industries that need air quality permits to start or expand operations; Delay or eliminate efforts to further streamline industrial permit processes."

The cost of this position was $30,936 and could have been funded for nearly four years with the money spent on the short-lived Farm to School program. Instead of funding a position designed to help businesses expand in a tough economy, we funded a program that was of dubious environmental benefit and was quickly discarded.