Global warming must be dealt with scientifically and rationally, not with pork barrel politics.
Unfortunately, in Washington State, we now have the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), an ineffective, wasteful political giveaway that does little to deal with global warming
You can help the state deal more effectively and justly with climate change by voting YES on Initiative 2117.
The CCA is doing little to slow WA emissions growth
And when Congressman Jay Inslee wanted to gain a basic understanding of climate change, his staff called me and I met with the Congressman at my offices at the UW.
What did I tell him, backed by the best science available?
Global warming is a serious concern but not an existential threat.
We need to deal with the problem in a rational and balanced way.
As I will describe, the legislatively adopted CCA is wasteful and ineffective. It is highly regressive, preferentially hurting low-income people. It is also an obstacle to effective action regarding human-caused global warming.
If you care about the environment, vote YES on I-2117. We must replace the CCA with measures that are more effective and ethical.
Reminder: the Climate Commitment Act established a cap and invest system, where the annual CO2 emissions by the state are capped, with major emitters paying money to bid on emissions allowances. The result is increasing prices for gasoline, heating fuels, transportation, and many things we buy. The sales of emission allowances have given the state government billions of dollars for a politized environmental "slush fund."
Why the Climate Commitment Act is Essentially Flawed and Must be Replaced
(1) Flying Blind
The central goal of the CCA is to reduce carbon emissions in Washington State. To do so, it is essential to have recently updated emissions data to know whether actions funded under the act are working and to make adjustments if necessary.
The most recent emissions data available from the State of Washington? You are not going to believe this. 2019. Five years ago.
Can you imagine being a captain of a ship headed to a specific port and the only information you had was the path of the ship five years ago? You would have no chance of reaching your destination.
The same thing is true of the CCA. A serious effort to reduce carbon emissions requires near real-time information.
(2) No Requirement that Projects Have Specific Emission Reduction Goals
Billions of dollars are being spent on CCA projects. Unbelievably, there is no requirement for these projects to estimate or project how much they will reduce carbon emissions. The vast majority of projects provide no such information.
You can't reduce emissions if the projects you are funding provide no information on how they would reduce emissions. Pretty obvious.
(3) No Tracking of the Effectiveness of CCA Projects
Vast sums are being dispersed to hundreds of CCA projects, but there is NO TRACKING of whether the projects are successful in reducing emissions.
You can't solve a problem if you don't know whether your actions are working.
Can you imagine paying someone to paint your house and not checking on whether he/she finished the job? Or even started it? This is what the CCA is doing. Unbelievable.
The CCA gives new meaning to the term "pork barrel politics", dividing the CCA funds among well-connected special interest groups, with many of the projects having nothing or little to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Case in point, one special interest group, the Cascade Bicycle Club, noted the CCA will supply 1.3 billion dollars to improve bike lanes and pedestrian projects. You read that number right.
Do you know the average % of folks in the US who commute by bike?
About 0.5% Do you think that massive investment in bike lanes will have much of an impact on emissions? Not likely. And cycling is getting LESS ecological with the invasion of heavy, electric bikes.
For example, millions are being spent on fish barriers and habitat, as shown by the dozens of projects shown on this map. We all care about fish, but this has little to do with reducing greenhouse emissions.
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent on "environmental justice communities", with spending ranging from vague administrative tasks to air quality sensors (see map below). Again, little to do with CO2 emissions.
Don't get me wrong. I care about the natural environment as much as anyone. But the bait and switch of the CCA, using money meant for reducing carbon emissions used for other projects is wrong.
The language of the CCA is explicit: CCA money is for reducing emissions (see a statement on the State's own web page below).
Hundreds of CCA projects have nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, wasting billions of dollars.
(5) The CCA "Tax" is Greatly Raising Prices for Washington Citizens and is Highly Regressive, Hurting Low-Incoming Individuals the Most
The inception of the CCA has resulted in Washington gasoline prices increasing by 30-50 cents, with increased bills for home heating fuels (natural gas and oil) and for a wide variety of essentials. These increased costs are very regressive: they hurt low-income folks the most since energy costs are a far larger portion of their income. Low-income folks often can't afford expensive electric cars or live in places with convenient chargers.
The Washington Policy Center estimates that the CCA costs the average Washingtonian about $ 500-1000 a year.
.png)
The effects of the CCA on gas prices were not small.
(6) The CCA Effort Has Been Supported by Hype, Exaggeration, and False Statements by Politicians, Special Interests, and the Media
Exaggerations, hype, and outright fibbing have characterized the messaging of those pushing the CCA and attacking I-2117.
Governor Jay Inslee stated that ‘Climate change is truly an existential threat for everything we hold dear’ and CCA author State Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon wrote: "The climate crisis poses an existential threat to all our communities."
Let us be clear. This existential business is nonsense. Unscientific and baseless. Global warming is slowly warming the planet and our region. The effects are modest. There is no threat to the existence of our state. Very irresponsible language.
Many media outlets have been equally irresponsible in hyping the effects of global warming, with the Seattle Times being one of the worst offenders. I have written several dozen blogs over the years documenting the false statements in the ST regarding climate change that needlessly worry State residents and poorly inform legislators.
Talking about false statements, don't forget the Governor's claims that gas prices would go up by "pennies" if at all. The truth was very different (around 50 cents per gallon).
Unethical Conduct
In addition to telling tall tales about the CCA, state leadership has also taken actions that were ethically problematic. When the polls this spring and summer showed substantial public support for I-2117, the Inslee administration and state legislature decided to give low-income customers a one-time gift of $200 on their utility bills BEFORE THE ELECTION. Unbelievably inappropriate. The email below from a state administrator shows how it was done.
What We Do Now?
The CCA is ineffective and essentially flawed for many reasons. Importantly, the CCA is wasting huge sums of public money, displacing productive approaches that could meaningfully address climate change.
So what actions should be taken now?
Number one is to vote YES on I-2117 to end the ineffective and costly projects resulting from the CCA.
What are some effective alternatives for addressing human-caused global warming that would be appropriate to do on a state level? Some suggestions are provided below.
(1) Pass a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would allow the market to make decisions, not government bureaucrats. Revenue neutral means that all the collected revenue would be returned to Washington State residents. Such an approach was proposed 8 years ago with I-732., which was defeated when Governor Inslee and others opposed it (they wanted the money).
(2) Instead of ineffectively spreading the funds to special interest groups, accomplishing little, use the funds to fix key climate vulnerabilities. For example, a massive program to thin and restore Washington's eastside forests would greatly reduce wildfire impacts. Or building new water reservoir capacity.
(3) Invest in modular small nuclear generation facilities or fund prototype fusion power generation.
Most importantly, be honest with the citizens of Washington State on the costs and impacts of any measures taken.
,
Cliff, Thank you for your long standing efforts to speak truth to the climate issue and bringing the true, scientific data to the forefront for us to consider. Much appreciated. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteEE
Here is one: Clean Energy Credits for Washington Families Grant Program
ReplyDeleteEach "qualified" person or family gets a credit ($200 for a single, and more) on their utility bill. This might allow a family to set the thermostat up a degree or two, use more energy, and produce more CO2.
Inslee has promoted these sorts of things, I and others think, to buy NO votes.
Note that he tried running for President on such ideas and got nowhere.
Hi Cliff - I appreciate your suggestions to replace the CCA with a revenue-neutral carbon tax. However, as I understand it Initiative 2117 wouldn't only repeal the CCA but also prohibits any state agencies from implementing a cap and trade or cap and tax program. This gives me pause. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteDan.... no reason to do a cap and invest or cap and tax program. A faulty approach. Much better to have a tax without a cap and simply return all or part of the money. Simple and effective...cliff
DeleteThat is basically what they did. If not for this tax, the money for these programs would have simply come from the general fund. At that point you have to raise some other tax, or cut something else.
Delete"Much better to have a tax without a cap and simply return all or part of the money." A cap and trade offers a financial incentive to become more efficient and creates a market. It is a better way of encouraging innovation as the choice to produce fewer carbon units is experienced through a profit/loss lens.
DeleteWe have a good example of it working via Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments which led to emission control innovation and a 43% reduction of sulfur dioxide in about 12 years despite an increase in coal-fired electricity generation of 25% in that same time.
Market economics typically work when monitored and regulated.
Joe... market economics do not necessarily work better when regulated. Reducing sulfur dioxide was very easy compared to reducing CO2. Not comparable. No reason to think that cap and trade is more efficient than a simple tax. Much more complex and amenable to games...cliff
DeleteProsperous citizens tend to prefer and cherish their clean air and water. These are kleptocratic government programs that put a tax on every piece of paper filed are impoverishing us. It's spent only to make it sound like our legislators care about the environment while they are running for re-election. Impoverished citizens tend to not have garbage pickup service. THAT is the more immediate environmental disaster.
ReplyDeleteThank you for informing us on this subject. I appreciate the time it took you to write your analysis of the situation.
ReplyDeleteUntil state collected money goes to funding abortions and other ways of limiting human population growth, it won't really be addressing human caused climate change.
ReplyDeleteActually, Steve, the fastest way to reduce the population is to allow prosperity. In a prosperous society young women get an education and tend to follow it into a career. They put off child-bearing, shortening their window of fertility. The population quite naturally stabilizes. Evidence: Europe and North America. Birth rates are below replacement levels. Their population growth is now due to immigration, legal and otherwise. Allowing people to prosper is good for the environment in every way. Protecting the ability of people to prosper is a proper function of government. So I think the question is “How fast can we get the population prosperous?” Well, look at the recent immigrants. The Ukraines and Russians I know arrived in the mid-90’s. They now own several businesses and nice homes. We are seeing an easing of world population growth now. If we can end the wars, which are the only ecological disasters worse than destitute humans, we can turn this around in a lifetime. That’s a lot of hope for our next generations. And they will have the means to survive climate change or any other natural disaster, maybe even a meteorite smash.
DeleteThank-you for you're detailed analysis. I find big bike lane expansions absurd because who can afford to live within biking distance of work? And even if you were within 5 miles would you want to ride on a cold stormy winter day? I'm an independent who leans Democrat and one of the main reasons I don't always vote Democrat is hugely wasteful programs like CCA. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions so long as the project makes sense and doesn't drastically reduce the quality of life. I'd use public transit more but it takes too long, costs more than driving and it's sometimes smelly dirty.
ReplyDeletei'm so glad Inslee can't run for Governor again, I've gotten so disgusted with the man and in general, the state for leaning too left, too progressive, and as you say, for their own gains.
ReplyDeleteI also dislike throwing all eggs into one basket like they are with going all electric, banning gas for heat and cooking (I did sign the petition to repeal the gas ban) as one, I want to have gas for cooking. I currently have a gas wall furnace from Williams that has died (fan) and currently heat my place with space heaters (oil based heaters) until I can afford to replace the wall furnace. I do plan on going with a mini split system for both cooling and heat.
Right now, the electric grid as it is can't fully handle the increase in electrical reliance with everything all going electric, as if it's a panacea for all ills, it's not, it fails when lines go down and out here, we don't have underground electric lines, so are vulnerable to falling in high winds or major snows etc and when that happens, no lights, heat etc are possible, unless you have backup generation, and many can't afford that.
I'll definitely keep this in mind when the ballots arrive late next month.
Many thanks, Cliff. I was going to vote "YES" anyway, but this gives me even more reason to do so.
ReplyDeleteIf Brian Heywood wants to codify removing levers like cap and trade in the RCW, I would hope that he would at least propose some kind of solution to take its place that would stay in line with emissions targets. The CCA hasn't even been in action for 2 years yet, and while imperfect, it is still better than nothing. A couple of points: 1) programs funded by auctions proceeds should be able to measured for effectiveness in some way. This is already happening to some extent (estimated 191,000MT eliminated in 2023), but environmental justice projects will likely need some other KPI. 2) while it's annoying that the GHG inventory hasn't been updated since 2019, we do have baselines to measure effectiveness against of the once reporting is up to speed. Unfortunately I-2117 eliminates new reporting rules in place. 3) energy cost increases could be offset by rebates from surplus funds, as proposed by State Republicans, while we transition away from fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, there is rarely a perfect solution but the CCA should at least be given the opportunity to make positive change -- unless you can think of another way to reach the 80% emissions reduction you called for back in 2018?
CCA is so flawed and regressive it needs to be replaced without something that makes sense. There is no way to tell whether it is making a positive change commensurate with the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS it is collecting. I provided some specific suggestions in my blog on ways to go...cliff
DeleteI do not see how Cliff's arguments support his title statement. While he clearly lays out his reasons for opposing to the CCA, it is an opposition based on perceived fiscal responsibility and excessive tax burden, not on the CCA's relative effect on WA GHG emissions.
ReplyDeleteCCA's allowances auction places a price on GHG emissions, which from an emissions standpoint is economically interchangeable with the revenue-neutral carbon-tax he proposes as an alternative policy (assuming an equivalent effective pricing). The main mechanism driving lowered emissions, making the production of GHG more expensive, is functionally equivalent under either policy. The difference is what the revenue raised from the auction/tax is then used for, and while it is certainly valid to argue that point, from the perspective of reducing GHG emissions it's largely irrelevant.
While CCA supporters would argue that the projects that the program funds further reduce emissions, even if such projects are completely ineffectual then the program's emission impact is equivalent to a carbon-tax (again, assuming equivalent carbon pricing). Therefore, "if you care about the environment and worry about global warming" then from that perspective you should clearly vote NO on I-1227, as it is currently reducing emissions and will continue to do so as well as any prospective (and certainly not guaranteed to pass) alternative. If you are voting YES, then it is for other reasons.
Alex....you are missing the key point. Most of the 2 billion dollars so far ...and much more later... is being wasted. Plus, it is regressive, hurting low-income people. Don't YOU care about this? If the money was well spent it COULD have been used to reduce emissions...which is what you care about, right?....cliff
DeleteThose are reasonable arguments, but they don't support the claim made in your title. The primary method by which carbon pricing schemes decrease emissions, be they a cap system or a carbon-tax, is by increasing the cost of producing GHGs creating a disincentive. In that regard, the CCA works at least as well as a revenue neutral carbon tax (assuming equivalent emissions pricing). So if a voter's principal concern is global warming, they should vote NO on 1227.
Deletealex... there are problems with your logic. The CCA hurts low-income people preferentially..... very regressive. Does that not concern you. And most of the money is being wasted...money that could have been effectively used to address the problems from GW. We can and should do much better...cliff
Delete“The most recent emissions data available from the State of Washington? You are not going to believe this. 2019. Five years ago.”
ReplyDeleteGood call, I don’t believe it. There is data for WA available through at least 2022. For example, see Cliff Mass Weather Blog, August 28, 2024.
I’ll be voting no. Repealing CCA without a well-thought out replacement plan is a non-starter. If you have a better plan to reduce emissions, including how to pay for it, then put it on the table before killing the existing one.
Gerry....you are not correct. Please reread my blog. The official WA DOE data only goes through 2019. The data after is not consistent in it collection. One does not need a "well thought out replacement" to end the highly regressive, inefficient CCA. I provided some specific ideas on what to do next. As you may know, I was heavily involved in a carbon tax initiative that Inslee and friends defeated because they did not get the cash....cliff
DeleteThanks again for your thoughtful honest thoughts on such a contentious problem Washington state politicians have burdened us with. Given our wishes at the polls earlier when this kind of thing was presented to the public, I think what has been done to Washingtonians is nothing short of criminal by an out of touch, out of control state government. We need more common sense honest information on this grotesque injustice.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the question every voter has to ask is whether we will reward policy sold to us through deceit. Gov. Inslee has either lied or stonewalled at every turn about the CCA, from his absurd assertion that the gas tax would cost mere pennies, to his original push to force households into unreimbursed $40,000 conversions from gas to electric heat. (which was only watered down by legislative amendments before being passed in a 2 am vote -- after he spent all night twisting arms in his caucus.)
ReplyDeleteThen, there's AG Ferguson doing his own arm twisting, strongly suggesting to PSE that they not break out CCA costs to ratepayers' gas and electric bills under the risible assertion that such transparency would be "confusing." The clear implication from Ferguson's office was that the state had scratched PSE's back by accelerating depreciation of its infrastructure; now in return PSE should provide political cover for the ruling party by hiding information on people's bills.
Is this the kind of government you want? Single-party rule that looks like something from the Godfather? If you value honesty, openness, and accountability, then you should vote for it. Vote yes on all the initiatives, and please consider voting Reichert as a check on our extremist legislature.