Paul Fundingsland
Many in Washington state believe our Legislature has gone “off the track” when it came to crafting the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) and enacting it into law. It has thousands of obscure moving parts, including: a “cap and invest” scheme that forces “classified” companies to participate in carbon emission allowance auctions, adversely affecting their profits, which are then passed on to customers; and other states' There are potentially questionable alignments (including a Canadian province); the prospect of a forced transition from gas appliances to all-electric; and a timetable for a forced transition from natural gas to electric vehicle transportation.
Immediately after the first mandatory “carbon emission allowance auction”, the increase in gasoline prices ($0.38 to $0.50 per gallon) had a severe adverse impact, and the subsequent utility price increases took effect, with rising costs expected in the future. .
Washington State created a very insightful, useful, and pragmatic avenue of recourse in 1912 as a check on voters' decisions by the Legislature. If enough citizens believe their legislature has enacted questionable or unpopular legislation, a motion to overturn that legislation can be put to a vote. This recourse takes the form of initiatives initiated outside the halls of the legislature by individuals, groups or some other relevant legal entity who believe that enacted legislation should be re-addressed directly by the electorate.
In order to submit the initiative for consideration, the legal initiative document must be accompanied by sufficient signatures of valid Washington State residents. The number of legal signatures is based on a percentage of the state's population. If the number of verified signatures meets legal requirements, the proposed law can be placed directly on the ballot or submitted to the Legislature, giving elected representatives the opportunity to enact the proposed initiative legislation themselves.
If the Legislature fails to act, the original motion will automatically be placed on the ballot for citizens to cast a “yes” or “no” vote.
We are fortunate that, at this time, there is a person (here) who cares enough, has the desire, the organizational skills, and enough personal resources to fund an initiative that puts the two challenges together, a costly and time-consuming process. Sometimes it’s difficult.
Last year, he formed Let's Go Washington, and with his generous sponsorship, two initiatives are now on the November ballot. These measures will attempt to address the very real adverse financial impacts of the National Climate Pledge Act on citizens, but without definite, tangible benefits.
These initiatives are a straightforward and transparent effort. They specialize in state and private citizen finances. This is not a political issue, as neither political party has publicly sponsored, supported, or had any apparent association with either initiative. No fossil fuel company is involved in any way.
See here and here for two CCA ballot initiatives.
While some of the intricate effects of these measures are subtle, essentially, if approved by voters, I-2117 would end all moving parts of the CCA, including mandates for designated companies and businesses, primarily refineries and utilities. Participate in the quarterly “carbon emission allowance auction”. This will result in significantly lower gas prices at the pump.
Passage of I-2066 will essentially protect citizens and their wallets from current or future forced transitions from gas-fired appliances to all electric. This preserves the ability of residents to freely retain and choose their preferred energy source without incurring any dubious financial penalties concocted by state agencies.
Mandatory “cap and invest” auctions of carbon emissions allowances have raised billions of dollars for Washington state over the past two years. The state's opposition to these two initiatives highlights all of the wonderful and valuable uses and projects that these funds have been allocated to, but will no longer be funded if the initiatives pass. Perhaps the fact is that there will be fewer state employees (employed to manage these funds) because the funding source for their employment will no longer exist. Furthermore, passage of these initiatives would undermine Governor Inslee’s personal pursuit of Washington State “leading the world” in combating climate change.
But perhaps the main objection is likely to be that passage of these measures would put a pause on Washington state’s illusions of achieving that dream as part of a politically driven, emotional commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Stop climate change and impacts.
Back in the real world, three leading physicists ( here ) have published a paper detailing how much warming the US could avoid by spending trillions of dollars to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Their own dubious CO2 warming data included a 4x sensitivity return, and their finding was that the entire U.S. effort would result in a shockingly low 0.034 degrees Celsius (0.061 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming.
Since Washington State accounts for 1.5% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, our state's contribution to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 through the Climate Pledge Act would result in averted warming of 0.00051 degrees Celsius (0.000915 degrees Fahrenheit). These numbers are ridiculously small and far beyond the capabilities of scientific measurement. These warming-aversion numbers are harder to comprehend than those for the United States as a whole, but they're here. Reaching these figures would result in completely immeasurable and unverifiable returns on the huge financial warming investments that citizens are forced to make.
Therefore, if these measures are passed, the long-term adverse effects on inevitable warming will not be measurable or noticeable. If these initiatives are defeated and companies and businesses are forced to participate in carbon allowance auctions, resulting in endless economic sacrifices for Washington residents and other draconian energy demands through 2050, positive results in avoiding warming will be modest at best. result.
Advertisements for these initiatives are sure to start appearing soon. It will be interesting to see how supporters and critics describe these initiatives. It will be particularly interesting to see how this all plays out.
Are most Washington voters more generally fiscally aware on the CCA issue than the Legislature? Will they continue to spend money on a program whose net result of beneficial validation is close to zero? Or will the “magical thinking” of the states somehow get creative enough to create a compelling enough reason to keep this program alive, convincing a majority of residents that they should be willing to sacrifice their personal finances every year at the gas station and through Are there unfair ways for other states to theoretically prevent climate change and future severe weather?
Currently, polls indicate that initiatives I-2117 and I-2066 appear to have the upper hand.
One last fact about the Washington Initiative. If an initiative is rejected by the public, that doesn't mean it can never come before voters again. Therefore, the failure of currently proposed initiatives does not mean they are complete. As citizens become more familiar with the absurdity of spending a lot of our money to do nothing to prevent climate change or severe weather, these initiatives are likely to be resurrected in the future and reconsidered again and again.
Paul describes himself as “a generalist obsessed with climate change.” Although he is a retired professor, he has no scientific or other degrees specifically addressing such matters that could be cited as providing personal official expertise or credibility. What he has is two decades of fanaticism, enthusiasm and obsession with all things related to climate change.
Relevant
