Washington State Voters Confront Their Climate Commitment Act – Watts Up With That?

Paul Fundingsland

Many in Washington State feel our legislature has gone “off the rails” creating and putting into law the “Climate Commitment Act” (CCA).  It has thousands of obscure moving parts including: the “Cap and Invest” scheme of forced participation by “classified” businesses in a carbon emissions allowances auction contrivance adversely affecting their bottom line which they then pass along to their customers; possible dubious alignments with other states including a province in Canada; prospects of a forced transition from gas appliances to all electric; and a timetable mandating a transition from gas to EV transportation. 

After the first forced “carbon emission allowances auction” there was a corresponding immediate severe adverse effect of increasing gasoline prices ($.38 – $.50 a gallon) with accompanying rising utility prices beginning to take effect with ever escalating costs projected for the future. 

In the state of Washington, a very insightful, useful and pragmatic avenue of recourse was created in 1912 as a check for the voters over the decisions of the legislature.  If enough citizens feel their legislature has enacted questionable or undesirable legislation then an initiative to overturn it can be put on the ballot. This recourse takes the form of an initiative generated from outside the halls of the legislature by an individual, group or some other concerned legal entity that feels enacted legislation should be readdressed directly by the voters.

In order to submit the initiative for consideration, enough valid Washington State resident signatures must accompany the legal initiative document. The number of legal signatures is based on a percentage of the State’s population. If the number of validated signatures meets the legal requirement, the proposed law can either be placed directly on the ballot or can be submitted to the legislature allowing the elected representatives an opportunity to enact the proposed initiative legislation themselves.

If the legislature takes no action, the original initiative is automatically placed on the ballot for a “yes-no” vote of the citizens. 

We are lucky in this state at this time to have an individual (here) who cares enough, has the desire, organizational skills and enough personal resources to be able to finance the costly, time consuming and difficult process of putting together two initiatives challenging the legislatures’ “Climate Commitment Act”.

Last year he formed “Let’s Go Washington” and with his generous sponsorship, two initiatives (among others) have now been included on the November ballot.  The initiatives will attempt to deal with the very real adverse financial effects the State’s Climate Commitment Act has placed on the citizens with no identified, tangible benefits. 

The initiatives are a straight forward transparent effort.  They focus on state and private citizen finances.  It is not a political issue as neither political party is overtly sponsoring, supporting or has any visible connection with either of the initiatives.  No fossil fuel-based company has been involved in any way. 

The two CCA ballot initiatives are here and here.

Although some of the effects of the intricacies in the initiatives are nuanced, basically If approved by the voters, I-2117 will put an end to all the CCA’s various moving parts including the forced participation by designated companies and businesses (primarily refineries and utilities) in the quarterly “carbon emission allowances auctions”.  This would result in significantly lower gas prices at the pump. 

Passage of I-2066 will basically protect the citizens and their pocketbooks from any current or future forced transition away from gas appliances to all electric.  This preserves the ability to freely keep and choose the energy source preferred by residents without incurring any sort of dubious financial penalty concocted by State agencies.

Several billion dollars have been raised for the Washington State coffers during the last two years by the forced “Cap & Invest” carbon emission allowances auctions.   State opposition to passage of these two initiatives has highlighted all the wonderful worthwhile uses and projects these funds have been allocated to but will no longer be able to be funded if the iniatives pass. And perhaps the fact that there will be many fewer state employees (hired to administer these funds) because the funding source used for their employment will no longer exist. In addition, these initiative’s passage will ruin Governor Inslee’s personal obsessive quest to have Washington State “lead the world” in combating climate change.

But perhaps the main opposition point may very well be that passage of these initiatives will put a pause on Washington State’s fantasy of achieving it’s part of a politically driven emotional commitment towards attaining Net Zero by 2050.  In theory this will stop the climate from changing and bad weather from happening. 

Back in the real world, three well known high profile Physicists published a document (here) detailing how much warming would be averted with the U.S. spending unknown trillions of dollars to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own dubious CO2 warming figures containing a sensitivity feedback by a factor of 4, their findings are that the entire U.S. effort would result in adverted warming of a shockingly low 0.034 degrees Celsius (0.061 degrees Fahrenheit).

Since Washington State contributes 1.5% of the U.S. CO2 emissions, our State contribution through the Climate Commitment Act on achieving Net Zero by 2050 would therefore result in 0.00051 degrees Celsius (0.000915 degrees Fahrenheit) of averted warming.  These numbers are so ludicrously minuscule they are way beyond the ability to be scientifically measured. These temperature warming aversion numbers are even harder to comprehend than those for the entire U.S and yet here they are. Attainment of these numbers would result in an utterly measureless, unverifiable return on the citizens’ forced heavy financial warming reduction investments.

So, should the initiatives pass, the long-term adverse effects on no averted warming will not be either measurable or noticed. Should the initiatives be voted down, the positive results on averted warming with all the forced participation by companies and businesses in carbon allowance auctions resulting in endless financial sacrifices by Washington residents and other draconian energy requirements to 2050 will not result in anything more at best than an infinitesimally small, scientifically unmeasurable and unverifiable warming aversion 26 years from now.

Advertising for these initiatives is sure to start appearing fairly soon. It will be interesting to see how these initiatives are portrayed by both the proponents and critics. And it will be especially interesting to see how it all turns out. 

Do the majority of Washington voters have more common financial sense than the legislature on this CCA issue? Will they keep spending their money on a scheme whose net result of beneficial validation approaches Zero? Or will the States’ “magical thinking” quest somehow creatively manufacture enough of a compelling reason to keep this scheme in place by convincing most of the residents they should be willing to sacrifice their personal finances in forever increasing yearly amounts at the gas pump and through other state gerrymandered ways to theoretically stop the climate from changing and future bad weather from happening?

At the moment, polls show initiatives I-2117 & I-2066 seem to be holding the upper hand. 

One last fact about Washington initiatives. If an initiative is voted down by the general public, that does not mean it can never be placed again before the voters. So a defeat of the currently proposed initiatives does not mean they are finished. These initiatives could come back again, and again and again for reconsiderations at later dates as the citizens become more versed in the “Does nothing to stop either the climate from changing or bad weather happening for a whole lot of our money” absurdity of this CCA scheme.

Paul describes himself as “An Obsessive Climate Change Generalist”.   Although he is a retired professor, he has no scientific or other degrees specific to these kinds of issues that can be cited as offering personal official expertise or credibility. What he does have is a two decades old avid, enthusiastic, obsession with all things Climate Change related.