Comment: I-2117 imposes too high a cost on our health; vote no

By Jonathan Witte / For The Herald

In a few weeks, Washingtonians will be asked to vote on Initiative 2117, an initiative which would repeal the Climate Commitment Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2021.

A recent editorial (“I-2117 no bargain for climate, transportation; vote no,” The Herald, Oct. 3), outlines the multiple adverse economic consequences that passing I-2117 would have for our state, hoping to save, perhaps 10 to 20 cents on a gallon of gasoline.

No one wants gas prices to rise, yet this initiative will not guarantee they won’t. However, it will guarantee other costs, such as to our health and health care-related expenses, will rise. As a physician, these health impacts are of particular concern to me.

Many health organizations oppose I-2117, including the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, of which I am a member. WPSR has compiled an analysis of the health risks posed by this initiative at www.wpsr.org/climate. This analysis describes the benefits generated by the CCA, which I-2117 would remove.

For example, CCA funding directly goes to improve air pollution, which is a major risk factor for respiratory diseases such as asthma, particularly in children. Reducing air pollution also reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attacks and strokes. Small particulate matter contained in air pollution is a risk factor for other diseases as well, including lung cancer, diabetes, dementia and other neurologic disorders. Air pollution is particularly concentrated along major transportation corridors and near urban industrial centers. This affects a large segment of our population resulting in disproportionate health effects on economically disadvantaged people, ethnic minorities and indigenous populations. CCA funds are distributed in ways to help alleviate this disparity.

CCA funds support urban forestry projects where trees and green spaces can reduce the effect of urban heat islands, which occur as cities swelter when heat is trapped in asphalt and concrete surfaces. Addressing this phenomenon decreases risk of heat strokes and dehydration in people in urban communities. Urban forestry projects also provide access to safe outdoor greenbelts and parks which promote activities that benefit both physical and mental health.

If I-2117 is passed, it would repeal the Climate Commitment Act and take away these benefits, resulting in worsening health impacts. What would that cost us? There are the direct costs of increased medical care: doctor visits, hospitalizations, medications, other treatments and procedures, etc. These add up to a specific dollar amount that is paid directly by patients, or indirectly through increased insurance premiums paid by individuals, employers, or by government. Ultimately, though, these increased costs are paid by all of us.

There are also the indirect costs of these health impacts including lost wages from missing work, either temporarily due to illness or long-term unemployment due to disability, which in some cases can have devastating personal economic consequences. This time away from work not only affects the employee; it also affects the employer, causing businesses to run less efficiently and be less profitable.

So again, what does repealing the Climate Commitment Act cost us in dollars? The Natural Resource Defense Council found that in 2021 health costs in the U.S. from climate change and fossil fuel pollution topped $820 billion. Likely, the proportional cost of this born by residents in Washington ran into the billions of dollars.

So far we’ve only been considering the increased economic costs of the health impacts which passing I-2117 (repealing the CCA) would cause. While these costs would be enormous, they do not take into account the non-monetary health impacts. These are the costs of the emotional pain and the physical suffering caused by the many impacts noted above.

So, is it worth incurring all of these impacts to our health to save a few cents on a gallon of gas? I think not. Please join me in voting No on I-2117.

Dr. Jonathan Witte lives in Everett and is a member of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. Read its latest report, “Initiative 2117: A. Risk to Our Health” at www.wpsr.org/.