By Paul Roberts / For The Herald
Initiative I-2117 will repeal Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. The act has generated millions of dollars to address the growing impacts of climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Herald has done an excellent job covering the various projects funded under the Climate Commitment Act in Snohomish County.
Repealing the Climate Commitment Act is a bad idea. Making it better is a good one. Yes, the price of gas is important, but there are other environmental and economic factors to consider, including a livable planet and growing costs to the economy caused by burning fossil fuels. The initiative will not repeal the laws of nature: physics, chemistry or biology.
For the past 10,000 years humans have lived in a “Goldilocks Zone” where Earth’s temperature variations were relatively stable. Consumption of fossil fuels are propelling us beyond that stable zone.
The past 10 years provide a glimpse into the future and what a destabilizing atmosphere looks like. 2023 was the warmest year since record-keeping began, and 2024 is on track to pass 2023. The past 10 years have been the warmest on record.
In the past five years, we have experienced more extreme events such as: heat domes, atmospheric rivers, rain bombs, floods, king tides, fire storms and dangerous air quality. These are increasing in frequency, intensity and cost. They have a profound effect on the environment and the economy, adding significant costs to infrastructure, health care, agriculture, business and labor and increasing risk and liability.
Wildfires are among the most dramatic indicators of accelerating climate change. Wildfire seasons now start earlier and last longer. In recent years, wildfires have emerged locally and across the planet including areas not previously at risk, such as rainforests and Arctic tundra.
Locally, air pollution from fossil fuels and fires contribute to poor air quality and health risks such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, allergies, COPD and exposure to carcinogens. Pollution disproportionately affect young, old and poor people. Pollutants, including particulates, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead, are the nasty cousins that travel with GHGs from fossil fuels and wildfires.
The costs of climate change are rapidly increasing along with climate influenced events. According to NOAA, a record 28 climate-related disasters costing $1 billion or more occurred in 2023.
These costs are directly attributable to burning fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry has known for decades their products are polluting the atmosphere. Conservative economist Milton Friedman believed that when polluters pollute for free, they are essentially stealing wealth and well-being from everybody else. Even Friedman believed that government should make polluter’s pay.
The Climate Commitment Act provides an essential funding source to address the rising costs of a changing climate. The act creates a carbon market and puts a price on the pollution that is poisoning the planet and destabilizing the atmosphere.
Reducing consumption of fossil fuels is the only lever to turn down earth’s thermostat. The Climate Commitment Act is a good first step. Moreover, it provides a critical framework for addressing growing costs associated with a warming world.
Responding to climate change requires adapting to changing circumstances. This year the Legislature considered a number of changes to the act. They authorized linking the act with carbon markets in California and Quebec, creating a potentially larger market, and likely reducing consumer costs. They also continued to invest funds from the act for reducing GHG emissions in transportation and buildings, clean air initiatives, helping offset oil price impacts — particularly for lower income households — and funding research and development efforts to develop clean energy alternatives.
Future actions might include relief for rural areas and agriculture. These were considered by the Legislature this year, but did not pass.
Economists and scientists agree, the cost of carbon must be built into the economy if we are to reach net-zero by 2050. That requires putting a price on carbon reflecting its true cost to the economy. That is what the Climate Commitment Act does.
Repealing the act will eliminate funding for climate change. The impacts will continue to grow, but the funding will be gone.
Since 1989, the Economist magazine, a moderately conservative publication, has argued in favor of pricing carbon. They editorialized that the only way for governments to stop global warming is to put a price on pollution.
From an economics and environmental perspective, pricing carbon is an obvious policy choice. Defining economic health in terms of the price of a gallon of gas is a false premise and will increase fossil fuel consumption, GHGs and global temperatures. This is a business as usual approach, heavily promoted and funded by the oil industry, ultimately harming the environment and the economy.
We know what the climate will do on a business-as-usual path. Repealing the Climate Commitment Act is business as usual. We can choose a better path. Voting no on I-2117 will preserve the Climate Commitment Act and allow for critical improvements and adjustments necessary to address the dynamic issues presented by climate change.
Paul Roberts is retired and lives in Everett. His career spans over five decades in infrastructure, economics and environmental policy including advising Washington cities on climate change and past Chair of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Board of Directors.
Eco-nomics
“Eco-nomics” is a series of articles exploring issues at the intersection of climate change and economics. Climate change (global warming) is caused by greenhouse gas emissions — carbon dioxide and methane chiefly — generated by human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices. Global warming poses an existential threat to the planet. Successfully responding to this threat requires urgent actions — clear plans and actionable strategies — to rapidly reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate-influenced events.
The Eco-nomics series, to be published every other week in The Herald, is focusing on mitigation and adaptation strategies viewed through the twin perspectives of science and economics. Find links to the series thus far at tinyurl.com/HeraldEco-nomics.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
