Editorial: What saved climate act? Good sense and a Science Guy

By The Herald Editorial Board

In trying to understand why Democrats fared better in Washington state than elsewhere in the country — and why three of four conservative-backed state initiatives were rejected, even with appeals regarding inflation and taxes — Troy Abel, a professor of environmental policy at Western Washington University, went to the source: the voters; at least those in his classes.

“I started talking to my students about this, and I think they had some pretty good insight,” said Abel, who has taught at Western since 2006.

Among the factors students cited, he said, were the state’s higher levels of education among residents and voters, greater concern for democracy among those voters, and in-migration from California and elsewhere attracted to Washington’s environment and recreational opportunities, with most of those new residents concentrated around Puget Sound’s tech industries and their higher-paying jobs.

But there was one other factor, at least regarding the defeat of Initiative 2117, an attempt to scuttle the state’s Climate Commitment Act and its cap-and-invest carbon market, for which a big chunk of undecided voters broke 2-to-1 in rejecting the initiative.

That one factor, prominent in the no campaign’s television ads, was cited as significant among the students.

“Do you know who my students remembered?” Abel asked. “Bill Nye.”

Yep, the Science Guy.

Testing the hypothesis: Nye, in the lab-coat-and-bow-tie persona that he made famous in his PBS children’s science series — the series Abel’s students regularly watched as kids as did their parents — appeared in an ad, casting the initiative as misleading and harmful to public health and environment.

“Think about my 22-year-olds; Bill was the Science Guy and they learned a lot from him,” he said.

The Climate Commitment Act, already law, represented the public good, Abel said, and was seen by a strong majority as worthy of protecting.

Two representatives with Climate Solutions, which was heavily involved in no campaigns for two of the four initiatives, agree that public support for climate law was strong.

“Folks resoundingly support climate action in Washington. They resoundingly voted to maintain the Climate Commitment Act,” said Leah Missik, deputy policy director for Climate Solutions.

I-2117’s rejection — with nearly 62 percent voting against the measure — didn’t see the typical split down the Cascade Range divide; all but two counties in Western Washington saw majorities rejecting I-2117, joined by seven counties in Eastern Washington.

Gathering evidence: What may have persuaded voters to keep the climate act intact was the tangible benefits — providing investments in clean air, transit, electric vehicles and ferries, energy efficiency and more — that the act’s carbon market is funding. (The Herald’s environmental reporter, Eliza Bronson, recently wrote about an online dashboard that outlines the CCA’s investments in Snohomish County and the rest of the state.)

What the initiative may have done, unintentionally said Stephanie Noren, state communications director for Climate Solutions, was push the act’s supporters to put those investments before voters, and show what the CCA has done and is doing.

“There was definitely, like a gut check of, ‘Oh, we’re actually going to get tested this fall, and we’re getting tested in ways that we don’t typically have to do,’” she said. “There was definitely a focus on what’s making people’s lives better.”

“If you look at this against the national backdrop, it really highlights the importance for state leadership and state action,” Missik said.

Solid, liquid and gas: Where the climate messaging didn’t fully get through to voters was in regard to the passage of Initiative 2066, the only statewide measure to win majority approval, with 51.7 percent voting for it.

The initiative is set to overturn state laws regarding the transition from natural gas to electricity for home heating and other uses. The laws I-2066 seeks to overturn, including House Bill 1589, would not have barred the use of natural gas appliances, but would have allowed Puget Sound Energy, the primary natural gas utility, to begin planning for that transition. Other programs outlined incentives for homeowners, home-builders and businesses to begin making the transition to electric heat pumps and appliances.

The subject itself was “wonky” and harder to grasp than protecting the Climate Commitment Act, Noren said, allowing supporters to more easily sell its false narrative that state laws were attempting to “ban” natural gas.

Climate Solutions does plan to join other organizations in filing a lawsuit against the measure, alleging that I-2066 violated the state constitution’s requirement that such ballot measures address only one subject. Filing of the lawsuit is expected once election results are certified.

The work toward that transition, Noren said, was happening in the background, centered on planning legislation and incentives. Supporters of that transition counted on a slow and steady advance of legislation.

“We just didn’t anticipate the kind of misinformation that could be used to say, like, ‘We’re ripping (natural gas) out of your house,’” Noren said.

Recent polling, Missik said, showed that misinformation was cited by voters as a top reason for their yes vote.

Applying the conclusions: Still, the near-miss on stopping I-2066, paired with the convincing defeat of I-2117, Noren and Missik said, should persuade state lawmakers to continue their climate work.

The state Legislature, Missik said, has an opportunity to double down on the progress made on solutions through the Climate Commitment Act, investing its revenue in climate solutions and pursuing other climate policies, setting an example for other states, and even other countries. Among that work is advancing new state regulations meant to further limit emissions from trucks and vehicles, including those with diesel engines.

Weighing the state’s results against a second presidential term for Donald Trump — who continues to call the climate crisis a hoax and has promised to roll back the Biden administration’s climate efforts and investments — gives further importance to those outcomes in Washington state and the efforts to continue programs that will grow in significance in the absence of federal support and funding.

“For all those people who say that what Washington does doesn’t have an impact; we do. And in fact, we make an out-sized impact,” Missik said. “We are not a small economy. Moreover, we also are sharing lessons learned with other states who sometimes follow in our footsteps.”

For the next four years, at least, those are messages that will need to resonate beyond the state’s borders, whether it’s coming from someone in a lab coat and bow tie, or not.