I would think that Washington's Climate Commitment Act is working if it reduces traffic gridlock by improving alternative transportation. Notice, I haven't mentioned reducing carbon emissions yet. The act has many other benefits.
In the news, there has been a big error in accounting. According to an editorial on KIRO Radio website, The Department of Commerce released a statement Tuesday afternoon admitting they made a “data entry error” in reporting the emissions reductions from eight Climate Commitment Act projects. They originally reported: 7.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions reduced. Here’s the actual number: 78,000 tons. Woops. Still, I'm thinking about where the money is spent, here in Washington, that benefits transit users, building efficiencies and other things for climate resilience. As for the actual amount of carbon saved, it may be tricky to measure. It does look like people's behavior doesn't change that much, so far. Folks may just grit their teeth, pay higher prices for fuel and keep driving anyway.
Passing laws and taxes, from the top down, can be problematic. Personally, I would have preferred a simpler carbon tax versus this more complicated Cap and Trade, but the cap bill is what we got; passed by the Legislature after voters turned down carbon taxes on two different occasions.
The Cap and Trade Law was upheld by Washington State voters in 2024 when the initiative to repeal it failed at the ballot. I voted against that initiative to repeal it also.
I do see a few problems going forward, however. The Governor has suggested taking $500 million out of Climate Commitment Funds to plug a hole in the state budget; some kind of child tax credit that's underfunded, I guess.
Many of the state's regular programs do keep rising in cost; such as K-12 education which the state's constitution says is the "paramount duty of the state." Sometimes I think these regular things can be reconsidered. As for education, people learning to use alternative transit could be seen as "educational."
Another problem is that the Climate Commitment Act ratchets up to higher fuel costs as time goes on. This is to pursue goals for reducing carbon emissions. At some point, voter support may break; like a stretched rubber band.
Still, if we are to solve the global warming problem, people will need to make some lifestyle changes. This needs to be supported with better planning so greener lifestyles can be more viable for families and individuals. That's where planning comes in for housing, density, transportation, heating efficiency and so forth. We need more solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen fusion and so forth for energy. Low density sprawl out across vast landscapes has been a problem that I have studied since my college planning classes.
These things all interconnect when we look at the big picture, rather than just the little pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment