Twelve years ago, I left my hometown of soggy Seattle and moved to dry Yakima, where my wife and I bought land overlooking acres of shrub steppe and orchards.
The switch from traffic jams, coffee houses, and views of water to open roads, sunshine, grassland, and owls hooting on my roof was a culture jolt, but equally so was the change in local politics. The country road to my house is festooned by neighbors with flags of fierce loyalty to their man Trump.
In Yakima, many voters distrust government out of a sense that elites have ignored their needs. The elites offer tax breaks to Tesla buyers and debt forgiveness to college graduates. That’s not an agenda for those who drive pick ups or who never went to college.
People in Yakima build things or grow crops. They drive long distances and operate farm equipment. They are the working people the Democratic Party claims to represent, but that’s not true anymore, and polls show working people have migrated to Trump. To see why, one reason would be that the most cherished policy of Gov. Jay Inslee and the state Democratic Party, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which purports to combat climate change. The program charges fees to oil companies, which in turn pass along those costs in the form of higher fuel prices, as much as 50 cents a gallon.
A November ballot measure Initiative 2117 seeks to abolish the CCA. I have no doubt the measure will be overwhelmingly supported in conservative Yakima County, while getting strong opposition from liberal King County.
Backers of I-2117 argue the CCA is excessive taxation. What the CCA precisely will cost individual families is disputed, though the conservative Washington Policy Center estimates the program last year cost $631 for a typical family with two cars and natural gas home heating. That’s a big hit in Yakima County, where the median household income is about $65,167, which is about half of Seattle’s median household income.
Passed in 2021, the Climate Commitment Act created one of the largest state tax increases in decades – though the increase was obscured by calling it a fee on polluters in a “cap and trade” program. The goal was simple: impose so much financial pain on users of fossil fuels that they use less and/or switch to alternative energy sources.
Normally, a new state program that imposes higher costs to fuel cars or heat homes would attract voter concern and media scrutiny, especially since similar proposals were rejected by voters in 2016 and 2018. But that’s not what happened. The new and improved CCA did not generate much controversy until gas prices soared to $5 a gallon and some taxpayers revolted.
Gov. Inslee, who initially had promised that the CCA might cause gas prices to go up by just “pennies” if anything, later blamed the surge in gas prices on oil company greed. His outrage was disingenuous because consumer pain was a CCA feature, not a bug.
If Trump supporters complain that things are rigged by elites against working people, they got plenty of evidence from the news media, state agencies, and the courts who put a collective thumb on protecting the CCA and downplaying any effects on family budgets
The Seattle Times turned much of its coverage over to its “Climate Lab” team whose salaries are funded in part by donations from climate activists. (The Times says donors have no influence over coverage.) The CCA has now raised $2 billion, but The Times has not done a single story examining how the new tax affects families. Times reporters will call the CCA “a new carbon market” where “top polluters” pay fees with little or no mention of the consumers ultimately paying.
Other CCA supporters are doing their part. Pressured by the state Attorney General’s office, Puget Sound Energy was not allowed to disclose program costs on itemized bills sent to customers. In court, CCA supporters secured favorable ballot language on Initiative 2117 that bars any mention of gas prices and refers instead to CCA revenues as “investments” in transportation, clean air, renewable energy, conservation, and emissions reduction. A one-time utility rebate of $200 to 700,000 lower-income customers was mandated by a state agency to credit the CCA and was timed with the election calendar.
Proponents of the CCA have argued falsely that killing the program would cut funding for road projects – even though CCA dollars are barred by law from going to highways. Proponents argue that the CCA will make the air cleaner, but the program lacks mechanisms to determine effectiveness.
Let’s be honest about problems with the CCA. It creates a painful regressive tax that falls disproportionately on working people, making it more costly to heat a home, buy food transported by trucks, or get to a job site – all the while creating a huge fund of money flowing in large measure to Democrat-aligned organizations. Those recipients are now a powerful coalition defending the program.
Despite an outflow of $2 billion in funds going to different groups, there has been almost zero scrutiny of how those dollars are spent and whether there is much nexus to carbon reduction. Many CCA dollars are going to community organizations to organize and lobby public officials. You can find $204,100 going to “develop collective knowledge concerning environmental racism and its relationship to food systems” or $486,529 for “workshops and demonstrations on preparing traditional foods.”
Seattle editorialists have shown little sympathy to arguments about flaws with CCA or the perversity of a tax that hurts most those who can least afford it. Some Seattle opinion writers have denounced backers of I-2117 as MAGA nut cases who only care about their pennies, not about pollution.
Inslee and his allies are out of touch with the struggles of working people who might object to tax dollars going to workshops on food preparation. Farmers in Yakima who are keenly aware of changing weather patterns that affect water supply and growing conditions might wonder why the CCA isn’t more focused directly on climate action. These same farmers never got the agriculture exemption promised by CCA.
Living in Yakima taught me that my beloved Seattle is indeed a different world. My hometown remains the engine of Northwest commerce and culture, but when politics tilts too far left, as it has, a kind of let-them-eat-cake mindset takes hold.
A climate program that seeks to save the planet but screws the little guy needs a rewrite. Recognizing that climate change is real, we need a policy that is fair, affordable, and provably effective. Perhaps our next governor would care to sell that on both sides of the Cascades.
Demonizing critics of the CCA is the sort of politics that breeds resentments that elites don’t listen and don’t care — thus those flags of defiance on my country road. Trump is a grifter who plays on grievances, but many of those grievances come from real inequities. Our country, like our state, is polarized and the consequences are dangerous. Shouldn’t we try to bridge this divide?
I don’t know enough yet to have an opinion about the CCA — so unsure how I’ll vote.
But I do know for sure that Washington would benefit from a “Dan Evans Republican” party if simply as a rational alternative and to force reconsideration of Democratic conventional thinking.
Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. We simply have to stop burning fossil fuels. That entails costs that only grow while we dither. The CCA is regressive because the poor and middle class spend more of their incomes on necessities like transportation. No way around it. But politicizing the issue only drives delay.
Well stated, Casey. But if you think the next Governor (a Seattle liberal) or veto proof Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate will make some of your well thought out suggestions to change the CCA (which will not be scuttled in the November election), I think the bridge which needs dividing will only be more embedded after November. Particularly so when the national election moves far right in the Senate and the White House.
You could fund some nice long committee meetings for $2 billion.
Fire, ready aim. Finally, someone has the courage to call a spade and spade. One state levying a tax on refineries will not solve the climate change that is upon us. Washington’s working families paying $0.50 to $0.75 more for a gallon of gasoline will not change the trajectory of hurricanes in Florida, the number of wild fires in the west or the impacts of drought. So unfortunate that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords — the start of a worldwide effort to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Voting YES on 2117 would prompt a more reasonable rewrite of a law that has disproportionately impact Washingtonians who live paycheck to paycheck.
You might want to. Heck and see how many countries are meeting their Paris Accord promises.
China, the #1 GHG emitter, their promise was to stop increasing GHG emissions by 2030.
The Paris according requires the US to give billions to other countries
Did you read it? It’s a joke.
We have to stop burning fossil fuels, Warren Wilson? Who’s “we”?
What will really make a difference is when everyone ELSE stops burning fossil fuels. That’s what it’s all about. We can’t afford to be responsible, so we will just hope everyone else isn’t like us.
I wonder what young people in Yakima think about this? At my age it’s kind of academic, but if you’re going to be in your 40s in 2050?
“We” is everyone, obviously. We — everyone — the entire planet — have to stop burning fossil fuels. It’s a matter of physics, not politics, not economics. Oh, and people should stop being unwitting shills for the fossil fuel industries, as Casey and many others do when they politicize the CCA.
Working class folks pay an even bigger price as wildfires, floods, drought, and other climate-related effects push up insurance premiums, reduce crop yield and fish runs, and undermine human health. Although these costs are not as visible as gas prices, they are real — and they will continue to climb. Let’s stop fiddling while the planet burns. Vote no on I-2117, and then reform (rather than eliminate) the CCA.
What has been accomplished by the $2 billion taken from us in taxes? Climate change mitigated?
It’s a slush fund. Look at where the money goes.
Hi Jeffrey. CCA is already reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will dramatically cut them over time. Also: it is lowering utility costs for low-income electricity consumers. https://ecology.wa.gov/ecology/media/Images/AIR-CLIMATE/Climate%20change/CCA/ProjectedAllowanceBudgets_Graph-02.png?ext=.png
Yes, do follow the link. What you see is a projection for the next 30 years. It’s put out by a state agency that believes in the carbon tax and benefits from it. Note that it shows Washington carbon emissions falling in an almost straight line to the neat figure of zero by 2050, the century’s exact halfway point. Does that smell like a scientific projection? Or a political projection? What d’ya think? And what difference could the itsy-bitsy state of Washington make on global climate change? The climate activists don’t like to talk about this. They say, “We have to do this.” Who’s the “We”? If “we” are going to raise the price of gasoline on ourselves by more than 50 cents a gallon, “we” had better have some assurance that “we” will benefit, otherwise “we” are just wasting our wealth.
Bruce: You’re right that the graph shows projections based on emission reductions planned over the next 30 years. The law didn’t take effect until early last year — so we don’t yet know exactly how far emissions have fallen over the past 21 months. But this kind of pollution pricing, relying on market incentives, almost always modifies business (and utility) behavior; they have to pay more if they don’t reduce emissions. Maybe we should give the program a chance to operate and then tweak it, if necessary, before cynically declaring that a) it can’t work because it was designed and operated by our government; or b) we are just too “itsy-bitsy” to have any impact ourselves? Otherwise, what do we do? Maybe pray that enough nations finally update and implement Kyoto?
It is the law, RCW 70A.45.020.
RCW 70A.45.020
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions—Reporting requirements.
(1)(a) The state shall limit anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to achieve the following emission reductions for Washington state:
(i) By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990 levels, or ninety million five hundred thousand metric tons;
(ii) By 2030, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to fifty million metric tons, or forty-five percent below 1990 levels;
(iii) By 2040, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-seven million metric tons, or seventy percent below 1990 levels;
(iv) By 2050, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to five million metric tons, or ninety-five percent below 1990 levels.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70A.45.020
Kudos, Casey, for nailing Seattle elites to the wall. They mainly want to feel good about themselves and earn praise from their woke friends, regardless of the negative impacts on average folks around the state. “Save the planet but screw the little guy” is right. Some of us, including everyone at the Washington Policy Center, led by Todd Myers, have known this for years. We didn’t have to move to Yakima to wise up! Now is the time for informed voters to change things. Are there enough of us? We’ll see. If not, the ignorant, selfish, and misguided elites will continue to do damage and collect fat grants from taxpayer dollars. As Pete Delaunay notes, you had “the courage to call a spade a spade.” Bravo!
Ah yes, the Washington Policy Center. They are headquartered in Seattle, too — but apparently are not among the “ignorant, selfish, and misguided elites” disparaged by John. Hmmm. WPC is funded by some of America’s wealthiest individuals, corporations and groups that share a fierce hostility to labor unions, public schools, safety and health regulations, and climate science. On the latter, WPC partners with the Heartland Institute, funded in large part by the fossil fuel industry. But we are supposed to believe these powerful interests care the most about “average folks around the state.” Okayyy
Doesn’t ring true. Name me one advocacy organization that speaks on behalf of lower income and poor who support I-2117.
Washington State Catholic Conference says vote “No” on I-2117. This is the organization representing Catholic Bishops in Washington.
AAA Washington says vote “No” on I-2117. This is the organization that represents Washington’s automobile drivers. The one’s that are supposedly paying high gasoline prices.
Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council and Washington State Labor Council both say vote “No” on I-2117. These organizations represent our hardworking tradesmen.
Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington State Nurses Association and Washington State Medical Association all say vote “No” on I-2117. These are our healthcare workers who see the dire health effects on kids and elderly from pollution associated with fossil fuels. Health effects that are disproportional towards lower income.
El Centro de la Raza and Progreso: Latino Progress say vote “No” on I-2117. These organizations represent our immigrant population.
Fundamentally, taking no action on climate change in this state hurts all of us more than maybe a 5-7% increase in gasoline prices.
Corr and others always complain and tell you what is wrong, but offer no alternatives. No solutions.
The only way to solve climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels. It can’t be solved by individual action measuring one’s carbon footprint. It can only be solved by changing how the economy works. CCA is a good law to do that.
Corr is wrong about the impact to the Transportation budget.
“Move Ahead Washington”, the transportation bill that was passed in 2022, has a total funding of $16.8 billion, of which $5.4 billion comes from the Climate Commitment Act. That is 32% of all funding. Remaining funding comes from Federal grants, the operating budget, exported fuel tax, license plate fees, and other sources.
“Move Ahead Washington” provides:
– $3 billion for preservation and maintenance of roads, bridges and sidewalks
– $3 billion for transit service
– $1.2 billion for pedestrian and bicycle projects, including pedestrian overpasses.
– $1.6 billion for ferries
– $2.4 billion for culverts
– $1 billion to replace Vancouver-Portland bridge
– a number of freight improvement projects.
If the Climate Commitment Act revenue goes away, all those projects will need to be renegotiated and re-prioritized. And it is certain that with overall lower revenue that planned road projects will be scaled back to pay for the transit service, court-ordered salmon culverts, ferries, and other urgent transportation needs.
Corr isn’t telling the full story here.
I think we can all agree that climate change is happening and the impacts will be significant. The difficulty in governmental action at the State level is a scale problem. Washington State’s latest total greenhouse gas estimate that I found (2019) was about 103 million tons per year. In 2023, global GHG estimates were around 53 gigatons. So, Washington State makes up about two tenths of one percent of global emissions. The CCA will only reduce a small fraction of those emissions. So while voting no on I-2117 might make you feel better about doing your part to combat climate change just realize that it won’t have a measurable impact. It may however make life a little easier for folks who have to drive a lot to find employment.
Sir
Quoting Washington State’s .2% of the megatonnage total is an interesting method.
I like to quote 3.3 times 10 to the minus five power. (Sorry can’t express the number correctly but you get it.)
Only 2 nuclear weapons have ever been used in anger and the number is what I typed above. What–me worry?
And we can use this fine logic when talking about lead in paint and gasoline, arsenic, good old merthiolate with mercury, thermometers with mercury, asbestos in insulation, etc.
See how fun this is?
So the state has taken billions. What impacts on climate change have occurred? Has it slowed?
Look at outcomes, not rhetoric.
Great editorial. Thanks for writing it. CETA is not repealed by I-2117. CETA requires Washington electric utilities to eliminate coal next year, be greenhouse gas neutral by 2030 and generate 100% of their power from carbon free resources by 2045. CETA allows the transition without the CCA slush fund.
“Won’t have a measurable impact.”
But will have a real impact, an impact that’s just as real as everyone else doing their part.
This denial of responsibility is worse than the denial of science tactic, because there’s no made up facts to go with it, just an appeal to choose self interest over responsibility.
So why is it that old white men are the one’s saying it is so regressive and we don’t need to take responsibility for climate change—Brian Heywood, Steve Gordan, Cliff Mass, Casey Corr, Jim Walsh. It ain’t a broad coalition. After the election, do you really think that anyone of them will care or do something about our regressive tax structure?
“People in Yakima build things or grow crops. ” “elites have ignored their needs”
Mr. Corr
The following chat always ends the same way with my Eastern Washington pals, so . . . . Crop subsidies in various forms for the Yakima area (where they “build things or grow crops”) are about $255,000,000 for the past 20 or 25 years. Usually focused at the very top growers, of course. But we can’t call them “elite” I guess. Please consult ewg.org for various crop subsidies by type, county, state, top grower, whatever. A wealth of information right there from the Department of Agriculture. And of course, the subsidies are far greater when considering more than just the Yakima area.
It’s always interesting to speak with the no-more-big-gubbermint folks who suddenly don’t want to stop the subsidies. “SQUIRREL!” Somehow the recipients of federal welfare don’t like talking about it. After that, they surely don’t like talking about Columbia River water at subsidized rates through federally-built pipes. Or crops grown for export grown with subsidized water and disproportionate fuel consumption.
And after the Drumpfh tariffs on some Chinese goods were unwisely enacted, the Chinese approached India, Brazil, and Viet Nam and asked “how would youse guys like to grow some nice soybean crops for us?” “Yes”! So the farmers in the upper eastern midwest permanently lost a (previously) lucrative soybean market.
There is almost always something in simplistic arguments that requires more than a simple bumper sticker “argument.”
Please tell me where I went wrong on this post, kind sir.
The median income in Yakima is around $31,000. Most are not wealthy growers. People all over have a hard time paying a tax like this. It’s easy for those with higher incomes to blithely announce that we all need to make equal sacrifices to combat climate change when it isn’t really equal. I agree with you about those business owners who complain about subsidizing low income needs yet enjoy their own subsidizes (which helps all of us when shopping for food) but here’s a case where the law should be structured to ease the pain on the least able to pay by taxing those who can pay at a higher rate (and drive less).
Yes, the incomes of Hispanic farmworkers are very different from the wealth of ag landowners like Johnson Orchards and Cornerstone Ranches. Elites are everywhere, even in Yakima County. I agree that we should reform the CCA to help the former more than the latter, who already get significant government aid.
Ms Sally
Except for “blithely,” we probably agree on more issues than not and what chaps my lips is the continuous whining about big government. . . except don’t stop my subsidy checks.
One particular party has hoodwinked and bamboozled certain citizens with respect to which party actually tries to help.
Then they talk “elites” which reels in a few more and they don’t even have to say “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
Finally, there are provisions in the law for helping folks at the bottom but this merely caused hurling the good ol’ “so-sha-list” epithet.You should have heard some if our church friends yammer on about the recent power bill credits, which were actually an attempt to help the very voters……
Totally missing from this discussion is the large and increasing oil profits of the big oil companies that have nothing to do with the Climate Commitment Act.
see “Big oil’s bogus blame game: falling for oil company lies has dire consequences”
Leah Missik February 14, 2023
Update: In late June 2023, Washington state made headlines for its high fuel prices, and the oil industry immediately kicked its PR machine into high gear to shift blame to our state’s landmark climate protection policy, the Climate Commitment Act. This blame-shifting is a tried and true tactic to shift attention away from the real issue—the fossil fuel industry’s exorbitant profits. The oil industry could easily swallow any costs of complying with pollution-reduction regulations, and still bring in exorbitant profits—including in Washington where fuel retailers consistently bring in a higher margin than most other parts of the country.
https://www.climatesolutions.org/article/2023-02/big-oils-bogus-blame-game-falling-oil-company-lies-has-dire-consequences
Who do you think benefits from ‘Big Oils’ profits? Over 80% of oil and gas companies are owned by private individuals, either through an IRA, mutual fund, or pension fund, or in their individual names.
Yes! And 10 members of the U.S. Senate, including some who sit on committees with significant influence over national climate policy, individually own Big Oil stocks worth as much as $1.2 million. USA! USA! USA!
Generically branding everyone on the west side as “elites” and then arguing that it is anti-elitism that motivates the east side Trumpers misses a key fact. Who is more of an elite than Trump himself? So arguing that the flag carrier for anti-elitism is the King of the Elites himself makes little or no sense. I too left Seattle for eastern Washington. I live in a wheat country town of 1200. And yes there are Trump signs here and there. But not everywhere. At least in our corner of the state it’s more live and let live.