The cap-and-trade program would require Washington to set a statewide “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions that steadily lowers over time. Washington’s plan would go into effect in January 2023, provided that the legislature approves a new transportation-spending package by then, according to the bill’s stipulations. If Governor Jay Inslee signs the bill as expected, Washington will become the second state after California with a comprehensive cap-and-trade system. That changed this weekend, when the state legislature finally managed to pass a cap-and-trade bill before the legislative session ended, at nearly the last possible moment, signaling that carbon pricing might not be as dead as you’ve read on Twitter. For more than a decade, Washington state has been trying - and failing - to put a price on carbon. Legislation that couldn’t muster up enough votes. “I think that’s on us as the environmental community to figure out how to connect the concern we know exists with environmental voters at the ballot box.Rejected ballot measures. “We didn’t win everywhere, and we know that,” said Wendy Wendlandt, senior vice-president for the Environment America Action Fund. There’s a real disparity there.”Įnvironmental advocates at a post-election press conference in Washington DC, largely claimed victory as Democrats won back the House and many governors pledged to phase out fossil fuels, but they acknowledged they are still in an uphill battle. “Oil, gas and coal can put a lot of money into ballot initiatives they see as detrimental to their future and put out information on climate change that isn’t real. “Environmentalists still have a challenge in their messaging, there’s still the impression that carbon pricing or regulations will make everything more expensive,” said Peltier. The current Democratic leadership is not, however, understood to have large-scale plans to tackle the climate change crisis.Īnd the midterms highlighted the ongoing clout of the fossil fuel industry and the vast gulf between the current slow pace of emissions reduction and the action that scientists say is required to stave off the worst impacts of heatwaves, flooding, extreme weather and losses of animal species. There was further encouragement for environmentalists at the prospect of a Democrat-held House of Representatives probing the activity of the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Interior, as well as the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Deb Haaland and Ilhan Omar – all House Democrats who favour a transition to 100% renewable energy. Meanwhile, Arizona voters said no to Proposition 127, which would have mandated the state obtain half its energy needs from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2030.Ĭlimate activists enjoyed a win in Florida, however, with voters backing a ban on all offshore drilling for oil and gas in state waters. In Colorado, the fossil fuel industry spent more than $40m to help defeat a proposal requiring oil and gas wells to be half a mile from homes, schools and waterways. The Washington vote was just one green-tinged measure rejected by voters. “The oil industry spent the most money in our state’s history and were willing to lie to voters about their support and mislead them on the facts,” he said. “While we still believe that a carbon fee would be a helpful solution, we can and must do more to find and adopt other creative solutions to slow global warming,” said Bruce Speight, director of Environment Washington.Ī spokesman for the yes on the 1631 campaign said the group hadn’t conceded defeat yet. Oil giant BP and others spent $30m opposing carbon pricing.Įnvironmentalists vowed to persevere. However, voters rejected the initiative because “they understood it was a flawed initiative that would have raised consumer costs substantially while doing very little to meet carbon reduction goals in the state”, according to Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, which spearheaded the no vote. Initiative 1631, which followed a similar ballot measure that failed two years ago, aimed to raise $2.2bn over five years and help Washington slash its greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter by 2025. A recent UN report, which warned of dire consequences if planetary warming isn’t urgently curbed, suggested a fee much higher than $15 a ton. Carbon pricing has been backed by a broad range of economists as the most efficient way of driving down emissions, with the European Union and, more recently, Canada, embracing the idea.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |