Seattle Times “Climate Change” Advocacy

The Seattle Times December 11th Westneat column, “Climate advocates won by not mentioning climate” and the paper’s December 12th Climate Lab articles heralded the “benefits” of rejecting I-2117.  

Yet any benefits from reducing CO2 emissions on “Climate” will be limited to reducing the state's 0.117% of the planet’s total.  That even those benefits to Washington residents will be dwarfed by the CO2 coming by jet-stream from China.  

The paper’s Climate Lab article “State carbon market prices jump after initiative failed” includes the following:

The states Dec.4 auction raised nearly $272 million from some of the state’s largest poluters by selling about 5.3 million 2023 and 2024.

Apparently not acknowledging (or recognizing) charging refineries for their emissions will increase the costs of providing the gas, but do nothing to reduce the far larger emissions from those using the gas.  That charging power companies for the emissions from burning natural gas to create electricity will do nothing to reduce the  emissions from those using natural gas. The irony being those who rejected I-2117 in hopes of reducing emissions will pay the increased price for the electric power they use for heat pumps to warm their homes, cook their food, or charge their EV batteries.

The article doesn’t detail how much of the $272 million came from those making cement. That energy needed to bake the limestone, and the CO2 released from the chemical reactions of making the cement result in one pound of CO2 emitted for every pound of cement. Thus, the cost for a ton of cement will increase by whatever the taxes are on a ton of CO2.  Costs that will undoubtedly be passed on to those using the cement for concrete in construction.

The Climate Lab article “King County, Seattle sue over natural gas initiative” details plans for King County and the city of Seattle to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a natural gas initiative gas initiative passed narrowly by voters last month.

Yet Sec. (2) of the I-2117 includes the following:

 Every gas company or largecombination utility shall provice natural gas to all persons and corporations in their service area even if other energy sources may be availalbe

Apparently those suing are relying on a state Supreme Court, who has previously degreed Capital Gains are taxible income, to conclude I-2117 violates state’s constitution. Presumably with some ”justification”.

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for rejecting I-2117, the “benefits” of reducing the state’s CO2 emissions will be dwarfed by CO2 on the jet stream from China. That the "climate" benefits of requiring refiners and power companies to pay fees for emissions that will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers, will be dwarfed by those burning the fuel in their vehicle or the gas in their home.  That the costs added to making cement for congrete will increase construction cost throughout state.

Another example of the Seattle Times not recognizing the limited benefits of rejecting I-2117 and who will pay for doing so.