Climate Commitment Act’s Value?

The March 11 Seattle Times Climate Lab front page article concerning lawmakers’ attempts to show Climate Commitment Act’s (CCA)value describes it as “requiring the state’s biggest polluters to reduce the amount of climate warming gases they release or purchase allowances to cover them”.  That by raising the fees “to cover them” it’s intended to cut the state’s CO2 emissions nearly by half by 2030 and “carbon free by 2050”.  

However, a subsequent Climate Lab March 14^th article reported that “maturing the program” had resulted in halving the cost to “cover them”.  That the article included the contention the CCA’s main goal is to cut carbon pollution and “that’s what it’s doing”.  Yet there’s no estimate as to how much the CCAs already cut carbon pollution or effect on global warming.

Both articles typify the recent Seattle Times Climate Lab, an initiative that “explores the effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest and beyond”.  While the articles detail the funds raised and how they will be spent, they failed to detail the potential benefits of the carbon taxes on climate.

For example, how much does the CCA reduce CO2 emissions.  A July 2023 U.S Energy Information, Energy-Related CO2 Emission Table 3 “State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector” for 2021 reported Washington emitted 73.8 million metric tons (mmt) of the countries 4,911.2 mmt or only 1.56% of the country’s total. An October 2024 release of Table 3 will update the data and the result of the CCA’s $2 billion fees on CO2 emissions.

The limited emissions to date are the result of the state having access to hydroelectric and nuclear power generation.  A February 2024 “Choose Energy” website included data showing they generated 70% of the state’s electrical power.  That reducing CO2 emissions from electrical power to 9.8 mmt, 13.3% of total emission, compared to up to 50% of emissions for other states.  

The CCA’s effect on global warming is presumably due to how much it reduces global CO2 emissions. An ENGAR GHG “Emissions of all World Countries report for 2023 reported the United States made up 11.19% of the worlds.  Thus, in 2021, prior to CCA, Washington’s 1.56% of country’s 11.19% CO2 made up 0.17456% of the global CO2 emissions. That the CCA’s goal to reduce Washington's CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 or “Carbon Free” by 2050 will have little effect on global emissions.  Especially since China that in the 2023 ENGAR GHG report made up 29.16% in 2023 is expected to increase emissions by 25% by 2030.

The bottom line is the CCA is more about the funds it generates than any attempt to reduce global CO2 emissions. That any “value” that results comes from where the funds are spent not from why they were accrued. The recent CCA’s halving the costs is clearly the result of the initiative.  That if the initiative fails there’s little to prevent future funding “needs” from increasing the CCA fees to “cover the emissions”.  That the two Climate Lab articles typify Seattle Times journalists willing to write what they’ve been told without attempting to validate the facts themselves.