Benefits from Reducing States CO2 Emissions

The May 13^th Seattle Times Climate Lab page A8 details why, “Forecast for solar power’s future isn’t clear-cut as the weather“ with the following: 

Western Washington is one of the worst places in the continuous United State for solar energy. Perhaps even the worst place.   

And:

Despite all the growth and cash, solar power accounts for less that 1% of Washington’s total electricity demand.

The problem being:

Western Washington ranks at the lowest amount of solar energy per square meter in the United States. 

Yet the same edition included an Opinion under the title “Seattle can be a national model for large-city climate action” with the following:

Climate scientists believe that the planet is at serious risk of crossing "tipping points" that will lead to irreversible increases in global warming.

The Opinion page laments Seattle’s response as:

Far short of the scope and urgency that is needed to meet city’s goals.

That “What can be done” was seven actions City Council and Mayor Bruce Harrel should do under the following:

Reaffirm the city’s commitment to early phase out of greenhouse gas emissions.

That Opinion generated a May 16^th Northwest Voices response regarding Climate Commitment Act vote this fall:   

We can’t afford that gamble with our future.  Vote no on 2117 in November.

Thus, the Seattle Times approach to solar power’s future goes from Climate Lab detailing the difficulty in providing solar power, to an Opinion page detailing what needs to be done to get there, to a letter urging voters to repeal 2117 to keep limiting CO2 emissions.  

All three ignore the fact Washington’s CO2 emissions made up only 1.56% of the countries.  That the United States made up 11.2% of the worlds. Thus, any benefits from reducing emissions are limited to reducing the states 0.117% of the total. Not worth much when compared to China’s 30% with plans to add 25 % more by 2030.