The March 22, Seattle Times headline “Washington’s natural gas initiative is unconstitutional, judge determines” heralds the judges claim “it makes it hard to say with any precision what the general topic is”. Yet the I-2022 voters approved included the following description.
Every gas company or large combination utility shall provide natural gas to all persons and corporations in their service area even if other energy sources may be available
Thus, it would seem pretty “precise” as to the “initiative’s general topic” and not “an attempt to mislead voters with language that was confusing, harmful, and unconstitutional”.
That “it was opposed by those hoping to reduce Washington’s planet warming green- house gas emissions.” Yet, prior to the Climate Commitment Acts passage in 2021 Washington’s CO2 made up only 1.56% of the country’s 11.19% of planets. Thus, any climate benefits from rejecting the I-2022 was limited to reducing Washington’s 0.17456% of global CO2 emissions.
Even those benefits from no longer allowing natural gas in homes are further limited by Washington residential emissions being only 6.2 million metric tons (MMT) of the 74.4 MMT state total in 2022. Thus. any benefit from not allowing natural gas in future homes will do little to reduce Washington's “green-house” gas emissions.
The bottom line is the March 22nd article is another example of the Seattle Times abetting Washington residents being forced to pay so much for so little.
No comments:
Post a Comment