Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center says more government spending probably only carves up the pie of how CO2 emissions are reduced, but it won’t change the size of the pie
Todd Myers
Washington Policy Center
The Washington State Department of Ecology released the results of the second auction of allowances to emit CO2 and prices increased 15 percent to $56.01 per metric ton (MT) of CO2. That translates into about 45 cents per gallon of gasoline and 54 cents per gallon for diesel.
Washington residents will pay about 84% more than California’s price of $30.33 per MT/CO2.
The price was so high it triggers a special auction of CO2 allowances in August to increase the supply of permits and, hopefully, reduce the price. Those allowances, however, are still under the state’s CO2 cap and don’t add to the total allowable emissions. So, while they may reduce near-term prices, they may have the impact of increasing prices later.
Although Washington is paying more for CO2 emissions than California, that additional cost doesn’t help the environment – it just harms our economy. As long as the governor and agency staff continue to deny that reality, Washington residents will pay a high price for energy, but won’t receive the environmental benefits they are paying for.
Fundamentally, Washington’s climate policies are designed to be inflexible and narrow the scope of climate innovation. That lack of flexibility drives the tax on CO2 emissions up, putting more money into the state budget. Washington could more effectively and efficiently reduce emissions, but the system is designed to prioritize government, not the climate.
Some will argue that the additional tax revenue generated by the higher prices will allow the state to subsidize other efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. But this is unlikely to do anything to reduce CO2 emissions. The state already has a cap on total CO2 emissions. How that is done doesn’t matter. More government spending only changes how emissions are reduced, not the total. If state programs reduce more CO2, it makes more permits available under the cap, allowing companies to emit more than they might have otherwise.
Put another way, more government spending probably only carves up the pie of how CO2 emissions are reduced, but it won’t change the size of the pie.
As we have pointed out repeatedly in the past, there are ways to receive the same amount of CO2 reduction for lower cost. At this point, however, the high cost of CO2 emissions is being treated as a feature, not a bug, of Washington’s climate policy.
Todd Myers is the director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center.
Also read:
- Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey announces he won’t seek re-election
Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey announced he will not seek re-election after more than 25 years in office, citing confidence in his staff and a desire to continue public service in other ways. - Letter: Has $450 million been wasted on a bridge that’s too low for the Coast Guard with a foundation too costly to build?
A Seattle engineer questions whether hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on a bridge design he argues is unnecessarily risky and costly compared to an immersed tunnel alternative. - Washougal School Board Member Jim Cooper to resign on Jan. 30
Washougal School Board member Jim Cooper announced he will resign effective Jan. 30 after more than five years representing District 1. - Opinion: Fix Washington – House Republicans lead the charge against liberal chaos
Nancy Churchill argues that one-party Democratic control has driven up costs, weakened public safety, and harmed schools, and says House Republicans are offering a path forward through their Fix Washington agenda. - Opinion: Biden agreed with Trump on Maduro, so why aren’t liberals celebrating?
Lars Larson questions why American Democrats are reacting with outrage to the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro despite prior bipartisan agreement on prosecuting him. - Shooting suspect self-surrenders to Vancouver Police
Vancouver Police arrested a suspect who self-surrendered following a fatal shooting outside an area sports bar, with investigators continuing to review the case. - Vancouver Fire responds to residential structure fire
Vancouver Fire responded to a residential structure fire on SE 167th Lane, bringing the blaze under control within 20 minutes and displacing the residents without injuries.
Can any of those IDIOTS promoting climate show any actual evidence that MAN’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
Can any of them find a flaw in this logic:
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. (Or show your unwillingness to learn by posting a laughter emoji.)
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, or government’s assertion is not evidence. It is hearsay.
4-Consensus of experts, Polls or Majority belief is not evidence
5-Climate models are not evidence.
6–Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
7-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
This is a good article about human effects on climate since pre-industrial era: https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/06/atmospheric-co2-levels-are-now-50-per-cent-higher-than-pre-industrial-era/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter
mimsy – How does that article show that the CO2 increase is due toman?
how does that show that the CO2 increase is causing serious global warming?
This list of exceptions conveniently means you can ignore pretty much any any evidence you want… hardly a good faith conversation/open mind.
What list of exceptions?
My logic is pretty clear:
That shows that there is NOTHING UNUSUAL about today’s warmth, so there is no room for CO2 to be causing any waring. IOW: There is ZERO evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
The real clincher is the fact that other planets like Mars are also experiencing warming and declining polar ice. Who has been driving their SUV on Mars?
In my opinion if the government can get us all unified with climate change, then they can get their one world order. Ask yourself where is the environmentalists demanding we do something about the homeless peeing and crapping in our streets and sidewalks with garbage everywhere. God created the earth, skies, stars, trees, animals, humans etc. and he is the only one who can destroy it. It is humans that destroy the lives of other humans.