This will help measure the effectiveness of Washington’s climate policy — or more accurately stated, it will help measure the ineffectiveness of Washington’s climate policy
David Boze
Washington Policy Center
Using data from the Washington State Department of Ecology, WPC is adding two new metrics to our Report Card for Washington’s future.
- The cost of state projects to reduce one metric ton of CO2 compared to the private sector.
- What percentage of projects funded by the state’s tax on CO2 produce no reduction in emissions.
This will help measure the effectiveness of Washington’s climate policy — or more accurately stated, it will help measure the ineffectiveness of Washington’s climate policy. The Washington State Legislature passed the Climate Commitment Act claiming it was necessary to achieve Washington’s CO2 emissions goals. This tax was heralded as a great weapon in an existential crisis where we could not afford to waste any more time or spare resources. Yet, as these metrics and other WPC work reveal, the projects funded by the CCA CO2 tax revenue have been incredibly wasteful. Many of them produce no climate benefit at all and those that do squander resources, spending 141 times as much to reduce a metric ton of CO2 as projects available in the private sector.
It is hard to imagine environmentalists could be happy about spending state resources and public tax dollars in such a way. Resources are limited. The opportunity cost here is an exponential increase in CO2 reductions (or other environmental projects).
Some who defend the very high percentage of projects that yield no environmental benefit argue that up-front planning is necessary to deliver results later. Even if this proves to be true, the fact that more than three-quarters of the funding is currently yielding no benefit is very high.
WPC will track and update these metrics as new data are available.
David Boze is the communications and strategy director at the Washington Policy Center.
Also read:
- POLL: The IBR project is described as only 30% designed and 30% funded after more than six years of work. How confident are you in the current management of the IBR program?
IBR’s cost has climbed from $3.2–$4.8B to $15.2B while the project remains 30% designed and 30% funded. - Opinion: Two bridges, one expanding bill
Bracchi traces how the IBR’s estimated cost grew from roughly $3B to $14.4B as Vancouver’s Bridge Shelter adds millions in annual operating costs alongside existing homelessness programs. - Opinion: WFSE demands a ‘fair’ contract — but workers and taxpayers can’t see the numbers
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues neither state workers nor taxpayers can evaluate what is “fair” when wage proposals and their costs remain undisclosed. - Opinion: Washington’s ‘regressive’ tax debate ignores where people and money are moving
Washington Policy Center’s Ryan Frost argues the state’s operating budget rose from $33.6B to $80.2B, driving new taxes and worsening competitiveness. - Opinion: Trump Is Winning. Can You Name Five Wins?
Nancy Churchill lists Trump-era policy wins on taxes, border, ranching, and energy ahead of midterm elections.
