Policies subsidize the rich, harm the poor

For eight years, Washington state has consistently failed to meet our CO2-reduction targets even as energy-intensive industries have closed or left the state. Washington companies like Amazon and Microsoft have successfully met their CO2 targets. The contrast between their success and the state’s failure is telling.

Unfortunately, the governor’s new proposal continues the trend of proposing costly and ineffective strategies that focus more on political special interests than responsible environmental stewardship.

This plan is wasteful and ineffective. The governor’s plan chooses the most expensive and least effective strategies, often costing 20 times as much as more effective approaches. For example, the low-carbon fuel standard costs $200 to reduce on metric ton of CO2 while private organizations like the Bonneville Environmental Foundation can achieve that same amount for only $10.

The policies subsidize the rich while harming the poor. Despite the rhetoric about “equity,” these policies overwhelmingly provide subsidies to wealthy communities. Research has consistently demonstrated that EV subsidies and a low-carbon fuel standard subsidize the rich. This is not only unfair and inequitable, but it is ineffective since the wealthy are least influenced by the subsidies. Policies that require zero-emission construction are an extremely expensive way to cut emissions and dramatically increase the cost of housing at a time when costs are high.

Instead, the state should focus on policies that improve technology, accountability, and effectiveness.

First, rather than subsidizing wasteful technologies, legislators should invest in projects that reduce the most CO2 at the lowest cost. The proposed $50 million “community solar” subsidy alone could be used to meet the 2020 CO2 target immediately. The state should not subsidize CO2 reduction that costs more than $20 to reduce one metric ton of CO2.

Second, give individuals more technology options to become energy efficient in ways that suit them. This ranges from efficient mobility options like carsharing and on-demand transit, to electricity demand response options like those offered by utilities and smart thermostats that allow people to cut energy use and CO2 emissions.

Finally, any goals must be combined with accountability for agency staff, legislators, and the governor. The governor has routinely missed every climate target set in the past eight years and, ultimately, removed them from Results Washington page. Without accountability for failure, Washington will continue to miss its targets, choosing funding for special interests over effective environmental stewardship.

Washington can take steps to reduce the risk of climate change in a responsible way. The governor’s proposals, however, learn nothing from eight years of failure and continue to put politics before the planet.

— Todd Myers is the Washington Policy Center’s Center for the Environment Director. Email him at tmyers@washington policy.org.