A Clean Air Rule announced last week by the state Department of Ecology appears to strike a reasonable balance between environmental and economic concerns.
But much discussion and much work remains in the continuing debate over how much is too much — or too little — when it comes to adjusting regulations for a changing climate. While Gov. Jay Inslee long has made reducing carbon emissions a cornerstone of his administration, he has had difficulty securing buy-in from the Legislature and from many business interests throughout the state.
One example can be found in the wrangling over the Clean Air Rule. In February, Inslee’s administration withdrew a draft proposal in the wake of criticism. At that time, a consortium of industries warned the governor that the plan “could result in some of these sectors looking to other jurisdictions with more favorable manufacturing regulatory policies.”
Therein lies the need for balance. While a vast majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is playing a role in climate change, there also can be negative impacts to imprudently requiring a reduction in emissions. To use an extreme example — we wouldn’t expect or desire state government to outlaw the use of automobiles; the economy would collapse. At the other extreme, giving emission-producing industries free rein would irreparably damage the air and water in Washington and beyond.
The new rule would apply initially to about 20 industries that annually release at least 100,000 metric tons of carbon, requiring them to reduce emissions by an average of 1.7 percent per year. Oil refineries and importers will bear much of the burden, being responsible not only for their emissions but for the carbon released by vehicles. The result likely will be an increase in gas prices for consumers.
Meanwhile, the Department of Ecology made some concessions from its earlier draft proposal. For example, a Kaiser Aluminum plant near Spokane would receive credit for having cut emissions over the past decade. For another example, power-intensive industries facing overseas competition would receive credit if they already are more efficient than their industry average.
Reaction has been mixed. Some environmentalists said the rules are a step in the right direction, while others chastised state officials for inaction. A Kaiser Aluminum spokesman said his company was “cautiously optimistic” while a spokesman for the Association of Washington Business said, “We remain concerned about the potential economic damage.” That is a good sign; understanding that no regulatory action can please everybody, the logical goal should to please neither side.
Inslee has made fighting climate change his primary platform but has been met with opposition in the Legislature, which failed to pass an ambitious cap-and-trade plan for cutting carbon emissions. While the Clean Air Rule can help reduce emissions in the state, meaningful action depends upon lawmakers.
Such action should be at the forefront of legislative priorities. Although many conservatives dispute the scientifically accepted notion that human activity is leading to climate change, the issue is not solely about the climate. There are myriad benefits for the environment and for the health of Washingtonians to be gleaned from a reduction in carbon emissions, and our current leaders should view leaving a healthy ecology for future generations as a moral imperative.
The Department of Ecology has taken a reasonable step in this regard, but much work remains.
