Among the high-profile election results this month in Washington, perhaps the most surprising could be found in Initiative 2117.
That was the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s Climate Commitment Act. The fact that the measure was rejected and that climate initiatives were preserved is not shocking in a state that takes pride in its environmental policies. But even the initiative’s most ardent opponents likely were pleasantly surprised by the margin of the defeat.
Sponsored by Let’s Go Washington, I-2117 easily attracted enough signatures to land on the ballot and was supported by an aggressive, well-funded campaign. The primary message — that passage of the measure would lower gas prices in Washington — may have been specious, but it was one that can resonate with voters.
I-2117, however, was rejected by 62 percent of voters statewide (in Clark County, 57 percent voted in opposition). But perhaps the most interesting outcome could be found in Eastern Washington. In the 20 counties on the east side of the Cascades, 50.3 percent of voters rejected the initiative.
Indeed, that is a narrow distinction. But consider this: Republican candidates for president, U.S. senator and governor each carried 19 of the 20 counties on the east side, with Whitman County surrounded by a sea of red.
When even the conservative regions of the state vote to maintain comprehensive climate legislation — despite evidence that it adds 25-50 cents per gallon to the price of gas — it is clear that Washingtonians are serious about addressing climate change and reducing carbon emissions.
As outgoing Gov. Jay Inslee said, the nation “can now look at Washington and have the message from this time and place that it’s a winning message to stand against climate change. This is a message that will spread throughout the United States.”
Considering that the nation voted for Donald Trump as president, that assertion is debatable. Trump has called climate change a hoax and has falsely claimed that wind turbines cause cancer. And it is true, as critics say, that Washington generates an infinitesimal percentage of global carbon emissions and can have little influence on rising temperatures.
But the point is that there are environmental benefits to making large polluters pay for emissions, and there are economic benefits to reducing carbon emissions and developing alternative energy.
Passed by the Legislature in 2021, the Climate Commitment Act caps carbon emissions by the state’s largest polluters. Companies may purchase emission allowances, with prices set at quarterly auctions. Since being implemented in 2023, the auctions have raised more than $2 billion in revenue for the state — money that goes toward environmental projects and efforts to mitigate climate change.
As The Columbian wrote editorially in opposition of I-2117: “Locally, the Clark County Council has approved nearly $1 million for energy assistance to low-income households and to replace outdated heating and cooling systems. The Climate Commitment Act also dedicates money to 16 areas identified as highly impacted by air pollution — including Vancouver.”
Moving forward, lawmakers should be cognizant that the Climate Commitment Act does, indeed, place a financial burden on Washington families; rejection of I-2117 should not be viewed as a mandate for additional climate measures. But the resounding election results should reinforce the notion that climate change is an important issue to Washingtonians in all corners of the state.
