A deep dive into the wonky details of Washington's new carbon cap, which will reduce state emissions 95% by 2050 -- part of a comprehensive suite of carbon policies the state has put in place in the last two years. (If you don't want to read, you can listen!)
Thank you David Roberts. I've thought you were the best climate writer/analyst in America and wanted to support your work ever since I saw your Tedx talk "Climate Change is Simple" in 2012.
I finally subscribed at the $60 level, but would have done $100 if I had the option.
Agree with others that this is a great summary and the interview with Joe Fitzgibbon is a most excellent companion to it. Can anyone tell me what happened to the transportation legislation that was a condition to its enactment? Specifically, are there provisions addressing safe and health streets--pedestrian and bike infrastructure etc.?
Great summary, Dave! Though one clarification: HB 1084, the Healthy Homes and Clean Buildings Act, did not pass this year (though a few provisions of it were enacted via other means). Two questions though: 1) Can you clarify what you mean by "Starting in 2023, natgas utilities must auction 65 percent of those free allowances, with the number by rising by 5 percent a year up to 100 percent." and how this works? and 2) (How) will transportation emissions be covered by CCA?
I'm of two minds about this legislation. It is clearly an amazing accomplishment to have passed such progressives legislation. Advancing both environment and economic Justice in a single law is great. However, in general I am leery of writing laws which attempt to micromanage human behaviors. I suspect that enforcing compliance will be difficult. Human creativity, being what it is, I'm sure that many endruns around the provisions of the law will rapidly develop. A more specific criticism regards the auction provisions for carbon allowances. " They can use their allowances for compliance and, if they reduce emissions ahead of schedule, auction off the remainder.". That's good. Not so good use that they don't get a financial reward for reducing ahead of schedule. This would lead utilities to "slow walk" their compliance with meeting caps.
Again, it's great too have such legislation but insuring compliance will surely be a headache.
Thank you David Roberts. I've thought you were the best climate writer/analyst in America and wanted to support your work ever since I saw your Tedx talk "Climate Change is Simple" in 2012.
I finally subscribed at the $60 level, but would have done $100 if I had the option.
IMO, you are doing God's work!
Agree with others that this is a great summary and the interview with Joe Fitzgibbon is a most excellent companion to it. Can anyone tell me what happened to the transportation legislation that was a condition to its enactment? Specifically, are there provisions addressing safe and health streets--pedestrian and bike infrastructure etc.?
Great summary, Dave! Though one clarification: HB 1084, the Healthy Homes and Clean Buildings Act, did not pass this year (though a few provisions of it were enacted via other means). Two questions though: 1) Can you clarify what you mean by "Starting in 2023, natgas utilities must auction 65 percent of those free allowances, with the number by rising by 5 percent a year up to 100 percent." and how this works? and 2) (How) will transportation emissions be covered by CCA?
I'm of two minds about this legislation. It is clearly an amazing accomplishment to have passed such progressives legislation. Advancing both environment and economic Justice in a single law is great. However, in general I am leery of writing laws which attempt to micromanage human behaviors. I suspect that enforcing compliance will be difficult. Human creativity, being what it is, I'm sure that many endruns around the provisions of the law will rapidly develop. A more specific criticism regards the auction provisions for carbon allowances. " They can use their allowances for compliance and, if they reduce emissions ahead of schedule, auction off the remainder.". That's good. Not so good use that they don't get a financial reward for reducing ahead of schedule. This would lead utilities to "slow walk" their compliance with meeting caps.
Again, it's great too have such legislation but insuring compliance will surely be a headache.