It’s difficult to imagine an election season more politically fraught, or with higher stakes, than what we’re enduring this year. Understandably, folks are mostly focused on the national stage, but there are critical issues on the Washington state ballot as well. Foremost among them is Initiative 2117, which aims to repeal the state’s Climate Commitment Act.

The far-reaching consequences of overturning this measure make it incumbent on voters to understand the details.

We’ve known for decades that climate change is happening, primarily caused by steadily rising fossil-fuel emissions that warm the atmosphere and cause health-damaging pollution. Recent research and extreme weather events worldwide strongly indicate it’s accelerating. Washington is already experiencing the effects, with devastating wildfires, drought, decreasing snowpack, increases in ocean acidification, and other life-altering impacts.

Recognizing the pressing need to address this expanding emergency, in 2008 state lawmakers set a target to slash greenhouse-gas emissions by 95 percent (of 1990 levels) by 2050. Since then, the state has enacted a suite of interacting policies to achieve this goal, including the 2021 Climate Commitment Act (CCA).

To create a framework and a funding mechanism for achieving state climate goals, the CCA initiated a cap-and-invest system. This program sets a limit, or cap, on overall carbon emissions generated statewide and makes the state’s largest polluters liable for their share. These entities can choose to update their operations to pollute less, or purchase emissions allowances in quarterly auctions hosted by the Department of Ecology.

By law, auction proceeds must be invested in “green” projects to boost clean transportation options, increase climate resilience in ecosystems and communities, address issues of environmental justice and health inequity, and so forth. Significantly, the CCA requires some 40 percent of auction revenues be applied to projects benefitting overburdened communities and ventures with tribal support. 

A recent Leader opinion piece by Nick Smith made the misleading statement that “during the first two years of spending from the [CCA’s] Natural Climate Solutions Account (NCS), 72 percent of the funds have been used on forestry projects that do not reduce net carbon emissions…”

It’s essential to understand that while forests are critical to reining in carbon emissions, forest-related projects as such are a small fraction of the wide scope of the CCA program. Proceeds from the cap-and-invest system actually are held in seven accounts, earmarked for specific types of projects. The NCS sub-account focuses on efforts toward restoring and protecting fish and wildlife habitats, improving aquatic and coastal ecosystems and water quality, deterring and preparing for wildfires, reducing flood risk and enhancing stormwater infrastructure, preserving or establishing carbon sequestration in forests and agricultural soils, and the like. To date, around $229 million from the NCS account is invested in about 250 projects statewide. A wealth of detailed information on the CCA and other climate policies can be found on the Department of Ecology website.

The legislature has appropriated $3.2 billion in CCA revenues into the state biennial budget for 2023-2025. Most of this revenue has already been authorized, and is in various stages of implementation, stimulating local economies as it’s invested.

An analysis by the State Office of Financial Management finds that “if approved by voters, Initiative 2117 will reduce state revenue from carbon-allowance auctions by $3.8 billion and reduce state expenditures by $1.7 billion between the effective date of the initiative and June 30, 2029. This would reduce or eliminate funding for numerous programs and projects, including: transportation emissions reduction; transit, pedestrian safety; ferry and other transportation electrification; air-quality improvement; renewable and clean energy; grid modernization and building decarbonization; increasing the climate resilience of the state’s waters, forests and other ecosystems; fire prevention and forest health; and restoring and improving salmon habitat…Thirty-seven state agencies have spending authority from Climate Commitment Act funds in the current biennium for programs, projects, and as grants for local governments, community groups, school districts and Tribes. Initiative 2117 would eliminate the revenue source that pays for these programs.”

Scrapping the CCA would pull the rug out from under more than 1,500 projects already underway or pending — the results of the science-based work of hundreds of public officials, nonprofit organizations, and concerned citizens. It would be an unconscionable step backward from a rational path toward climate resilience begun 16 years ago in Washington. It would rob young people and future generations of our best efforts to soften the blows they face from a gravely altered climate. More than 500 organizations — including businesses, healthcare, tribes, labor, public services, faith and community groups, and others — agree that Washington can’t afford to allow Initiative 2117 to pass. Vote NO.

Noreen Parks spent 30 years as a science and environmental writer, covering subject, including oceans, forests, climate change, and government policy. She has lived in Washington for 20 years.