Editorial: Approach climate change prudently

Gov. Jay Inslee and many of his fellow Democrats in the Washington Legislature want climate change and carbon emissions to be high on the list of priorities for this year’s legislative session. Rather than take their guidance from a Swedish teenager, they should turn to economists and scientists for policy ideas. Some responses to the climate change crisis make a lot more fiscal sense than others. To avoid any confusion, we state upfront that climate change is real. It is a challenge confronting all of humanity. A warming planet worsens droughts and wildfires in California as well as monster hurricanes in the Atlantic. We must adapt, if not to prevent warming - that may be impossible - then to constrain and mitigate it. But not all solutions are created equal. At one extreme is doing nothing, continuing forward with blinders on. At the other extreme is watching society collapse as it abandons fossil fuels, cows and everything else that contributes carbon in the atmosphere. Fortunately, there is a lot of middle ground. Identifying the cost-benefit ratios of different solutions is the key to successful policy. Simply rushing into the solution du jour because activists demand it will lead to inefficiencies and unintended harms. Scientists, economists and other experts are looking at the dozens of potential solutions that communities, governments and the world might implement. For example, Washington lawmakers could turn to Project Drawdown for data-driven analyses of various approaches to reducing greenhouse gases and climate change. Some of the top options include onshore wind turbines, reducing food waste and encouraging people to consume a plant-rich diet. The governor and his climate allies are fixated on policies grounded in hype instead of data. This year, they are pushing for a carbon cap-and-trade law that would set artificial limits on emissions for the state. They also want a low-carbon standard for transportation fuels. Such approaches ignore Washington’s minuscule role in global carbon emissions. The state could cease all carbon emissions, and the benefit would be no more than a rounding error worldwide. If the state were under a glass dome, the sorts of changes being contemplated might make more sense. But air does not respect state borders. National and international action is required. The economic health of border communities also hangs in the balance. If the state imposes expensive carbon policies on businesses and households, Idaho will start to look even more attractive. Already our employers must contend with a minimum wage nearly double neighboring Idaho’s and tough regulatory burdens on small and midsize businesses. New taxes and fees to fund an inefficient climate fight would only make thing worse. When it comes to low-carbon fuels, the cost to Washingtonians would be tremendous and the gain small. In Oregon, which imposed similar standards, the policy is on track to increase prices at the pump by more than 10 cents per gallon once fully implemented. That’s an expense that would hit Washington families and businesses hard. Similarly, a legislative push for electric cars sounds good, but the benefits aren’t as great as many consumers think. Washington is lucky to get so much of its electricity from hydroelectric power. At least, then, the electricity going into cars is somewhat green, notwithstanding the natural gas, coal and other contributors to the power grid. Even so, building parts for electric vehicles, especially batteries, generates emissions above those of a regular car. Add in the carbon footprint of getting the cars to market from factories in Asia, and the owner of an electric car might not recoup the carbon price unless they drive it for a couple of decades. None of this is to say that people shouldn’t buy electric cars. Buy the car you want; just accept that it’s not as green as you might hope. Likewise, lawmakers should pursue measures to tackle climate change, but they should do so thoughtfully with consideration of the economic impacts on all parts of the state. Simply cribbing from climate activists isn’t good enough.