(The Center Square) – New data compiled by the Washington Policy Center think tank suggests Washington state is spending millions of dollars generated by the state’s Climate Commitment Act on projects that have very little, if any, benefit in terms of reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
“As I’ve pointed out a number of times, with our climate policy, we tend to spend money on things that feel good or satisfy special interest groups, but not the things that actually reduce CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions,” WPC Vice President of Research Todd Myers told The Center Square.
Myers explained that using data from the Washington State Department of Ecology, WPC added two new metrics to its “Report Card for Washington’s Future.”
“One is simply what percentage of projects that we are spending CO2 tax revenue on actually deliver CO2 reductions? And according to the Department of Ecology’s own report last year, in the first round of spending, 77% of projects received no CO2 benefit; no environmental benefit at all. So only 23% are actually reducing CO2 emissions,” he said.
The second new metric examined data for projects that reduced CO2 emissions, asking how efficiently that was being done.
“We measure what it costs to reduce each metric ton of CO2. And the basic cost that you can get on the market, the competitive market, is about $10 per metric ton,” Myers explained. “Washington state has projects that are costing more than $40,000 to reduce one metric ton of CO2. So, something that they could get for $10 on the open market, Washington is spending $40,000. Currently, we’re spending 141 times more than we should.”
Myers noted that many of the CCA grants and programs sound good but provide little benefit at an extremely high cost.
“The ones that are the worst are actually the ones that a lot of people think sound the best, which is retrofitting homes to be more energy efficient,” he continued. “You go in, you fix it, it’s more energy efficient. Energy bills go down for the person who’s living in the house. In fact, those things are really ineffective. Spending a lot of money to retrofit a home yields very tiny environmental benefits. So those are the projects that tend to cost [$40,000], even $45,000 per metric ton.”
Myers noted other projects with a high cost, low benefit ratio.
“Subsidizing electric vehicle charging stations [doesn’t] do much in terms of CO2 reduction, but they have a very high cost. Again, this is the Department of Ecology’s data,” he said. “These are their own metrics. This isn’t Todd or the Washington Policy Center making these calculations or making them look good or bad. It’s the Department of Ecology’s own data.”
Myers contends that a lot of the projects that the Legislature is funding go to government or go to more planning, not to projects that reduce CO2 emissions.
“What we’re seeing overall is a pattern that money is being spent for government to satisfy special interest groups, and for ideology,” he said, “rather than prioritizing CO2 emissions reductions, which is purportedly the goal of the law.”
Myers points to big tech companies like Microsoft and Amazon investing in climate projects with proven results.
“If those projects fail … if they don’t deliver the promised CO2 reductions, they get their money back,” he noted. “Currently, if we [the state] invest in a project and it doesn’t work, the state doesn’t get its money back. They just shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Oh well, we tried.’”
Myers said that regardless of one’s take on the CCA and the state’s climate goals, people should expect more benefits from their investments.
“If you care about climate change, and if you care about reducing CO2 emissions, you should not tolerate that,” he said. “The Department of Ecology, the Department of Commerce, when they gave out these grants, promised that they would achieve these goals. Just simply shrugging their shoulders and saying, ‘Sorry, we failed the environment,’ is not acceptable. The environment is not benefiting, even though people in Washington are feeling the costs.”
The Center Square contacted the Department of Ecology to respond to WPC’s findings and Myers’ comments.
“The claims from the Washington Policy Center are misinformation – they rely on false assumptions and incomplete analysis,” Caroline Halter, communications manager with DOE’s Climate Pollution Reduction Program, said in an email.
