OLYMPIA — Ask people if they like the idea of making companies pay for what they pollute and using the money for schools, roads and a cleaner environment, and many will tell you yes.
But when they are told a cap-and-trade program proposed by Gov. Jay Inslee to accomplish all that might cost them a few dollars, well, they are not as excited.
Polling shows voters are conflicted by a desire to reduce emissions of carbon, which scientists say is a major contributor to climate change, and a worry the governor’s approach won’t pan out quite as nicely as forecast.
They aren’t alone. Lawmakers are wrestling with similar questions and divided on the answers. The schism, which is mostly but not entirely along party lines, is dimming prospects for passage this year of the centerpiece of Inslee’s environmental agenda.
“I don’t think in the first week of the session people should rule things out,” Inslee told reporters Friday. “This is like any new idea. It does take time to ferment.”
On Friday, bills creating the cap-and-trade program were introduced in the House and Senate. Only Democrats signed on as sponsors — 37 in the House and 20 in the Senate.
Under the identical bills, the state Department of Ecology would set an annual limit on the total amount of carbon emissions. The agency also would identify the largest emitters of pollutants — those putting out 25,000 metric tons or more a year — and require them to buy allowances calculated on a price per metric ton.
Each year, the cap on emissions would be reduced slightly. Each year, companies would need to buy allowances through a state-run auction. The program would start July 1, 2016.
Inslee predicts the carbon pollution charge will generate $1 billion a year to help the state deal with two budget challenges: satisfying a Supreme Court order to fully fund basic education in public schools and making the first significant new investment in transportation in a decade.
He estimates there will be $400 million generated for transportation and $380 million for education in the first year. Another $108 million would be used to provide a tax rebate to eligible families living on lower incomes.
“Under my plan, it’s the polluters who pay for the pollution,” he said in his State of the State address. “We can do this. It’s already been done successfully in many other places.”
The polling
Across the nation, the public debate on climate change is shifting. No longer is the fight focused on whether it is real. Rather, disagreements center on how to address it.
In the past few months, as it became clear Inslee would propose a means of reducing carbon emissions, at least four polls have been conducted to gauge attitudes of voters and business owners on the subject.
The most recent, released Jan. 8 by Seattle pollster Stuart Elway, found some level of support for a straight tax on carbon emissions among 71 percent of those surveyed. Ten percent opposed it, and 18 percent deemed it unacceptable. The poll did not ask about a cap-and-trade program.
Enthusiasm for a carbon tax declined when it was suggested the companies could seek to recoup the tax through higher prices for fuel, natural gas or electricity, he said.
“People are not slamming the door shut. People are willing to have the conversation,” Elway said.
Other polls depict an electorate open to the idea but far from sold.
On Dec. 9, a Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin, Metz &Associates survey found 64 percent strongly or somewhat supportive of “taking steps to enforce existing targets in state law for limiting carbon pollution.” Thirty percent were opposed in the survey conducted for the Washington Environmental Council.
A day later, GMA Research of Bellevue released a survey in which 69 percent of small businesses and 67 percent of voters said a low carbon fuel standard — a means of reducing emissions separate from a cap and trade program — should be put on a ballot for voters to act on.
And two-thirds said they were likely to oppose Inslee’s carbon reduction efforts if they had “no noticeable or significant environmental impact.” The state office of the National Federation of Independent Businesses paid for the poll.
On Dec. 12, the Washington Business Survey came out with 51.4 percent favoring — strongly or somewhat — a cap-and-trade program. That support rose to 58.1 percent if the money would be earmarked for education and transportation.
Of those surveyed in Eastern Washington, only 48.2 percent favored a cap-and-trade program, but 55.8 percent liked it if the dollars went to schools and transportation. This survey was done by Gallatin Public Affairs and GS Strategy Group.
Becky Kelley, president of the Washington Environmental Council, said the message of their poll was clear: “People don’t like pollution. They want it limited and they want polluters to clean it up. I think the (governor’s) proposal is very well-aligned with public opinion.”
Patrick Connor, Washington state director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said the key takeaway in their poll is that voters “really think whatever the Legislature comes up with should go to them for the final say.”
A key Republican senator dismissed the survey results.
“I don’t put much stock into the recent polling data,” said Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, chairman of the Senate Energy, Environment and Technology Committee through which the cap-and-trade bill would have to pass at some point. “I think when you explain to people what it actually will do, they are a lot less accepting.”
Next: hearings
The next measure of public sentiment will come at future hearings.
Inslee said he’s been assured the legislation will get “serious consideration” in the House, where Democrats hold a slim majority.
But it’s going to have to pass the House before Ericksen will give it a hearing in his committee.
“I don’t want to do these hearings twice,” he said. “We’ll grab whatever the House passes and give it a hearing.”
That may be nothing. Some moderate Democrats have voiced opposition or healthy reluctance toward either a cap-and-trade program or a straight tax on carbon emissions.
“I don’t think there are enough votes to move it off the floor,” predicted House Minority Leader Dan Kristiansen, R-Snohomish.
Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chief architect of the House budget, is a sponsor of the bill. He said the case can be made that this is a “serious effort to respond to the climate change concerns.”
“And I’m looking at this budget and I’m seeing a need for revenue,” he said. “This is a reasonable piece of policy that’s worked in lots of places and raises revenue in a way that isn’t punitive.”
Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, prime sponsor of the Senate bill, said it is not a futile pursuit. The polling does indicate the concept enjoys broad public support and not just from “a bunch of eco-greenies.”
“I don’t think this is just an exercise,” he said. “There is a path to success. There is understanding that the idea that we do nothing is not an option. It becomes part of the budget negotiations.”
Given Republican resistance, Hunter knows he can’t assume passage and will draft alternatives to generate money. He also points out the session is barely under way and it’s too soon to pronounce the idea dead.
“Lots of things look difficult early,” he said. “But as the problem becomes more evident and the solution set gets smaller and smaller, then the reality-based options start to look more attractive.”
Inslee doesn’t have a fallback plan if the idea is rejected.
“There’s work to be done on all of our issues including this one,” he said Friday. “We are going to have time for discussion. They are asking good and legitimate questions. Fortunately we have good and legitimate answers to all of them.”
Jerry Cornfield: 360.352.8623; jcornfield@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
