Judge’s “green” ruling confirms ‘appearance of action’ is more important than ‘effective’ action

Last week, Jay Inslee sent out an email praising the victory of “eight courageous kids (who) went to court to compel us adults to take action on climate change.” Our green governor was referring to eight Seattle children who took his state Department of Ecology to court arguing that the state wasn’t doing enough to safeguard their futures by fighting climate change.

Well, this week, the Seattle judge who decided the case released the final order. And, as the Washington Policy Center’s Todd Myers points out, it isn’t exactly something to celebrate.

The order has two requirements. The first requirement is — essentially — that the “state should do what it is already doing – engage in a rulemaking process on carbon emissions.” Myers writes:

“The judge wrote the Department of Ecology “shall issue the rule by the end of calendar year 2016.” Ironically, the only standard set by the judge is timing, not that the rule must actually be effective. Indeed, Ecology pulled their initial proposal because it had to be reworked entirely due to concerns it would cause more harm than benefit. If Ecology finds its new rule has significant flaws, should they simply push forward?”

The second requirement is that Ecology provide the state Legislature with a recommendation on greenhouse gas limits. Myers:

“Of course, the agency has already done this in the past and the legislature has repeatedly rejected their proposals, including last year when House Democrats refused to move the Governor’s bill out of committee.”

The judge’s order confirms what extreme greenies have proved over and over again: that, for them, the “appearance of action is more important than thoughtful and effective policy.”

Myers wraps up the mentality of the extreme “green” movement perfectly by pointing out our green governor’s inconsistencies. He writes:

“In his statement on the ruling, Governor Inslee again highlighted his leadership, saying ‘Our state is helping lead the way’ on climate policy. This is perhaps the ultimate irony. The Governor cites a ruling that says he isn’t doing enough as evidence he is a leader. Such is the convoluted logic of our climate policy.”