Seven times Inslee contradicted himself this week

Jay Inslee introduced his extreme green agenda this week—complete with a cap-and-tax and fuel mandate scheme. As Shift reported, Inslee promised that the costs of his scheme are “relatively small—for example, gasoline costs might rise by two cents per gallon by 2020.” Of course, that contradicts his consultants who found that a fuel mandate could raise fuel prices by $1.17 per gallon.

But, that’s not the only contradiction Inslee made as he rolled out his cap-and-tax and fuel mandate scheme—the Washington Policy Center’s Todd Myers made a list. Myers,

• The Governor said “we shouldn’t allow some bureaucrat…to pick winners and losers” when reducing carbon. He then announced the winners he would be subsidizing, including those who buy solar panels and electric cars.
• He argued that cap-and-trade allows permits to go where it is most efficient to cut emissions but then announced support for a low-carbon fuel standard which is extremely inefficient at reducing emissions according to the Governor’s ownstudies.
• The Governor told the audience it is “better to tax polluters than drivers,” but the “polluters” are oil companies who will pass on the cost to drivers.
• When asked if the oil companies would pass along the cost to drivers, the Governor said flatly “no,” but then explained that some might be passed along after all depending on whether buyers are price sensitive. He didn’t mention that when it comes to gasoline, buyers are (in the short term) very price insensitive, making oil companies likely to pass along the cost of the tax.
• The Governor said that “failure is not an option” but has chosen a policy that is almost certain to fail to get approval and failed in Europe to achieve the carbon reduction targets.
• He called New England’s cap-and-trade system, known as RGGI, “extremely successful,” but research showsit made no difference and carbon emissions fell nationwide at the same rate as in RGGI states.
• The Governor claimed that wind power is now “cheaper than coal,” but then argued we need more subsidies for wind power.

More contradictions are sure to surface once the full impact of Inslee’s extreme green scheme is realized. Myers points out that Inslee has “promised to protect a wide range of industries from the impacts and will roll out more details of those who receive subsidies.” Inslee will continue to contradict himself as his promise opens the door to complexities that place “industries with good lobbyists at the center of decision-making and consumers, who pay the costs, on the outside.”