Last week, Jay Inslee’s Department of Ecology released its proposed “improvements” to the carbon rule — a rule Inslee wants to jam through by executive order since the Legislature would not pass his “green” agenda. Even Democrat House members would not support a carbon rule because they realize it poses serious threats to the economic wellbeing of our state.
Unfortunately, the prospect of damaging our economy/subjecting our state to an uncertain future won’t stop Inslee from trying to jam through his extreme “green” agenda through without support from other elected officials.
Washingtonians have a right to know how Inslee’s carbon rule will impact our state. So, we outlined the top three consequences posed by the extreme “green” plan.
Without further ado:
1. Companies would gain an incentive to suspend operations in Washington State.
As the Washington Policy Center’s Todd Myers previously put it, “[The DOE’s] plan actually pays for taking jobs overseas, but punishes for keeping jobs here. If you stay, your costs go up.” Inslee and his supporters attempt to downplay this very unfortunate side effect, either by not mentioning it or by shrugging it off as improbable.
Only, it’s not improbable… it’s already happened. Alcoa – the world’s third largest producer of aluminum—offered a reminder of the consequences of providing companies incentives to do business elsewhere. In anticipation of Inslee’s carbon rule and higher energy costs, Alcoa announced its intention to close factories in Ferndale and Wenatchee, resulting in thousands of lost jobs.
It’s not that this is an unforeseen consequence of the carbon rule — it’s extremely foreseeable. Rather, it’s that Inslee simply does not care. He will continue to drive jobs out of our state if it means he can impose his “green” agenda.
2. Working families will pay more, daily.
Inslee’s carbon rule promises to reach in the pocketbook of every working family, and take some so he can claim to tbe “greenest governor” in the country. The costs extend far beyond a hike in gas prices for commuters. Washingtonians can expect to pay more to heat their homes and on the consumer goods they purchase.
Adding insult to injury, state bureaucrats haven’t bothered to calculate how much more consumers can expect to pay —though they promise the cost increase will be “relatively small.” Of course, the promises of government bureaucrats never quite prove to be true and their definition of “small” is generally suspect, since it isn’t their money they are talking about.
3. Inslee’s carbon rules would result in lawsuits.
Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center recently referred to the Inslee’s latest “green” scheme as the “most backward approach to this issue that can be imagined.” Myers stated, “Assuming you want to reduce carbon, regulation is the least rationale and most expensive way to do it.”
Inslee’s carbon rule is “backward” in that it is economically damaging, yet fails to actually impact carbon emissions. But, Inslee is also using a “backward” approach in his reasoning for imposing the rule by executive order.
As far as bypassing the legislative process, Inslee is relying on a statute that state Attorney General Bob Ferguson—notably, a fellow Democrat—deemed has no teeth in order to justify his ridiculous carbon rule. Inslee often points to a 2008 statute (RCW 70.235.020) which says that Washington State “shall limit” greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them to “1990 levels by 2020 and to half that level by 2050.”
Yet, an in-depth analysis conducted by the Attorney General’s office found the statute to be “non-binding.”
GOP state Senator Doug Ericksen is among one of many who does not believe Inslee has the authority “to pursue those regulations without the Legislature’s approval.” He plans to pursue a legal challenge to the carbon rule.
And he’ll certainly be joined in that lawsuit by others who care about Washington’s economy more than they care about Inslee’s “green” reputation.
Leave a Reply