Governor's Executive Order prioritizes political control over environmental effectiveness

April 29, 2014

Three things stand out about the Executive Order Governor Inslee issued today.

First, the Executive Order contradicts itself.  Governor Inslee calls for an emphasis on the environmental effectiveness of various strategies, then he orders the expansion of two strategies the Governor’s own analysis shows are the least effective: solar panels and so-called “coal by wire.”

Also, Governor Inslee says his carbon reduction strategies must avoid simply moving carbon emissions elsewhere, known as “leakage.”  His effort to reduce “coal by wire,” however, will likely result in that coal-based energy simply going to other states, contradicting the Governor’s announced goal of avoiding leakage.  This is the experience Seattle officials had when they sought to go “carbon neutral.”

Second, the Governor ignores the lowest cost approaches to reducing carbon emissions, such as  removing current, wasteful spending and regulation policies and replacing them with a flat price on carbon and tax cuts.  This is the system used effectively by the conservative government in British Columbia.

Instead, Governor Inslee wants a cap-and-trade system that is notorious for its failure in Europe and resulted in widespread manipulation and cheating.  Such systems are favored by politicians because they can be politically designed to reward supporters. 

By promoting a cap-and-trade system, Governor Inslee prioritizes political control over environmental effectiveness.

Third, the Governor’s Executive Order mentions old work by the University of Oregon on the potential impact of climate change on Washington state.  This research is outdated and has since been proven to be extremely inaccurate. 

Additionally, the Oregon study falsely characterizes research regarding climate and air quality.  We will follow up on this later, but it is surprising that Governor Inslee cites such an outdated and inaccurate study in today’s Executive Order.


Gov. and Apollo Alliance

Why doesn't anyone seem to know that our Gov headed the Apollo Alliance in WA? Or what it was and is?
I don't know how you can be ignorant of this important " conspiracy " and who its memrbers are and were. If you don't know look it up on the intiernet.

You are correct in 2005 Jay

You are correct in 2005 Jay headed up the Apollo Alliance and it was his first venture into the Renewable energy arena.
He conducted meetings with some Energy influences to come up with his book.
His book was a wreck, selling I believe around 1400 copies, many to Political supporters which were really campaign contributions in disguise.
Inslee is a non-started when it comes to energy. He preaches efficiency but follows a different pattern for himself.
In DC he always took cabs, racking up thousands of dollars instead of mass transit.
He is the epitome of hypocrisy.
As for the Apollo Alliance, now supported by the BlueGreen Alliance it is about unions and continued support for Inslee.
This is a prime example of hiding the pea to keep the current regime in power.

"Crap and Trade"

Having been in the power marketing business during Enron's market manipulation causing wide spread fraud and ultimately collapse of one of the largest energy companies in the world, I can only wait for the same outcome to befall "crap and trade".
As Meyers mentioned, it failed in Europe, most notably Germany resulting in no appreciable environmental benefit only financiers getting richer.
Just another prime example of politics and power gone wrong to benefit those who promote such a charade.
Inslee knows nothing about energy. He is merely a puppet for those who promote this folly.

Your comments on Governors climate order.

You are spot on in every regard. Particularly the complete failure of carbon trading systems which, by their nature MUST create a new regulatory system to operate.

HOWEVER, since carbon clearly must be dealt with at some level, the only effective way to deal with it at the State level, to deal with "leakage" and to do so in a market driven manner is inevitably a carbon tax.

You own logic leads us there and you are right.

They lie and say carbon, but it is carbon dioxide.

The above article and executive order incorrectly says that “carbon” is the problem when environmentalists really claim the compound “CO2” or Carbon Dioxide is the problem. These are two very different things and should not be intermingled in any honest way. It is lying to the public with the intent to deceive.

Everyone has a responsibility to tell the public the truth, and that it is the horrid entity supposedly causing Global Warming is the compound “Carbon Dioxide” and not the very different entity they always name as “Carbon.” Carbon is represented as the letter C and is an element listed on the chart of atomic elements that we all recall from high school science class, but have forgotten.

CO2, on the other hand, is a compound (not an element) which is a totally different thing entirely. CO2 is the air that every animal exhales out every few seconds. IT is not coal as they like to make you think.
However, this very big but inconvenient truth, is a big problem to the Global Warming Crowd. If they accurately and honestly use the term carbon dioxide, they would be telling the American Public that the air they breathe out is going to kill the planet. Recall that all breathing entities breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2. Oh NO!

Frankly scheming environmentalists know that that is a very hard sell. So they simply lie and change the offending entity so it sounds like coal is the problem, or the graphite in our pencils. Think black and sooty. Sounds bad.
Every time they refer to “carbon”, please correct them. Start asking them if they know the difference. Ask if they know they are breathing it out when they talk.

Actually how can one trust their science if they can’t even get that right?