WA's new CO2 data show emissions increasing and big forecasting error
How much CO2 did Washington state emit in 2016? The number is still draft, but the Department of Ecology staff estimate 99.2 million metric tons (MMT). Just one year ago, they estimated the number would be very different, only 93 MMT, which would have been a decline from 98 MMT in 2015.
So, two-and-a-half years after 2016 ended, they don’t know the final amount (it is still draft). Further, their original estimate was significantly different than they predicted just a year ago. Instead of declining, Washington’s emissions actually increased.
Despite the inability to accurately calculate what happened more than two years ago, some in state agencies still argue they can accurately predict the impact of policies 15 or even 25 years into the future.
For example, the State Department of Commerce claims it can calculate total CO2 avoided by new appliance standards through the year 2035. They claim new standards on water coolers will reduce 66,000 MT of CO2 by 2035. Commercial dishwashers: 153,000 MT. Residential ventilating fans will save 36,000 MT.
Is any of this credible when state “experts” can’t accurately tell us what happened in the past? Of course not. These numbers are little more than speculation. This isn’t to say Department of Commerce staff won’t point to rationalization for the numbers. Similarly, Department of Ecology staff believed they had a valid reason to project 2016 CO2 emissions would decline from 2015 before they were proven completely wrong.
This isn’t a critique of the staff’s forecasting skills. These predictions are complex and involve many things they cannot control. For that reason, however, agency staff and politicians should be criticized for believing they can accurately predict the results of these policies decades into the future.
This is the ultimate conceit of government policy based on these kinds of projections. Such projections provide cover for politicians – and agency employees – who want to enact new regulation. Politicians need numbers to justify the new policy. Numbers are confidently provided. The benefit of the doubt is given to the “experts,” even if previous and similar projections have been inaccurate. By the time the results are in, the inaccurate projections are forgotten, and the policies have moved on. The costs, however, have been paid.
As an aside, it is worth noting that the state projects it will cost about $2 billion to reduce CO2 by 6 MMT over 15 years. That amounts to about $333 per metric ton of CO2. This is unbelievably expensive. It is more than 30 times the price available on the open market, and nearly 20 times the current price on the California carbon market. That is incredibly wasteful, even if it is just a projection.
Individuals and businesses have the same forecasting challenges. They take risks, however, with their own money. They have skin in the game and will be more likely to change tactics and adjust to new information. Risking your own money, rather than the resources of others, is also simply more ethical.