By
The Seattle Times editorial board
It was the kind of announcement that makes for government worker nightmares.
The Department of Commerce on Jan. 6 said that a “data entry” mistake had produced incorrect greenhouse gas emission-reduction numbers for the state’s centerpiece climate protection program.
Wrong by several decimal points. Talk about egg on your face.
Worse was the fact that critics of the Climate Commitment Act called out the suspicious data before the department issued a correction. Kudos to Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center for maintaining a careful eye on the numbers and keeping folks honest.
Back in November, the state issued a report claiming 3,600 projects funded by greenhouse gas allowance auctions would cut emissions by 8.6 million tons over the years. Myers raised concerns. Later, Commerce disclosed the real number was closer to 308,000 tons. The Ecology Department will have an updated report later this month.
Commerce Director Joe Nguyễn told The Times the error was due to faulty data entry. “This was literally just a fat-fingers situation,” he said.
There are a few takeaways from this cringeworthy incident.
The 3,600 projects were funded by about $1.5 billion in Climate Commitment Act funding. With the correction, the Department of Ecology estimates the price of preventing a metric ton of climate pollution jumped from about $40 to $313 per ton. That is a massive increase.
Are the climate protection measures worth the cost?
First, it’s important to note that the Climate Commitment Act caps and reduces greenhouse gas emissions from Washington’s largest emitting sources and industries. This is the primary method for achieving the state’s goal of shrinking emissions by 95% by 2050.
Funds from the auction of emission allowances are appropriated by the Legislature and support a host of goals, including climate resiliency, clean transportation and the addressing of health disparities across the state. Some programs have greater climate impact than others.
Critics say the Climate Commitment Act is a slush fund that doesn’t have much environmental bang for the buck. The “fat fingers” debacle and revised numbers add fuel to that argument.
The Legislature ought to focus investments on the greatest greenhouse gas-emission reductions. That would help assuage concerns that public money is spread too thin.
A report released by three green energy organizations this month notes other climate-ambitious states have outpaced Washington in renewable energy growth over the past decade, including New Mexico, Illinois, Colorado, Minnesota and California.
The groups’ findings identify 258 clean energy projects that could move forward over the next decade if development processes improve.
State funding ought to play a part in making these happen.
President Donald Trump declared war on science and seeks to dismantle climate programs across the nation. In this moment, Washington must get the basics right and put politics as usual aside in favor of making the biggest climate gains in the shortest possible time.
The Seattle Times editorial board: members are editorial page editor Kate Riley, Ryan Blethen, Melissa Davis, Josh Farley, Alex Fryer, Claudia Rowe, Carlton Winfrey, Frank A. Blethen (emeritus) and William K. Blethen (emeritus).