News

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen the location for its 45,000-square-foot Tacoma Temple.

It'll be in Federal Way, the church announced Monday.

The name and location isn't a mismatch, according to Clay and Mary Lu Dickinson, spokespeople for the LDS Tacoma coordinating council.

"The Seattle temple is actually in Bellevue," Mary Lu Dickinson said. "(A temple is) often named after the largest city it's by or the general area."

In October 2022, the LDS church announced the selection of Tacoma and three other U.S. cities that would be getting a temple in the coming years.

The 11.6-acre site is located at approximately 1405 South 364th Way, adjacent to Interstate 5. The location is south of Todd Beamer High School and west of Wild Waves theme and water park.

The temple will serve LDS members from Port Angeles to Olympia and east to Puyallup.

Timeline

The Dickinsons didn't know when ground would be broken for the temple, but Clay Dickinson said they are usually completed within three years of a location announcement. They also didn't know if it would be visible from I-5.

"I think members of our church want it to be," Mary Lu Dickinson said.

The announcement comes two months after Sound Transit said it would be purchasing and demolishing a megachurch to the north of the temple site in order to build a light rail operations and maintenance facility for the Tacoma Dome Link Extension.

David Jackson, a spokesperson for Sound Transit, said Monday that the route through the area the temple will be built has yet to be chosen. According to maps, two of the four proposed routes would skirt I-5 adjacent to or on the Tacoma Temple site. The line won't reach Tacoma until 2035.

Church officials generally decline discussing the church's finances, including the cost of building temples.

Temple use

"Everything in the temple points to Christ and helps us return to his presence," Clay Dickinson said.

LDS temples are used for marriages and making covenants and ordinances.

"The promises we make in the temple help us strengthen our families, be better neighbors and members of our community," Mary Lu Dickinson said. "It's the most sacred place we feel we have on the Earth."

The temple grounds will be open to the general public. However, the building itself will be open to the public only during an initial open house before it becomes permanently open only to LDS members.

The LDS church said more than 280,000 members worship in over 480 congregations in Washington. The first branch of the LDS in Washington was organized Dec. 24, 1899 in Tacoma, according to Clay Dickinson.

Washington has four temples — in Bellevue, Spokane, Richland and the newest one in Moses Lake.

     ___

     (c)2024 The News Tribune (Tacoma, Wash.)

     Visit The News Tribune (Tacoma, Wash.) at www.TheNewsTribune.com

     Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Oregon wildfires have burned a record-breaking 1.9 million acres this year — the most acres ever damaged in modern state history.

While much of the Willamette Valley and the Portland metropolitan area have been spared the brunt of the impact, major conflagrations have ripped across eastern and central Oregon throughout this year’s fire season, which typically heats up in June and peters out by October.

“It started early, and it’s kept a steady pace since then,” Oregon Department of Forestry spokesperson Jessica Neujahr said Monday. “Hopefully we’re at a turning point in the season — the beginning of the end.”

The cause of the epic burn boils down to scorching heat that began in July, when a heat wave combined with dry fuels and thunderstorms that unleashed lightning strikes like buckshot to spark several major conflagrations, according to Neujahr.

Foresters recorded more than 4,000 lightning strikes just in July, she said.

Soon, hundreds of firefighters were battling blazes from the 183,000-acre Battle Mountain Complex west of La Grande to the Durkee and Cow Valley fires near Ontario, which burned a combined 427,000 acres.

Those fires primarily spread through arid rangelands, where even relatively mild 10 mph winds can put fast-moving flames into motion. Those blazes are now all contained.

Firefighters saw a pause in early August, when a much needed reprieve set in for about two weeks, Neujahr said.

But Mother Nature didn’t settle down for long. By Labor Day, lightning strikes continued to start fires, including the 4,000-acre Copperfield fire north of Klamath Falls, the 26,000-acre Shoe Fly fire near Monmouth and the 25,000-acre Fossil Complex, which is less than a third contained and continues to threaten the tiny Wheeler County town of Spray, Oregon.

Closer to the center of the state, the Crazy Creek, Fall, and Rail Ridge wildfires east of Bend have ravaged some 399,000 acres. Two of those fires are contained, but the Rail Ridge is only about 40% roped off.

The last time Oregon topped 1 million acres burned was 2020, and the highest total amount of acreage consumed before 2024 was 2012, when 1.2 million acres went up in smoke. On average, 620,000 acres burned each year this decade, according to Oregon Department of Forestry data.

That said, reliable fire acreage numbers only go back to the early 1990s.

Firefighters are hopeful that the return of light rain across the state will herald an end to their work, though fuels remain dry in many areas.

Neujahr notes that Oregon’s fire season would have been significantly less severe if everyone followed the good word of Smokey the Bear.

Statewide, more than 1,500 fires this year appear to be human-caused — and all combined, those fires accounted for more than 1.1 million acres of fire-ravaged land. Almost all of those human-sparked fires began because of burning debris, use of gas-powered engines such as lawnmowers and ATVs, and unattended or poorly-extinguished campfires, Neujahr said.

“A lot of times what we hear from people is, ‘Well, I’ve burned debris for the last 10 years, and nothing’s ever happened,’” said Neujahr. “But, the climate is changing. We can’t live by the status quo.”

©2024 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit oregonlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

MATTAWA — A Washington State Supreme Court judge's seat has opened, and this time, instead of the governor filling the position, the voters will. Candidates Sal Mungia and Dave Larson joined several other candidates for a Sept. 12 forum to discuss various elections on the November ballot.

The forum, hosted by the South Grant County Chamber of Commerce, Wahluke School District and the Columbia Basin Herald was moderated by the paper's editor, R. Hans "Rob" Miller.

Washington Supreme Court Justice positions are nonpartisan.

Mungia introduced himself saying he has been a lawyer for 40 years and he wants to tell people about the values that he learned from his parents. The first was fairness.

"My mom came from Japan. My dad came from Mexico," Mungia said. "I saw how they were treated because we didn't have much money and because of the color of their skin. Fairness is very important to me, and I've made that an essential part of my life."

The second was hard work; Mungia said he thinks he doesn't work nearly as hard as his parents, and he works "pretty darn hard." He has had a private practice for 38 years, he said, and is a partner at his law firm.

"I think I work from before sunrise until after sunset," Mungia said. "But my parents worked harder."

The third value Mungia stressed was following the rules. Rules are very important to him, he said, and making sure that rules are being followed is equally important.

Larson said he also comes from a working family, and he is very proud of his parents. He said his dad was an airline mechanic and his mom was a homemaker. He said he has been a trial judge for almost 17 years.

"I am in the trenches of all the issues you hear about," Larson said. "Before becoming a trial judge, I was a trial lawyer for 23 years."

The last job Larson had as a lawyer was at a large law firm in Seattle doing complex civil litigation cases, he said. He then started as a judge in Federal Way.

"I went in to help try to fix that court and I have been there just under 17 years," Larson said.

He is looking forward to the opportunity for the voters to be educated on the courts.

"They are very important to our existence, and they're underestimated down below in the ballot," Larson said. "But Sal and I hope we can bring some interest to this so that people engage in the process."

Throughout the forum, both Mungia and Larson showed that they agreed on several issues, though their approaches were different. Miller did not have to enforce the rules of the forum, which included a prohibition on mudslinging, throughout their time on stage.

Juvenile Justice System

Both candidates were asked what the State Supreme Court could do to assist with improving the juvenile justice system.

Larson said the Supreme Court doesn't make decisions, they just run the courts, create court rules and set the tone for the courts.

"What the Supreme Court can do is be a messenger, in the way we operate juvenile courts," Larson said. "'We-hope-everybody-turns-out-OK' kind of approach, and we don't want to detain people, and it's not working out. The Supreme Court could take a better role in educating judges and educating the communities on how we can better approach juvenile justice. Because all those people we don't do (in) the juvenile justice system is going to end up showing up in our adult (court) and affecting our communities."

Larson said there is a strong link between education and courts; there needs to be a balance between leniency and punishment to the point lives are ruined.

"My motto in my court is, 'I run a repair shop here,' and that's the way the court should be, a welcoming place to help people have better lives," Larson said. "We can do that."

Mungia said judges don't make the laws, they enforce the laws the Legislature makes.

"As far as juvenile justice, the courts have to follow that," Mungia said. "Whether you like those laws or not. That's up for the Legislature and that's their role."

The state of Washington doesn't have a unified court system, Mungia explained, meaning the Supreme Court can't tell superior or district court judges what to do.

"The court can set court rules, but that is a pretty limited method, and certainly can't tell the lower courts how to sentence or what to do with juveniles if they break the law," Mungia said. "What judges can do, and what I've done as a private citizen, is hopefully try to keep our juveniles out of trouble in the first place," he said.

Mungia said he started a program nine years ago to improve reading rates in the east side of Tacoma.

"We adopted those kids with our goal (to read) by grade three, because if you can't read by the end of grade three, there's a direct correlation of being incarcerated, and so we worked hard," Mungia said. "We put books in the school, we put mentors in the school."

One of his most rewarding days was hearing from a fifth grade teacher that it was the first year that her kids were at grade level and Mungia's program helped with that, he said.

Improving access to justice

Candidates were also asked about their views on access to justice and legal aid for Washingtonians given the complexity of the justice system.

"Oh my gosh, access to justice is not easy," Mungia said. "Are you kidding me? It's very difficult."

He said he has worked to ensure access to justice by trying to get people a form of representation to give both sides a fair fight.

"If you hire an attorney like me against someone who doesn't have an attorney, it ain't even close to a fair fight," Mungia said. "So, I spent my career doing pro bono work, representing individuals, representing families who could not afford an attorney."

Mungia said he has successfully lobbied for additional funding from the state for legal aid programs.

Mungia said he has also worked to help low-income and moderate-means residents get access to legal professionals.

"I was the president of the Washington State Bar Association. We started up a moderate means program that working-class people can get representation at a fairly reasonable cost," he said.

Larson agreed that access to legal representation is difficult to obtain.

"The justice system should be involved in a way that becomes accessible, inexpensive and easy to operate; right now, we're the opposite," Larson said. "The reason all that money is needed is because we made this system so complex, so burdensome, so expensive, that the average person can't afford it."

Courts bully people in the legislature who could influence outcomes, especially in family law, he said. He said family law is a horrible experience, and legal expenses go way up because of the conflict the system itself creates.

"I almost walked away from the legal profession back in 1998 because we became so in love with our rules, and it was causing so much more expense just complying with rules and procedures," Larson said.

He said that was one of the reasons he was running because he wanted to help simplify things.

"We have to have a system that doesn't need a lot of money poured into it to help people operate," Larson said. "It needs a system that is designed to do what it's supposed to do. We're supposed to be the peacekeeping branch of the government... We're supposed to solve problems and not create more with our rules and our dogma that we've developed over the years."

Biggest challenge

The candidates had different opinions when asked what they felt the biggest challenge of being on the Washington Supreme Court would be.

Larson said the biggest challenge is deciding what cases come before the Court. He also wants to make courts more accessible.

"We have an opportunity on our Supreme Court to use the power of that court, to use the bully pulpit, to inspire courts across the state to develop ways to serve people," Larson said.

Larson said he has tried to model fairness in regard to crime, addiction and mental illness in his courtroom.

He said that the courts need barrier-free access to peer navigation, especially by emphasizing early intervention.

"The idea is, our court system can serve our communities much better, and we need justices on the court to make it a priority," Larson said.

Larson said the lack of a behavioral health justice commission is an issue. He added that the State v. Blake ruling undermined judges' ability to deal with drug cases.

Mungia said there are three challenges for any judge. Firstly, make sure to follow the rule of law and not personal beliefs or what the judge wants.

"You have to follow the rule of law," Mungia said. "You have to do what the federal or the state Constitution tells you to do, whether you like it or not, and you have to put aside your own personal beliefs. I think that is very difficult to do, and you've always just got to be consciously aware of making sure you do that."

A judge must also collaborate with other judges and legal professionals, Mungia said.

"I think we've lost the art, maybe we've never had it, (of knowing) how to disagree without becoming disagreeable," Mungia said. "We have different viewpoints. We are stronger where we can bring those different viewpoints together and talk about them in a civil manner to really try to convince someone, not through personal attacks. I love this kind of going back and forth here right now, because we're not attacking anybody, but expressing your views and then really respecting the reviews of someone else."

Thirdly, Mungia said it's important not to get lazy.

"We know there are hard-working judges, hard-working legislators, and not-so-hard-working judges, not-so-hard-working legislators," Mungia said. "I think the same thing about being an attorney every day, I said, 'I'm the luckiest guy in the world because I'm an attorney.' I think as a judge, you always must remember that you are serving all the people and that you are so lucky to be in that position."

Want to watch?

The full forum may be watched at https://bit.ly/2024GCFORUM. 

     ___

     (c)2024 the Columbia Basin Herald, Wash.

     Visit the Columbia Basin Herald, Wash. at www.columbiabasinherald.com

     Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Alaska Airlines expects to close its merger deal with Hawaiian Airlines soon after it cleared a Department of Transportation review Tuesday.

The DOT said SeaTac, Washington-based Alaska can acquire Hawaiian but, it required “enforcement, public-interest protections” from the two airlines before the merger. These include protecting the value of rewards and maintaining certain Hawaiian routes and lower costs for military families, DOT said.

Alaska announced in December that it would acquire Hawaiian for $1.9 billion. Under that plan, each airline would maintain its brand but operate under the same platform, serving a combined 54.7 million passengers annually.

Alaska expects to finalize the deal as early as Wednesday, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Hawaiian President and CEO Peter Ingram will step down following the deal closure, Alaska announced Tuesday. Joe Sprague, the current Alaska regional president of Hawaii/Pacific, will replace Ingram and lead all aspects of Hawaiian’s operations.

“We look forward to formally welcoming Hawaiian Airlines’ guests and employees into Alaska Air Group,” Alaska CEO Ben Minicucci said in a statement Tuesday. “We sincerely appreciate the exceptional care and service that employees of both companies have continued to show for one another and our guests throughout this process, and the support of both airlines’ labor unions, as we proceed to realize the vision for this combination and build a stronger future together.”

The protections required by the DOT remain in effect for six years after the transfer is approved.

The two airlines agreed to what the DOT called the first-ever rewards protections for the airlines’ planned new loyalty program. Alaska Mileage Plan miles and HawaiianMiles earned before the conversion won’t expire and will be transferred using a 1-to-1 ratio, so all members will have the same number they had originally. HawaiianMiles miles will be maintained at their current value and statuses will be matched and maintained, the DOT said.

The DOT requires the airlines, when merged, maintain passenger and cargo service for inter-island routes and key routes between Hawaii and the continental U.S, and preserve its support for the Essential Air Service program, which subsidizes airline flights to rural communities.

©2024 The Seattle Times. Visit seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Three years ago, Washington politicians passed arguably the most ambitious climate law in the state's history, putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions with the intention of putting the state on a path to a cleaner economy.

In two months, voters will be asked whether to shoot down the law just as it's getting off the ground.

The state set a goal in 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly each decade until reaching net-zero by 2050. In 2019, the last year with complete emissions data, more than 102 million metric tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent  were released from within Washington state.

After years of failed attempts to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, the Legislature approved the Climate Commitment Act in 2021, capping how much can be emitted in the state each year and requiring businesses that emit the most carbon to bid for an "allowance" to emit a small portion of that overall cap.

Billions have been raised since the first cap-and-trade auction in 2023, money the state has poured into hundreds of projects, including the purchase of electric buses, air quality monitors and air filters in schools, the conversation of the state's diesel powered ferries to hybrid-electric models, and work to boost salmon populations.

Those auctions also have raised costs for fuel and other products from businesses that have to pay those higher fuel costs, systemwide price increases that are borne by consumers.

The question Initiative 2117 poses: Is the state's attempt to slow climate change in the long-term a bigger priority than the hit to voters' wallets, and do they trust Washington leaders to effectively manage the program?

Every few months, dozens of the state's largest emitters, including fuel suppliers and electric utilities, apply to bid in that quarter's cap-and-trade auctions. If those companies reduce emissions faster than the state's goals, they can bank extras or sell them to companies that are slower to change.

There are a lot of major exceptions, however.

Many of the state's big emitters, mostly manufacturers, including potato product producers in the Columbia Basin and Kaiser Aluminum in Spokane Valley, will get most or all of their credits for no cost until 2035, on the theory that they are sensitive to out-of-state competition and are most likely to shrink or relocate if they had to suddenly pay the full costs for their emissions.

Fuel refineries are by far the biggest emitters getting a pass for the next decade and will receive enough free allowances to emit more than 6.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide this year.

Other companies, like Spokane County's largest private landowner, the Inland Empire Paper Company, also are exempted because most of their emissions qualify as "biogenic," under the theory that the carbon released by processing crops like a tree will eventually be recaptured again by the next tree the company plants. Inland Empire is owned by the same parent company as The Spokesman-Review.

The roughly 100 corporations that have to purchase credits can choose to invest in lowering their emissions, thereby reducing the number of credits they have to buy, or purchase enough credits to avoid paying for emissions reductions.

Advocates say emissions reductions will be inevitable over time. As exemptions end, the number of available credits decrease and companies become increasingly unable to buy their way out of making changes. In the meanwhile, cap-and-trade is supposed to leave companies wiggle-room while they adapt.

The sizable proceeds — more than $200 million in the most recent auction earlier this month and more than $2 billion since cap-and-trade's inception — are invested across the state in environmental projects.

By and large, companies aren't eating those costs. Refineries might be exempt from credits, but fuel suppliers aren't, raising prices for gasoline and for electricity powered by natural gas, for instance.

What are the costs to consumers, exactly?

It's difficult, if not impossible, for a consumer to gauge  how much their bills have gone up as a result of the cap-and-trade system due both to the complexity of pricing and the at-times obfuscating rhetoric from the pro and con camps.

Some costs are pure guesswork, and even the clearer price hikes come with a lot of qualifiers.

Higher energy bills from utilities can be one of the easiest data points to pin down, but those costs still come with a number of caveats. Avista, for instance, estimates that the average residential customer pays between $1.33 to $14.96 more per month on their energy bills as a direct result, a wide range depending on the time of year and whether the customer began their service more recently. Lower-income customers are supposed to be exempt from those surcharges, however.

Gas prices are more complicated.

Let's Go Washington, a political action committee that formed to champion several initiatives aimed mostly at repealing progressive policies adapted by the Legislature, and other opponents of the cap-and-trade system argue gas costs as much as 50 cents more per gallon, if not more. In events at gas stations across the state, Let's Go Washington has held events lowering the price of gas to the national average, implying those could be the prices Washingtonians would pay if I-2117 is successful.

"We're showing you what you would be paying if you were in a free state, versus this one," Brian Heywood, the leader of Let's Go Washington, said during an August event in Spokane.

Washington, however, has had significantly higher-than-average gas prices long before the cap-and-trade system was created.

Gas prices in the state were 47 cents higher than the national average at the beginning of 2023, just before the first carbon credit auction, and recently were 73 cents higher, a 26-cent difference, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In August, that difference was closer to 19 cents, underscoring the complicated fluctuation of fuel costs.

On the other hand, supporters of the Climate Commitment Act have minimized how much prices would go down if cap-and-trade is repealed. Former state Sen. Reuven Carlyle, who spearheaded the Climate Commitment Act, and current state Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-White Center, who chairs a committee tasked with managing auction revenues, have both argued that gas prices won't necessarily fall if I-2117 is successful.

This is technically true, as gas prices could be raised by unrelated factors more than repeal of cap-and-trade lowers them. It would still seem likely that gas would be cheaper if I-2117 passes than it would be if it fails, though Nguyen argues gas companies can't be trusted to pass those savings onto consumers.

Critics point out that Gov. Jay Inslee assured Washingtonians that gas prices would only increase by "pennies' after the Climate Commitment Act began and argue he was being intentionally misleading.

Gas prices fluctuate as a result of many factors and state leaders have been watching prices in Oregon to roughly gauge the climate law's impact, said Andrew Wineke, deputy communications director for the state Department of Ecology. Oregon gets most of its fuel from the same refineries as Washington, but fuel suppliers are not required to purchase carbon credits for bringing that gas to Oregon gas stations due to nuances in the law, Wineke added.

When factoring in the difference between the state's gas taxes, average prices in Washington were roughly 10 to 20 cents higher than in Oregon earlier this year, with that number closer to 25 cents more recently, Wineke said. Confusing the matter, those particularly higher prices at the pump recently don't seem to have been tied to higher costs for carbon credits during the most recent auction, he added.

"Allowances prices are down sharply in Washington this year, but the gap between Washington and Oregon has increased," he said.

Tod Myers, vice president of the free-market think tank Washington Policy Center, recently debated against cap-and-trade alongside Heywood. He noted in an interview that gas prices in 2023, when credits were far more expensive, were probably more than 40 cents costlier as a result.

Nguyen argued  credit prices last year were higher than they should have been because the auctions were new and the market hadn't yet adapted; Myers argues that credits are unusually cheap this year because markets are waiting to see if the system survives voter scrutiny this November.

It's even less clear how much the Climate Commitment Act has raised prices on other commodities purchased by Washingtonians such as groceries and consumer goods.

Agriculture benefits from some of the investments from the auction revenue, such as incentives for composting and grants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a farm or dairy. The industry is also meant to be exempt from many of the costs of cap-and-trade, including surcharges on fuel used on the farm or to transport produce to market.

These exemptions have not always worked as intended, however, and especially smaller farms regularly found themselves paying those higher fuel prices, something the state has tried to partially rectify with a rebate program.

In an August debate, Heywood estimated that Washingtonians were paying anywhere between $200 and $ 500 more per year for groceries; Myers was more cautious to put a figure on it.

"I tend to be skeptical of those numbers because they are so hard to pin down," he said.

Investments, reduction goals under microscope

Data on Washington's overall emissions lags by years, with 2019 being the last year with a complete picture. The next data set isn't expected until December and will only cover 2020 and 2021, two years in which emissions are expected to be artificially decreased by the pandemic and well before the Climate Commitment Act came into effect.

Let's Go Washington regularly claims that the state doesn't track how much or whether the Climate Commitment Act investments are lowering emissions.

There's some truth to that claim, though it's more complicated than the ads would suggest.

State law does require programs that receive cap-and-trade money to report whether the investment reduced emissions, and if so, by how much and how cost efficient they were. The state Department of Ecology is supposed to put those reports together every year.

Here's the problem: The only meaningful report issued so far, and the only one voters will likely get to see before the election, covered the first six months of 2023 when the program was still new. Ecology reported major reporting deficiencies by state agencies receiving the funds, preventing a clear report of how much the projects reduced emissions.

Among what could be reported, Ecology estimated emission reductions of 191,000 metric tons; in 2019, the state produced 102 million metric tons.

Myers argues that even these numbers are "loosey-goosey" and don't require adequate auditing or penalties if reductions goals aren't reached.

But state leaders argue flawed reporting early in the program's life doesn't mean investments aren't meaningfully moving the needle.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on public transportation and "active transportation," like bike lanes and pedestrian paths, intended to encourage people to drive less; personal vehicles are one of the biggest drivers of emissions statewide. Bus wraps across Spokane advertise free fare for youth, the result of a statewide program funded by cap-and-trade which some communities, such as Walla Walla, have leveraged to provide free fares to everyone.

The state is spending millions more on energy efficiency programs, including replacing boilers in schools or, in one case, at Kaiser Aluminum's Trentwood rolling mill. The state gave that company $5 million from cap-and-trade revenue, roughly half the cost to replace two boilers, expected to reduce the massive facilities annual admissions by 13,000 metric tons.

Many projects funded by the Climate Commitment Act aren't intended to quantifiably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as funds going to install air quality monitors across the state, including in Spokane, or improve culverts to allow salmon to migrate more successfully.

Other projects do reduce emissions but are being chosen in part because of other benefits, said Anna Lising, senior climate adviser to the governor's office who leads the state's strategies to decarbonize the most emitting sectors, such as transportation. The state has committed $130 million over two years to electrify medium and heavy-duty trucks, primarily the kind that transport goods from ports. The electrification should reduce emissions, but the project was also chosen because it could reduce local air pollution from poorer communities.

Still other projects might reduce emissions in the long term, but there's no way to quantify it, Lising added, such as job training programs that could bring more people to work in a clean energy field.

Heywood argues that some programs have spent millions with little to show for it, spent on studies, staff and administrative costs but with relatively little going to, for instance, salmon recovery or forest fire mitigation.

Advocates for the Climate Commitment Act argue that it is the dwindling cap on emissions that is expected to be the primary driver of emissions reductions, not the investments from auction revenue. And for some, the emphasis by supporters of Initiative 2117 on the cost-benefits of the law are missing an important part of the equation.

"Nobody's doing a cost-benefit analysis of doing nothing," argues Kara Odegard, founder and CEO of Measure Meant, a Spokane consultant focused on sustainability programs and climate planning.

Odegard agrees the state should work toward robust reporting of the effectiveness of its cap-and-trade investments, but disagrees that flaws outweigh the risks of climate change or justify killing the system.

"Until you can show me that taking no action is saving us in health care costs, property damage costs, insurance costs, supply chain issues — costs that climate change is creating today — then that cost benefit argument means nothing to me," she said. Initiative 2117 "completely hobbles our ability to address climate change in a way that's not going to break our economy, or forces us to wait for disasters to get worse."

Advocates also argue that Washingtonians are getting a good deal for their investment. A study funded by environmental groups opposed to repeal efforts and created by Greenline Insights asserts that an estimated $5.3 billion in cap-and-trade revenue over the next eight years could attract another $29 billion from federal, private and other sources.

What happens if I-2117 passes?

Opponents of cap-and-trade are not seeking to reform the Climate Commitment Act at the ballot box. Initiative 2117 would kill cap-and-trade outright and bar the state from trying again in the short term.

Myers argues the system is hopelessly flawed and unsalvageable, subject to political winds and manipulation, and the state needs to go back to the drawing board.

Myers, who emphasized that he believes climate change is a serious threat, has long been an advocate for a "carbon tax," effectively a tax on all fuels. It would act like a sin tax, incentivizing companies to reduce their carbon emissions to lower their tax burden, Myers argued, and if that tax increase was "revenue neutral," paired with tax cuts elsewhere, prices for businesses and consumers theoretically wouldn't spike.

An initiative in 2017 that would have created a carbon tax failed resoundingly, though it wasn't revenue neutral.

Nguyen believes a carbon tax would do little to reduce emissions, however. Companies could pass those increased costs onto consumers and continue doing business as usual, he argued, and there wouldn't be a dwindling emissions cap that eventually makes reductions mandatory.

The state's goals to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 predates the Climate Commitment Act. Ending the cap-and-trade system does not necessarily mean that the state wouldn't still pressure companies to lower their carbon emissions, but it would remove the possibility of using one of the more politically palatable tools.

Cap-and-trade markets theoretically give companies more flexibility to weigh the cost-benefit of reducing their emissions or paying for credits in the short- to midterm, compared to a "command-and-control" regulatory regime that mandates reductions directly and dictates how companies should achieve those goals.

Avoiding a heavier hammer is suspected motivator for why major oil companies like BP, which operates one of the state's five refineries, have supported the Climate Commitment Act.

Big oil hasn't been spending to defeat repeal however, although the effort is hardly cash strapped. No on 2117, the largest political committee working to defeat the initiative, has reported raising more than $11 million. Let's Go Washington, meanwhile, has raised $5.5 million, and is spending it to support four initiatives on the November ballot.

Microsoft and its affiliates have been the big backers of No on 2117. Bill Gates, former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Microsoft itself have collectively provided $4 million, and other Microsoft or Gates Foundation alums have raised another $1 million. The Nature Conservancy and Tableau Software co-founder Chris Stolte are also top donors, giving $1.2 million and $1 million, respectively.

Let's Go Washington has attracted many of its major donors from the builder, real estate and hospitality industries. The Building Industry Association of Washington was the second-largest donor to the political committee with more than $500,000, and helped form another committee, Main Street Matters to Washington, which has donated more than $1 million. Kaiser Aluminum, despite getting money through the Climate Commitment Act for a boiler, gave that latter committee $75,000.

The biggest Spokane donors to Let's Go Washington include developer and activist Larry Stone, who gave $100,000, and Stacey and Anne Cowles, who collectively gave $25,000. Stacey Cowles is the publisher of The Spokesman-Review.

Only one donor from Spokane donated as much as $10,000 to No on 2117; Dave Curry, founder and chairman of Demand Energy Networks Inc., a company that makes energy storage systems to manage the intermittent supply of wind and solar power.

     ___

     (c)2024 The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Wash.)

     Visit The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Wash.) at www.spokesman.com

     Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

George W. Bush, better known as Bud, was born on Aug. 12, 1951, to Archie and Rayma “Lusk” Bush in Chehalis, Washington. On Aug. 30, 2024, Bud passed peacefully in the early morning.

Bud was the youngest of five kids. Being 10 years younger than his closest sibling, he became the center of attention at a young age. He was an athlete, scoring 50 points in a basketball game (in the days where you only received two points per basket). On Sept. 26, 1970, Bud married the love of his life, Terri Mullinex. They had two children, Jennifer and Bill. Bud was the life of the party and a big kid himself; he played basketball and softball well into his 30s. He would show the kids how to shoot baskets every chance he got. In his later years, he enjoyed watching his grandkids sporting events. Family was important to him; his grandkids were his pride and joy.

After graduating from Pe Ell High School in 1969, Bud started the mechanics apprenticeship program at City Motors in Centralia. He then went on to the nightshift at Weyerhaeuser working on locomotives in the shop. From there, he transitioned into the rigging, setting chokers, chasing, running shovel, falling timber, running stroker and ending his 30 years with Weyerhaeuser running dozer on the construction crew.

Bud was also known as “Bud the Butcher.” In 1983, during the Weyco strike, Bud and Terri started cutting meat under the tutelage of Willy Baggenstos, eventually building their business, Rainbow Custom Meats. When the strike was done, he fell timber during the day and cut meat at night and ran the butcher truck on the weekends.

Bud loved hunting, fishing, digging clams, smelt dipping and everything else outdoors. He always enjoyed the camaraderie of a hunting party. Over the years, his role changed from the young buck who would do the packing to the camp cook. If he liked you, he would harass you and not call you by your name but rather a name he felt was a better match for you. He was known for his “love taps” that would knock you over or the wind out of you. He never understood his strength. If you were really special, you may have even gotten a nice bite on the nose. He would give the best hugs and loved to tell stories to whoever would listen. As the years went on, we knew most of his stories, but he would add a little extra every time he told them.

Bud is preceded in death by his parents, Archie and Rayma; mother-in-law and father-in-law Bill and Elaine Mullenix; brothers, Tim and David Bush; and sisters, Ann Elliott and Yvonne Quam. Bud leaves behind his wife, Terri “Mullenix” Bush; children, Jennifer, Bill and Nikki; grandchildren, Garrett, Wyatt, Ava and Lila; great-grandson, Ezra; his nephew, Chip Elliott (who was more like a brother); in addition to many nieces, nephews, cousins and extended family.

Bud will be laid to rest at 2 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 27, 2024, at Forest Lawn Cemetery with a celebration of life following at the VFW Hall in Pe Ell, Washington. In lieu of flowers, please donate to the Pe Ell Ambulance, P.O. Box 308, Pe Ell, WA, 98572.

Dad always loved a good party and wanted to be remembered with a smile, a good story and a styrofoam cup. Help us celebrate him!

Cattermole Funeral Home is handling the funeral arrangements.