By Michelle Dupler
Tri-City Herald
February 04, 2009
OLYMPIA — Several Mid-Columbia lawmakers took stands Tuesday against proposed legislation that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that opponents claim will drive up energy prices and cost the state jobs.
The bill has several nicknames depending on who’s talking about it — “cap and trade,” “cap and tax” or “cap and invest” — but the gist is the creation of a program that sets a limit, or cap, on emissions.
Companies or other groups would be issued emission permits and then be required to hold an equivalent number of allowances or credits for the right to emit a specific amount of pollutants.
The total allowances cannot exceed the cap, which should limit emissions to that level, according to a bill analysis prepared by staffers in the House of Representatives.
Companies who couldn’t meet the limits would have to buy credits from those who had spare allowances to trade.
Jay Manning, director of the state Department of Ecology, told the House Ecology & Parks Committee on Tuesday that the hope is that businesses would choose to invest in emission-reducing technologies rather than pay for allowances, resulting in fewer emissions and spurring the development of new, clean technologies and “green” jobs.
But critics said in public hearings Tuesday that the legislation is too vague and doesn’t tell businesses what it will cost them to comply. They also argued that the measure is premature in the face of arguments that manmade greenhouse gases may not cause climate change, and a federal cap and trade system that likely will be approved by Congress and signed by President Obama.
Lobbyists and business owners for some of the industries that would be affected by the cap and trade program — electric power, food processing, agriculture, paper mills and steel manufacturing — said a unified federal system makes more sense because it would provide businesses a level playing field, while a program imposed only in Washington would drive businesses to states where they wouldn’t have to pay.
And Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, argued that the program would interfere with what he described as constitutional rights to economic freedom and affordable energy.
“This is a blatant attempt to deny the citizens of this state basic civil rights,” Haler said.
He also balked at the idea that human activity is responsible for global warming and said the cap and trade idea isn’t based on current science.
Supporters countered by saying Washington should lead the way rather than wait for a federal program and position itself now to create the kind of clean technology and renewable energy industry that will drive the economy in years to come.
One woman supporting the bill even argued that capping emissions is a moral responsibility.
“For me as a person of faith, the care and creation and the protection of Earth and the life support systems on Earth from the devastating effects of global warming is not just an environmental and economic issue,” said Sister Mimi Maloney, a member of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary women’s ministry. “Everyone is part of the living system, part of the web of creation.”
At a hearing on companion legislation in the state Senate, Sens. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, Jerome Delvin, R-Richland, and Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, said they worried imposing what they called a “cap and tax” program during a recession would drive up energy prices for consumers and cost the state jobs.
“Since July, Washington has lost more than 24,000 jobs,” Delvin said. “Under cap-and-tax the cost of electricity, natural gas, fuel and any product made or transported in Washington will skyrocket. Our small businesses can barely keep their doors open now. Jobs are hanging by a thread.”