Lindsey Wasson/AP Photo
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee speaks at the Washington State Democrats watch party on Election Day, November 5, 2024, in Seattle.
With towering black clouds gathering over the American climate sector, one sign of optimism comes courtesy of Washington state. A healthy majority of voters delivered a thundering “no” to a billionaire hedge fund manager’s big-dollar quest to knock off a law aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With the vote count still under way on Thursday, 62 percent voted no, while 38 percent wanted to do away with the Climate Commitment Act (CCA).
The proceeds from the CCA have pumped billions into transportation, wildlife preservation, wildfire prevention, and dozens of climate-adjacent programs. “No on 2117” voters also staved off an attempt to prevent any similar cap-and-invest frameworks from passing in the future. The green light from voters means that Washington state can continue to pursue linkages with California and Quebec in the Western Climate Initiative, another multisector carbon market program.
Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee expressed confidence that that plan would move forward regardless of the change in Washington. “We now have a climate denier in the White House,” he told the Prospect, “but it’s really important to realize that we still have the enormous authority of the states and the cities and the counties to control our destinies, and that’s what we’re doing.”
Not only did Washington state voters refuse to go backwards on their cap-and-invest plan, they voted to replace the retiring Inslee, who took up his own statewide CCA canvassing mission, with another climate-forward Democrat, Attorney General Bob Ferguson. Ferguson thumped former Republican Rep. Dave Reichert, 56 percent to 44 percent.
When it comes to Trump, Ferguson has his own claim to fame. He was the first attorney general in the country to sue the first Trump administration over the 2017 travel ban, and ended up filing nearly 100 lawsuits overall. Many of Ferguson’s victories came on environmental issues, such as violations of the Clean Water Act.
In a September debate with his Republican opponent, Ferguson pledged to follow through on boosting clean-energy job creation strategies and reviewing certain CCA exemptions for farmers. (The logistics of agricultural exemptions have been “very difficult” to carry out for the entire sector, according to Inslee. What works for larger companies doesn’t necessarily work for some of the smaller enterprises, which currently receive rebates.)
The “No on 2117” campaign’s messaging stressed that polluters, not ordinary taxpayers, were paying into environmental and clean-energy programs that they would end up losing if the CCA went down. Going into late October with more than 20 percent of likely voters signaling indecision meant that there was room for persuasion. The “No” campaign also found success in assembling a strong coalition of nearly 600 organizations and interests, from health care professionals to multinational corporations and tribal nations, around a complex solution that compels polluters to pay up through a program of progressively more expensive “allowances” if they fail to institute cleanup efforts and continue to pollute.
The force of climate denial is strong within the Trump coalition, and its propensity for aggressive arm-twisting is equally well known. Would other states like New York shy away from similar cap-and-invest programs because of fears of what the Trump administration may do if they pursue stronger efforts to decrease carbon emissions? Inslee doesn’t think so. He believes that the Trump White House was a “galvanizing” force for climate advocacy. Similarly, threats to the landmark Inflation Reduction Act and its climate-forward programs will be greeted with pushback if Trump goes after them.
“The likelihood is that Congress is not going to meddle with those expenditures because they’re popular back home,” Inslee says. “Even Republicans will not want to cut jobs in all the districts.”
