“I don’t think the state should virtue signal on the backs of working Washingtonians,” Stokesbary says of CCA during operating budget debate
Washington drivers are paying some of the highest gas prices in the country, driven in large part by the state’s 55-cent gas tax and the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). The CCA is adding about 57 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline, taking roughly $1.5 billion a year from Washington drivers while only reducing global carbon emissions by an estimated 0.0008 percent.
During debate on the House supplemental operating budget Feb. 28, House Republican Leader Rep. Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn, urged lawmakers to support an amendment returning some CCA revenues to Washington drivers — $100 for gas vehicle owners and $50 for hybrid drivers.
“We hear often on this floor that budgets are about values,” Stokesbary said. “Madam Speaker, one of my values is that I don’t think the state should virtue signal on the backs of working Washingtonians. Unfortunately, the Climate Commitment Act does not do much more than virtue signal.”
The Democratic majority rejected the amendment.
Watch Stokesbary’s remarks:
Full transcript:
We hear often on this floor that budgets are about values. Madam Speaker, one of my values is that I don’t think the state should virtue signal on the backs of working Washingtonians. Unfortunately, the Climate Commitment Act does not do much more than virtue signal.
A recent study came out showing that it is responsible for just 0.008 percent of global climate reductions. It does virtually nothing.
Recently, the Department of Ecology produced a map showing where CCA funds have been deployed by legislative district. Do you know what the CCA is funding in my district, Madam Speaker? Climate planning positions with city governments and one EV charging station at one apartment.
That is not reducing our carbon output. That is employing a few more public employees and giving one apartment complex a few more electric vehicle chargers. That is the definition of virtue signaling.
Madam Speaker, the worst part is not just that this body, through the Climate Commitment Act, chose to virtue signal. It chose to do so on the backs of working Washingtonians. That is something this budget amendment would undo.
I don’t know about your district, Madam Speaker. It might be somewhat like mine. My district is not particularly wealthy. A lot of my neighbors commute to jobs in Seattle and Bellevue through an hour of traffic every day.
I have neighbors who are teachers in Bellevue, police officers in Redmond, and paralegals in downtown Seattle. I am sure they would love to live closer to their working-class jobs, but they cannot afford to do so because of the land-use decisions by this state. That is another topic that is not germane to the one at hand.
However, what they are doing is this: They are forced to spend hours a day in a car commuting to their jobs away from their families and putting gas in their cars to do so.
They would love to spend less on gas, as the Climate Commitment Act wants them to do, but they can’t. They are forced to live far away, and their demand for gasoline is extremely inelastic.
In order to fund the Climate Commitment Act, we have asked my constituents to spend ungodly amounts of money on gasoline. In Washington state, we charge, on average, a dollar more per gallon for gas than our neighbors next door in Idaho do.
Of course we would love to reduce carbon. But, Madam Speaker, my constituents cannot afford to move any closer. They have to consume that amount of gas just to get to their jobs, just to make ends meet, just so they can afford to live in one of the most expensive states in the country, thanks to the actions of this body.
This amendment would be one very small step toward doing something to deliver real affordability relief for our constituents who need it most.
I heard a minute ago from the gentlewoman from the 22nd District that this Climate Commitment Act was unanimously approved by the voters of Washington. That’s not true, and it certainly was not approved by a majority of voters in my district.
They are crying out for tax relief. This is one way that we can do it.
Madam Speaker, please vote yes.
