Inslee’s Executive Order 14-04 attempts to jumpstart action on his climate change initiatives. But it’s not clear that the EO has any teeth. Nonetheless, it’s a clear statement of where the governor wants to take the state.

The Governor’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce is hereby created to provide
recommendations on the design and implementation of a carbon emission limits and market
mechanisms program for Washington. The Taskforce’s advice and recommendations will inform
legislation to be requested by the Governor for consideration during the 2015 legislative session.

The carbon emissions reduction program must establish a cap on carbon pollution emissions,
with binding requirements to meet our statutory emission limits, and it must include the market 3
mechanisms needed to meet the limits in the most effective and efficient manner possible. The
program must be designed to maximize the benefits and minimize the implementation costs,
considering our emissions and energy sources, and our businesses and jobs.

The Everett Herald generally welcomes the initiative. A key state senator isn’t so sure.

Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale and chair of the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee, said Republicans were not given a heads-up about Tuesday’s announcement, which was attended by several Democratic legislators. And he suggested that Inslee handpicked the committee for members who lean toward the governor’s environmental views.

Regardless, it appears that the group’s primary activity will involve shaping the governor’s 2015 legislative agenda. Implementation of most of what’s discussed in the EO would require legislation and appropriation.

Committee members may want to consider limitations on what can be accomplished at the state level. The Institute for Energy Research offers some useful commentary in this discussion of the Massachusetts gubernatorial race.

Even if you truly believed that humanity faced an “undeniable climate crisis,” a carbon tax levied on the state of Massachusetts would not be a very effective method of addressing the problem. The problem here is what economists call“leakage.” This refers to the fact that when one jurisdiction clamps down on carbon dioxide emissions, industry and even households (given time) will relocate to other jurisdictions, increasing their emissions. Thus the reduction in emissions in the newly-regulation (or taxed) zone is not really a global reduction, because some percentage of that reduction is offset by increased emissions outside of the zone.

The problem of leakage is bad enough when we’re considering national carbon taxes; a 2008 Congressional Research Report cites the IPCC estimate that countries embracing the Kyoto Protocol level of emission cuts would face 5 percent to 20 percent leakage rates. But in general, leakage rates get higher, the smaller the zone of the policy. Consider: There would be no leakage—0 percent—if a world government implemented a carbon tax on all of Earth. On the other hand, there would be 100 percent leakage if a local town board decided to place a carbon tax on one specific business at a particular address; that location would shut down, and move down the street.

Once we see how this works, we should realize just how ineffective a state-wide carbon tax would be, particularly for a mid-sized state like Massachusetts, which only has about 2 percent of the U.S. population and less than 3 percent of national output (in 2009). Even draconian efforts to crack down on Massachusetts emissions would largely result simply in making people there poorer, as businesses and population moved to other states.

Washington is about the same size as Massachusetts. The EO lays out an ambitious charge. CERT will certainly bear watching.