Connect with us

Carbon Tax

Trump targets Washington’s climate laws in recent executive order

Published

4 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday targeting state-level climate policies – including Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act – calling them unconstitutional and harmful to domestic energy production

The executive order directs attorneys general to take action against state laws and policies that address climate change or involve environmental justice, carbon or greenhouse gas emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.

That includes Washington’s CCA that requires emitters to either reduce their carbon footprint or purchase “allowances” via a cap-and-trade program, which sets a limit on emissions from the state’s largest polluters: oil refineries, utilities, and manufacturers.

The CCA’s cap lowers over time with the goal of getting to carbon neutrality by 2050. While the program has generated billions in revenue, only 11% directly funds emissions-reducing projects, with the rest supports climate resilience, public health programs, and infrastructure planning, as previously reported by The Center Square,

According to a press release from The White House, the executive order targets these state laws and policies because they “burden the use of domestic energy resources and that are unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”

Gov. Bob Ferguson does not believe the executive order has enough teeth to impact the state’s CCA.

“Voters upheld the Climate Commitment Act by a landslide, with 61% approval,” Ferguson told The Center Square in an email. “I am confident we will be able to preserve this and other important laws protecting our climate and investments in clean energy from this latest attack by the Trump administration.”

The Washington Department of Transportation told The Center Square it is working with federal and state partners to seek clarification about the implications and next steps of federal funding actions.

The Department of Ecology did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.

If U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi does go after the CCA and other environmental policies, Washington officials may argue that it’s within the state’s authority to regulate emissions for public health.

For example, The federal Clean Air Act allows states, including Washington, to adopt more stringent motor vehicle emission standards than the federal minimums in certain circumstances.

The 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed states’ standing to sue over carbon emissions, ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

This wouldn’t be the first time the state defended its environmental laws against federal challenges from the Trump administration.

Washington also fought emissions rollbacks during the first Trump administration when Ferguson was state attorney general.

One key victory came in 2024, when Washington helped defend California’s right to set stricter vehicle emission standards.

While Ferguson has not commented on the executive order, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham – co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance – issued a joint statement on Tuesday that states that the federal government cannot “unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority.”

“We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer,” the statement said.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is CRAZY high

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

POLL: Canadians say industrial carbon tax makes life more expensive

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass on most or some of the cost of the industrial carbon tax to consumers. Meanwhile, just nine per cent believe businesses pay most of the cost.

“The poll shows Canadians understand that a carbon tax on business is a carbon tax on Canadians that makes life more expensive,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Only nine per cent of Canadians believe Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s claim that businesses will pay most of the cost of his carbon tax.

“Canadians have a simple question for Carney: How much will your carbon tax cost?”

The federal government currently imposes an industrial carbon tax on oil and gas, steel and fertilizer businesses, among others.

Carney said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax and extend the “framework to 2035.” Carney also said that by “changing the carbon tax … We are making the large companies pay for everybody.”

The Leger poll asked Canadians who they think ultimately pays the industrial carbon tax. Results of the poll show:

  • 44 per cent say most of the cost is passed on to consumers
  • 26 per cent say some of the cost is passed on to consumers
  • 9 per cent say businesses pay most of the cost
  • 21 per cent don’t know

Among those decided on the issue, 89 per cent of Canadians say businesses pass on most or some of the cost to consumers.

“Carbon taxes on refineries make gas more expensive, carbon taxes on utilities make home heating more expensive and carbon taxes on fertilizer plants increase costs for farmers and that makes groceries more expensive,” Terrazzano said. “A carbon tax on business will push our entrepreneurs to cut production in Canada and increase production south of the border and that means higher prices and fewer jobs for Canadians.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X