Posted by: sweeneyblog | December 12, 2013

Ericksen and Ranker Committee Stalled on Climate Change Efforts

The Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup (yes, CLEW) met again last week to finalize their recommendations to the state legislature. As I wrote previously, this small group of five people (two Democrats including Sen. Ranker, two Republicans including Sen. Ericksen and Gov. Inslee) hold the fate of Inslee’s climate change efforts in their hands. So how is it going? Not well.

sen. doug ericksen

Sen. Ericksen

In November, a wide range of proposals were suggested and debatedbut the Republican members did not trust the economic analysis that had been conducted. So they brought their own economic analysis to the December 6th meeting, which naturally only supported the proposals of the Republican members.

The Democratic members disputed the economic analysis, instead using the numbers prepared by the non-partisan staff of the committee.

The event grew testy as Ericksen declared their efforts a “failure” because “nobody has brought forward that finished product.” Inslee asked if they were going to get any consensus, “if we have several members who want to make recommendations and several members who do not.”

The meeting ended with no proposal, although there is a public hearing tomorrow on some of the ideas being discussed. Here are the proposals of the committee, and of course, the Republicans wanted to present a different set of proposals separately. You can read those here. My favorite part of Ericksen’s proposal? Where he suggests  just reducing their goals to help the state achieve them. That’s right, your child isn’t making an “A?” Just tell them that “C” counts as an “A.”

The group is meeting again tomorrow and they are under the gun to get a proposal ready before the legislature convenes in January. Technically, the group could vote along party lines with the Governor siding with the Democrats and put forward proposals (Update: scratch that, Inslee can’t vote on this so it would end in gridlock – hat tip Ralph Schwartz) but without support from Republicans in general and Sen. Ericksen in particular, those bills would have little hope of passing the Senate.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Before passage, Republicans changed the language of the bill creating the work group to make Inslee a non-voting member. With Ericksen and Ranker so vastly far apart on climate change, the work group was designed and appointed to fail.

    • Good catch! This could definitely end in gridlock.

  2. My compliments to Senator Ericksen For standing against the use of bad, even demonstrably fraudulent, science as a basis for expensive, completely useless and counterproductive public policy, policy with undesirable secondary effects. Carbon-reduction strategies cost taxpayers and voters a great deal without producing any demonstrable positive effects on the environment and without any effect whatsoever on “climate change”.

    • Citation needed. How is the staff report “demonsstratably fraudulent”?

      • “demonsstratably”-is that a word or did you make it up?

      • I referred to the science, not to the staff report.

      • How is the science of climate change demonstrably false? Seems to me that there is a scientific consensus: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

      • That matter didn’t come before the Commission. Endless, economically destructive repetitive petitions to the GMHB are, in my opinion, the worst way to settle disagreements about land use policy, and the legal fees spent on appeal are an a rational response on the part of an elected body that represents the citizens of Whatcom County.

      • Here’s a citation (one of many): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

  3. Ah, smell the fraudulence. If anyone should avoid bringing up “expensive, completely useless and counterproductive public policy, policy with undesirable secondary effects.”, it is planning commission member David Onkels.

    Has anyone check to see how many of the Republican proposals are, word for word, from ALEC?

    • A-Rod?

    • “Planning Commission” should be capitalized. Do you have an example of “counterproductive public policy” in mind?

      • Just to jump in, I’d say flushing over $200,000 down the drain on Seattle lawyers to keep fighting a two decade old law.

  4. I’m embarrassed for you for having posted that “97%” study, which has been thoroughly discredited by almost everyone who’s read it, and whose authors have recanted the math.

    • Citation needed. Where has it been discredited and by whom? Again, every time I ask you for specifics you respond with vague derision.

  5. That’s as good as you’re going to get here. That’s an important meeting to prepare for.

  6. […] with his increased responsibility on the Ways and Means committee, his central role in the Governor’s Climate Change efforts and his leadership as President of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, Ranker is a busy Senator […]

  7. […] Doug Ericksen. He had avoided any ethical charges for his double-dipping on meal reimbursements and played a key role in pushing the Republican agenda on climate change over the interim. He was reappointed as chair of the powerful energy, environment […]

  8. […] exchange is particularly ironic considering that Ericksen and Inslee spent a year working on the Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup to craft policy solutions to climate change. The group dissolved when Ericksen and the other Republican member of the group refused to […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: