REDMOND, WA – In case you missed it, Todd Myers and Brian Heywood represented the “yes” on 2117 campaign in a Seattle Times endorsement meeting last week. While the “no” campaign used amateur debate tactics and relied on the Editorial Board to provide cover, Myers and Heywood provided factual reasoning for why Washington voters should question the efficacy and efficiency of the Climate Commitment Act (CCA).
If you don’t have an hour to watch the full debate, read below for some of the more compelling moments of the conversation:
- Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, a legislator who worked on the original text of the CCA, admitted that there are no systems in place to track the progress of the program (even though there are dollars from the CCA dedicated to the tracking and reporting of such successes).
- Todd Myers aptly pointed out that though the Governor has been working on climate-related issues since 2012, there has not been any documentation on the success of his climate programs since 2019.
- There was no rebuttal to the argument that the CCA is being implemented without oversight or basic requirements to prove that the programs it invests taxpayer dollars in do anything to reduce carbon emissions or improve the environment.
- The “no” campaign continuously brought up that improvements should be made to the CCA, but it’s clear they would have never been having such a conversation without the pressure from I-2117 threatening repeal (16:30).
- The Editorial Board suggested LGW should have made a tracking initiative for the CCA instead of repealing the entire thing, as if people losing hundreds of dollars to broken programs wasn’t a compelling enough reason to repeal the whole program.
- Myers reminded the board that even though the “no” campaign claims transportation funding will be slashed, the CCA funds are not legally eligible to be used on road and bridge maintenance.
- Opposition claimed that prices will not decrease when I-2117 is passed in November – to which Myers offered a $100 bet to charity that they will.
Bottom Lines: The No on 2117 campaign has been openly dishonest from the start. From Senator Liias’ comments about roads and bridges, to the claim that children will die from asthma without the CCA in place (?), it’s clear that their primary form of offense is lying and fear mongering. Even their slogan of “we can’t afford it” is misleading since voters can’t afford to keep getting taxed by the CCA. The people know the truth, even if the Ed Board wants to protect the “no” campaign from having to answer to the faults of the CCA. The voters of Washington state will make their voices heard, and based on how many people have already signed on in support, the odds are looking good for 2117.