Americans got to vote on lots of energy measures in 2018 – and mostly rejected them

November 9, 2018 by Garth Heutel, The Conversation

Americans in at least seven states voted on ballot initiatives during the 2018 midterm elections. These measures targeted everything from raising targets for the share of electricity drawn from renewable energy to charging a tax on carbon emissions.

Campaigns to defeat these initiatives related to energy and climate policy, financed heavily by big oil and gas companies and utilities, substantially outspent proponents. They prevailed in nearly every case. At the same time, however, voters elected many politicians who had vowed to take action to reduce the country's footprint. Those leaders could potentially bring on the same kinds of policies through other means.

Like most environmental economists, I believe that strong policies can help rein in . And, I believe that market-based policies like a are the best way to do that. But following the 2018 midterms, it might be the case that advocates of these policies will need to stick to backing politicians who will implement them directly rather than trying to effect change with ballot initiatives.

No national leadership

Since climate change is a global issue, it may seem odd that American states, counties and cities are forging their own policies to address it. In other countries, national authorities typically take the lead on this priority.

But the federal government has failed to address climate change even though the Environmental Protection Agency has effectively been obligated to regulate greenhouse gases for the past decade due to the Supreme Court's "endangerment" finding that those emissions are pollutants that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

After Congress failed in its attempt to pass comprehensive climate legislation during former President Barack Obama's administration, he bypassed lawmakers and relied on an executive order to establish his Clean Power Plan, which would have regulated carbon dioxide.

But President Donald Trump, who recently said of climate change that he doesn't "know that it's manmade" and that he believes it will "change back again," has basically ended all federal climate action by dismantling the Clean Power Plan and deciding to pull out of the Paris climate deal.

Many states are filling this climate leadership vacuum. California, for example, is committed to becoming completely carbon-neutral by 2045.

But not all states are moving quickly enough in this direction, climate activists fear. Voter-driven initiatives are one solution to this problem. These measures are proliferating based on a simple premise: Perhaps giving citizens a say at the ballot box will force state policymakers and legislators to adopt regulations that can meaningfully and swiftly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

Climate policies

As an economist, I see pollution as a classic case of market failure. That is, unless the authorities regulate carbon pollution, the market will produce too much of it. Because that excess pollution will contribute to climate change, it will ultimately end up damaging the economy.

Furthermore, there is also a strong economic argument to be made in favor of policies like Washington's carbon tax. Some economists call these types of policies "market-based policies," in contrast to "command-and-control" policies like renewable portfolio standards – state mandates that make utilities get at least a defined proportion of their electricity from like solar and wind power.

For a given pollution reduction goal, a market-based policy, economists generally agree, can achieve it at a lower cost than a command-and-control policy can – as long as that the market-based policy is sufficiently strict.

There are two main ways that Massachusetts, New York and other states are already trying reduce their carbon footprints to correct for this problem. The first is a market-based : cap and trade, otherwise known as emissions trading systems. Also known as emissions trading systems, this approach caps the total emissions allowed at a set level and then allocate emissions permits to factories, utilities and other polluters either for free or through auctions.

The other is through stronger renewable portfolio standards. Once states reach a benchmark, they can set more ambitious goals. When the authorities fail to do that or take other steps to deal with climate change and protect the environment from the risks tied to fossil fuels, one workaround is to have the electorate weigh in.

That doesn't always work either.

Indeed, Arizona voters rejected a measure on their 2018 ballots that would have increased their renewable energy target to 50 percent from 15 percent by an overwhelming margin.

A similar measure did prevail in Nevada. But before it can go into effect, voters will have to approve it a second time in 2020.

Taxing carbon

Perhaps most notably, voters in Washington declined to make their state the nation's first to tax carbon dioxide emissions.

This ballot initiative, which would have introduced a carbon "fee," failed to garner support from a majority of Washington voters. Those voters had rejected another carbon tax measure in 2016 as well.

Not all energy-related taxes flopped. Portland, Oregon's voters chose to create a new 1 percent tax on the gross receipts of all large retailers. The revenue it raises will establish a clean energy fund, to be used to meet the city's emissions reduction goals.

Other efforts to regulate fossil fuels at the ballot box also had mixed results. Florida voters amended their state constitution to ban offshore oil drilling, reinforcing a prohibition already on the state's books. And Californians bucked an effort to repeal a gas tax hike.

But Coloradans declined a chance to force their state to locate new oil and gas projects at least 2,500 feet from occupied buildings like homes, schools and hospitals.

An alternative

What can be more effective than winning specific changes at the ? Electing leaders inclined to make those changes once they're in office. And several newly elected governors have promised to support policies that will reduce carbon emissions.

Colorado Governor-elect Jared Polis, for example, backs shifting his state to 100 percent reliance on renewable energy for electricity by 2040. So do many of his peers, including J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, Tony Evers in Wisconsin, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and Stephen Sisolak in Nevada.

Janet Mills in Maine aims to cut her state's by 80 percent by 2030. Michelle Lujan Grisham in New Mexico consistently voted for environmental legislation while serving in the House of Representatives.

Change at the federal level may remain elusive for now. But many of the new members of Congress who won their first elections in 2018, including New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sean Casten of Illinois and Virginian Elaine Luria, support phasing out oil, gas and coal consumption. And the Democratic Party plans to restore a special committee focused on climate change once it formally takes control of the House.

These new lawmakers will be poised to do more about change than their predecessors once there is a president who makes it a priority.

Explore further: Taxes and caps on carbon work differently but calibrating them poses the same challenge

Related Stories

US to miss Paris climate pact target by a third

September 12, 2018

The United States will fall short by a third on its commitment under the Paris climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released Wednesday in San Francisco.

Trump's coal plan—neither clean nor affordable

August 23, 2018

Is climate change a problem? Consider the evidence: wildfires in California, Sweden and Siberia; flooding in coastal areas due to sea level rise; droughts in some places and extreme weather and rainfall in others; new and ...

How China is taking on climate change

July 20, 2018

In 2017, China was the world's leading emitter of heat-trapping gases by a wide margin. Its policies for limiting emissions will have a significant impact on the global climate for decades to come.

World's carbon emissions on the rise again: IEA

March 22, 2018

Harmful carbon emissions from energy rose in 2017 for the first time in three years, the International Energy Agency said Thursday, proof that the world's efforts to fight climate change are falling short.

Recommended for you

Climate simulations project wetter, windier hurricanes

November 14, 2018

New supercomputer simulations by climate scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have shown that climate change intensified the amount of rainfall in recent hurricanes ...

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2018
One of the ugly facts about politics, government, democracy. For many groups, it's all nothing more than a self aggrandizement scheme. When people vote the way that makes leaders of the groups richer, they praise democracy loudly. If the majority do not vote that way, they attack democracy and people making their own choice as compromised.
Among other things, the article says investment by oil and gas companies and utilities defeated "climate change" efforts. Far be it that the article would say that it was the people's choice and that that choice should be respected and may even be right! The initiative of this article is that "scientists" never lie, are always right, must control the world.
Note the suggestion, Democratic Rackets approved policies for the environment need "politicians who will implement them directly rather than trying to effect change with ballot initiatives"! Not revealing agendas ahead of time, then springing them on the people!
mrburns
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2018
Evidently the American voting public have a better grasp of science and economics than the editors of this web endeavor. The voting American population also disapprove of totalitarianism and favor freedom and the constitution whereas the editors of this publication dont,viewing "Brave New World" and "1984" as instruction manuals rather than dystopian fiction.
gkam
not rated yet Nov 11, 2018
I voted with my pocketbook, and installed a PV system, and bought two electric cars.

After three years the system paid back, and now we get free house power and horsepower. Does mrburns still go to gas stations, and out for emissions checks, for oil changes, for transmission work, for tune-ups, for muffler or injector or alternator work?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.