Prof. Aseem Prakash and colleague Prof. Nives Dolšak write in Forbes magazine that Washington State is for climate action but wary of new regulations.
Washington voted on two climate policy initiatives: Initiative 2117 (I-2117) which sought to overturn the state’s “cap-and-invest” system established by the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), and Initiative 2066 (I-2066) which would prohibit state and local regulations discouraging natural gas use...
Why are voters sending conflicting signals on climate policy? Political scientists suggest costs and benefits drive the politics of regulations. Voters support regulations that create local benefits, even when these policies impose new costs. Although cap-and-invest increased gasoline prices, voters recognized that its revenues ($3.2 billion in 2023-25) created local benefits such as public transportation and better roads, new ferries, improved forest health, and wildfire prevention. In contrast, voters did not see sufficient local benefits from restricting gas access; they saw additional costs and reduced energy choices. Hence, they supported I-2066 which sought to repeal policies incentivizing gas transition.
Please link here for the full article.