Voting measures focus on climate change, fossil fuels are lacking

Voters on Tuesday rejected efforts to deter the country from burning fossil fuels and exploiting renewable energy sources, through a band of resource rich Western states.

Voters in Arizona, one of the sunniest states in the country, easily dismantled a measure that would have accelerated the transition to electricity from renewable sources, especially solar power. Colorado residents, rich in oil and gas, have overturned a measure to severely limit drilling on state-owned land.

Even in the state of Washington 's sustained blue, the first results seemed bleak for the country' s most climate – friendly poll measure this fall: a scale – wide initiative. State that would have imposed a single tax on carbon dioxide emissions, the most widespread greenhouse gases that cause global warming. While voters in King County, where Seattle resides, have been very supportive of the move, residents of the rest of the state have largely opposed it.

A plus point for environmentalists came to Nevada, where voters seemed on the verge of adopting a measure similar to that rejected by the inhabitants of Arizon. Utilities would need to produce 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. The proposal is progressing well, with most votes counted early Wednesday, but even then there was a another obstacle. Before the measure can become law, it must survive a second vote in 2020.

The failure of the voting measures highlights the difficulty of solving a global problem such as the climate change policy at the national and local levels, as well as the huge sums of money that any effort is likely to to require both sides. However, as scientists warn that the world lacks time to prevent devastating levels of global warming, environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers have given hope to state and local governments. to counter the reduction by the Trump administration of the Obama era efforts to combat climate change. .

Since President Trump took office, a handful of states – notably California – have vowed to counterbalance energy and environmental policy with a president who frequently rejects the government's findings that human activity is heating up the planet. . In September, California codified in law its commitment to produce 100% of its electricity from carbon – free circuits by 2045.

But the results of Tuesday's voting question demonstrate the limits that other states are willing to follow the California initiative, especially when campaigners against the proposals point to the potential impact on the portfolios.

"What we learned from this election, in states like Colorado, Arizona, and Washington, is that voters have rejected policies that would make energy more expensive and less reliable." said Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance. advocacy group, said in a statement.

Supporters and supporters have invested more than $ 54 million in the fight for the future of energy in Arizona. Only two Senate races in the country – Florida and Texas – saw an increase in spending this year.

The influx of cash underscores just how much the two parties believed to be at stake. The voting initiative would have modified Arizona's constitution to force electric utilities to use renewable energy for 50% of its electricity production by 2035. This might seem easy to achieve under the Arizona sun. But the state now only receives about 6% of its solar energy.

Arizona Public Service, or APS, is the strongest opponent to the proposal, investing more than $ 30 million in a political action committee called Arizonans for Affordable Electricity. In an aggressive advertising campaign, the group argued that the measure would cost households an additional $ 1,000 a year.

"We said throughout this campaign that there was a better way to create a clean energy future for Arizona that is also affordable and reliable," said the Executive Director. from APS, Don Brandt, in a statement Tuesday night.

At the same time, an alliance of dozens of organizations called "Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona" argued that moving to cleaner energy would improve public health and create good jobs in the US. State. The group has received considerable support from a billionaire investor and California political activist, Tom Steyer, who donated the lion's share of the $ 23.6 million raised until the end of September.

Twenty-nine states and the district already have programs, called renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS), requiring utilities to ensure that a certain amount of electricity and electricity is available. They sell comes from renewable resources. But only a fraction of these have goals as ambitious as those proposed this year in Arizona and Nevada. For example, New York and New Jersey also aim for a 50% renewable energy by 2050. Hawaii would require that 100% of its energy comes from renewable sources by 2045.

However, during the 2018 campaign, 11 Democratic presidential candidates promised to try to get electricity from their respective states from "clean" energy sources by mid-century, according to polls by affiliates of the Conservative League. Voters Many of these candidates, including Jared Polis in Colorado, won their races.

In Colorado, conservationists had failed to adopt a measure known as Proposition 112. The initiative would have required the new wells to be at least 2,500 feet of occupied buildings and 'other' vulnerable areas' such as parks and irrigation canals, a distance many times greater than that of buildings. existing regulations. It also allows local governments to demand even longer setbacks.

While oil production has skyrocketed in Colorado in recent years and as the population has grown, more and more residents are living near oil and gas facilities. Proponents of the vote felt that it was necessary to reduce the potential health risks, as well as the noise and other annoyances of life near the drilling sites. Opponents countered that the proposal would virtually eliminate new oil and gas drilling on non-federal land in the state (they saw it as an anti-fracturing impulse) and claimed that it would cost jobs and jobs. would deprive local governments of tax revenues.

Protect Colorado, the industry-backed group, has raised about $ 38 million this year while it opposed the controversial measure that would "eliminate thousands of jobs and devastate the economy." Colorado's economy for years to come. " In contrast, the main group The proposal, known as Colorado Rising for health and safety, has raised about a million dollars.

"We thank Colorado voters who understand the devastating impact of this measure on the economy, school funding, public safety and other local services," said Karen Crummy, Protect Colorado spokesperson, in an email on Tuesday.

In addition, Chip Rimer, chairman of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association's board of directors, called Proposition 112 "an extreme proposition" that would have devastated the state's economy. "In the future, we will continue to work with all stakeholders to develop solutions that allow us to continue to provide the energy we need, the economy we want and the energy we need. environment that we value, "he said in a statement.

Coloradans also rejected Tuesday a separate but related measure that would have changed Colorado's constitution to allow homeowners to seek redress if the government's actions devalue their property. The proposal was severely criticized by dozens of city councils and criticized by Governor John Hickenlooper (D), who described it as a "dangerous idea" in which "unscrupulous developers and speculators could assert to local governments everything they think has hurt the value of their land. "

At the same time, in Washington, the effort to set a price on carbon emissions is about to fall on Wednesday, with 56.3% of voters rejecting the measure and 43.7% supporting it with two-thirds of the votes counted. An official at the Secretary of State's office in Washington said the state's mail-order voting system involved several days for final counting of votes.

This measure, known as the 1631 Initiative, would have made Washington the first state in the country to tax carbon dioxide – an approach that many scientists, conservationists and policymakers will deem essential on a broad scale to to keep the world away from its dependence on fossil fuels. .

But this proposal, along with other environmental initiatives across the country, had to face a tough battle between the big oil refiners and a group of defenders including unions, Native American groups, corporate leaders such as Bill Gates and the former mayor of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg. as well as the Democratic State Governor Jay Inslee.

He also set a record of public spending en route for a state voting initiative. The group lobbying for the carbon tax, known as the Clean Air Clean Energy Coal, has raised more than $ 15 million. Meanwhile, oil companies owned by the Western States Petroleum Association have injected more than $ 31 million in opposition to the measure.

The initial fee of $ 15 per tonne would have started in 2020, then would have increased from $ 2 per ton (plus inflation) each year until 2035, when they would either be frozen or rising, depending on whether the state had achieved its goals of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate activists won at least one victory on Tuesday in the Sunshine State. Voters in Florida, who may have remembered the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, overwhelmingly decided to change their state's constitution to ban offshore oil and gas in their waters. .

But even then, it was unclear whether the mere drilling at sea had motivated 69% of voters to support this measure, as it was associated with a proposal to ban vaping within.