Read on Twitter
I encourage these candidates and others who care about effectively reducing CO2 to look at the data and actual experience with an LCFS. The LCFS is one of the most wasteful, inequitable, and ineffective ways to cut CO2. #waleg 1/11 https://twitter.com/MelissaSantos1/status/1324402080111497216
California’s LCFS has been in existence for 7 years and we can use their experience to see how it would work. The data are clear that it is a mess. 2/11
First, it is very expensive - $200 per metric ton of CO2. That is 28X as expensive as other available CO2-reduction projects. Put another way, an LCFS wastes 96% of the money spent to reduce CO2. 3/11
(It is worth noting that that price in California is higher than the highest price that was projected when it was adopted.) 4/11
Second, it taxes the poor and subsidizes the rich. Analysis of California’s LCFS finds that most of the funding goes to EV stations in wealthy communities, but costs are disproportionately borne by working families. 5/11
Third, it does almost nothing to reduce traditional air pollution. Both the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Dept. of Ecology both say the LCFS would reduce particulate matter by LESS THAN 1% OVER A DECADE. 6/11
Fourth, the cost of this policy to consumers is extremely high. When fully implemented, it will cost 28 cents per gallon, using the current California price. 7/11
Fifth, some proponents say all of this waste is fine because it will help create a biofuel economy in Washington. In its analysis of an LCFS, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency admitted this is false. 8/11
Finally, this is why California’s Legislative Analyst Office says bluntly that the “LCFS Likely Not the Most Cost-Effective Strategy to Reduce GHGs.” The LCFS is about rewarding special interests, not CO2 reduction. 9/11
There are many things Washington could do to effectively reduce CO2 emissions. The easiest and most effective would simply to be to invest in certified CO2-reduction projects that are already on the market. High value. Low cost. 10/11
Adding another complicated bureaucratic scheme where 95% of the money is wasted, however, shows a lack of seriousness about climate policy and for those who claim to believe climate change is a “crisis” is remarkably hypocritical. 11/11
