The City’s symbolic stand to protect the environment from the rich and powerful matters less than how they invest money toward that end in their own budget. by Hannah Krieg The Seattle City Council passed a resolution Tuesday opposing I-2117, a Republican-backed, Let’s-Go-Washington-branded initiative that would overturn the Climate Commitment Act (CCA)’s cap-and-trade system and prevent the state from establishing another one in the future. If the initiative passes, Washington communities will lose billions in funding to improve air quality, public transit, fish habitat, and wildfire prevention, all to allow Washington’s wealthiest corporations to pump millions of metric tons of carbon emissions for free. The City should get some flowers for their support of the CCA, but, as with any good thing self-proclaimed Democrats have ever done, it's just not enough. To meaningfully protect the CCA, the City must also oppose I-2066, Let’s Go Washington’s electrification ban. And, if the City wants the clout of choosing the environment over the profits of the wealthy few, the City must do so in their own budget, too.  The City of Seattle finally joins Redmond, Kenmore, Burien, and a broad coalition of 500 organizations, including labor groups, environmentalists, tribal nations, and others in calling for a “no” vote on I-2117. Under the cap-and-trade scheme, Washington sets a cap on carbon emissions and auctions off carbon allowances to polluters. Gradually, the state lowers the cap, selling fewer and fewer allowances at higher and higher rates. If everything goes to plan, the system will lower carbon emissions 95 percent from 2022 levels by 2050.  In its first couple of years, the State has raised more than $2 billion from selling carbon allowances. The money that polluters spend to spew absolute bile into our environment goes toward environmental initiatives, investing in populations particularly vulnerable to our changing climate, and projects with Tribal support.  The State has awarded Seattle more than $26 million from the CCA to promote Mayor Bruce Harrell’s Climate Justice Agenda, according to the mayor’s office. Harrell, who proposed the resolution, sung the CCA’s praises in a press conference last month where he announced a bonus rebate to help residents transition from oil heat to electric heat pumps. The rebate, Harrell noted, would not be possible without a recent $3.2 million award from the CCA.  “The Climate Commitment Act is good policy, simple as that, it's good policy. It defines us as one of the greatest, greenest states in this country,” Harrell said.  If Harrell cares about heat-pump rebates, he’s gotta care about another item on the November ballot, I-2066. Let’s Go Washington may market I-2066 as an initiative to repeal the State’s “gas ban,” but the state has no such ban. In reality, the legislation I-2066 seeks to destroy simply requires Puget Sound Energy (PSE) to create some weak-sauce plan to meet the state’s pollution reduction goals without fucking over the poor. More egregiously, I-2066 forbids the state from ever doing anything ever again to “prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.”  Passing I-2066 would weaken the CCA, which funds almost $40 million in incentives to residents and businesses to switch to more energy efficient appliances. Republican lawsuit spammers may see rebates from the CCA as a means to “discourage” the use of gas. Please send those last few paragraphs to the Seattle Times editorial board, which ignorantly endorsed a “yes” vote on the electrification ban but a “no” vote on the CCA that the ban would weaken.  Mayoral spokesperson Callie Craighead said they are considering resolutions on initiatives that “directly impact” City programs. I-2066 would also affect the Building Emissions Performance Standards, which incentivizes electrification, Craighead noted. She said the Mayor’s office “should have more to share on that soon.”  To be clear, Let’s Go Washington’s two other initiatives–I-2109 to repeal the capital gains tax and I-2124 to allow people to opt out of the Long-Term Care Act–would certainly affect people living in Seattle. I-2109 would totally gut public schools, and I-2124 would destroy our one shot at a stronger social safety net for our aging population.  Either way, the Mayor would have to work quickly. As of Tuesday, city council spokesperson Brad Harwood said he had not heard of any other resolutions coming before the council. The next and only opportunity to vote on such a resolution before the general election would be October 22, he said.  The council seemed happy to vote on the resolution this week. Several council members expressed their support for the CCA when Council Member Tammy Morales brought it for a vote — except for Council President Sara Nelson, who historically abstains from non-binding resolutions, especially those that tell the public how to vote. That’s convenient for her if she does not support the cap-and-trade system, but we’ll never know! Harrell’s office did not respond to my attempts to probe him for any shit-talk about Nelson on this.  On the other hand, Council Member Cathy Moore noted that the State earmarked more than $50 million from the CCA to pay for much needed improvements to Seattle’s deadliest road, Aurora Avenue, which runs through Moore’s council district. Council Member Dan Strauss said repealing the CCA would be a “bad deal for Washington.”  Hopefully, Strauss, as the Budget Chair, realizes the Mayor’s proposed budget represents a “bad deal” for Seattle. In his recently unveiled 2025-2026 budget proposal, Harrell raided $330 million from JumpStart revenue—a pot of money generated by taxing the city’s largest corporations and earmarked for affordable housing, environmental initiatives, and economic development for small business—to fill the huge deficit without levying new taxes on the rich or raising existing ones, aside from fees for community centers and the link. In this way, like the Let’s Go Washington initiative, Harrell sacrifices important public goods, particularly those that strengthen climate resiliency, to allow corporations to continue to hoard wealth.  A few members of the city council have hinted in budget briefings that they want to return some of those funds to their intended priorities, but council members, with the exception of Morales, have not made clear their intention to raise taxes to save JumpStart priorities and avoid cuts to other programs funded by the General Fund.  When asked if he planned to propose new taxes, Strauss told The Stranger in a phone call shortly after Harrell released the budget that the council will “explore all options.” Strauss, despite running in his 2023 campaign as one of the fiercest champions for progressive revenue in any of the council races, has been unforthcoming about taxes since in office. The public will understand more about Strauss’s plan in the coming weeks, particularly when he unveils his chair’s package on October 30.  But, to be so fr, the City’s symbolic stand to protect the environment from the rich and powerful matters less than how they invest money toward that end in their own budget.