A lot of states, though, have systems by which the voters can seek redress by placing voter initiatives on the state ballots, which is an exercise in democracy. California takes this to an extreme, but the practice is widespread, even here in Alaska, where the perfectly awful ranked-choice voting and jungle primary systems will be on the ballot this November, hopefully to be overturned. And in Washington State, there is a movement to put that state's "Climate Commitment Act" on the ballot - to be gutted. 

May they have the best of luck. This is a bad law for several reasons. Watts Up With That's Paul Fundingsland has the story.

Many in Washington State feel our legislature has gone “off the rails” creating and putting into law the “Climate Commitment Act” (CCA).  It has thousands of obscure moving parts including: the “Cap and Invest” scheme of forced participation by “classified” businesses in a carbon emissions allowances auction contrivance adversely affecting their bottom line which they then pass along to their customers; possible dubious alignments with other states including a province in Canada; prospects of a forced transition from gas appliances to all electric; and a timetable mandating a transition from gas to EV transportation. 

After the first forced “carbon emission allowances auction” there was a corresponding immediate severe adverse effect of increasing gasoline prices ($.38 – $.50 a gallon) with accompanying rising utility prices beginning to take effect with ever escalating costs projected for the future.

It's important to note that these increases, due to an act driven by the left who mostly seem to control Washington's state government, not only gasoline prices but the prices of everything that it takes gasoline or diesel fuel to transport - so, everything - has been driven up in Washington by this law. And these price increases land hardest on those least able to afford it.

I thought the left was supposed to care about the poor?

Here are some details on the ballot initiatives themselves:

The initiatives are a straight forward transparent effort.  They focus on state and private citizen finances.  It is not a political issue as neither political party is overtly sponsoring, supporting or has any visible connection with either of the initiatives.  No fossil fuel-based company has been involved in any way. 

The two CCA ballot initiatives are here and here.

Although some of the effects of the intricacies in the initiatives are nuanced, basically If approved by the voters, I-2117 will put an end to all the CCA’s various moving parts including the forced participation by designated companies and businesses (primarily refineries and utilities) in the quarterly “carbon emission allowances auctions”.  This would result in significantly lower gas prices at the pump. 

Passage of I-2066 will basically protect the citizens and their pocketbooks from any current or future forced transition away from gas appliances to all electric.  This preserves the ability to freely keep and choose the energy source preferred by residents without incurring any sort of dubious financial penalty concocted by State agencies.

Looks like a good start. So why is this law in place at all?

See Related: China Planning New Controls on Carbon Emissions? Don't Believe Them. 

Climate Hypocrisy Exposed: EV Battery Production's Demand for Nickel Wreaking Havoc in Indonesia

Because of the leftist bugaboo of anthropogenic climate change, of course. Now, for just a moment, let's set aside the argument about how much influence humans really have on the earth's ever-changing climate and look instead at how much effect this law might really be expected to have.

Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 missions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).

And Washington's contribution to all this? That's even more ridiculous.

Since Washington State contributes 1.5% of the U.S. CO2 emissions, our State contribution through the Climate Commitment Act on achieving Net Zero by 2050 would therefore result in 0.00051 degrees Celsius (0.000915 degrees Fahrenheit) of averted warming.  These numbers are so ludicrously minuscule they are way beyond the ability to be scientifically measured. These temperature warming aversion numbers are even harder to comprehend than those for the entire U.S and yet here they are. Attainment of these numbers would result in an utterly measureless, unverifiable return on the citizens’ forced heavy financial warming reduction investments.

Did you get that? This Washington law, a drag on that state's economy to the tune of billions, would result in nine ten-thousandths of a degree in "averted warming." That's measured in Freedom Degrees; if you go all commie Celsius, it's five ten-thousandths of a degree.

What a waste of time and money.

Hopefully, these measures will come before the voters. As I said at the beginning, I'm not a fan of direct democracy, but sometimes the citizens have to use every tool at their disposal to rein in a government run amok, and this sure looks like one of those times. This mess will cost Washington taxpayers billions and will substantially reduce their standard of living, all in pursuit of a goal that one needs a scanning electron microscope to detect.

Good luck, Washington!