Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to WA’s Climate Commitment Act

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA).

The justices did not publish any written justification for their decision, according to The Seattle Times.

Invenergy, a company that runs a natural gas plant in Grays Harbor, initiated the lawsuit against the CCA, claiming it is unconstitutional and unfair to private operators, as public utilities receive free allowances. The company, based in Chicago, also cited that the law was unfair to out-of-state businesses.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the challenge came after a U.S. District Court judge and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both affirmed the law’s validity. Last November, 62% of voters supported the carbon market created through the CCA after a ballot initiative designed to kill the policy was formed.

“This should send a strong message to other states considering similar policies,” Washington Department of Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller wrote, according to The Seattle Times. “State leadership on climate has never been more important, and Washington is committed to continuing our progress in reducing carbon pollution.”

According to The Seattle Times, at least two dozen cases have been filed against the CCA, with each case falling in favor of the state.

Cliff Mass claims WA’s Climate Commitment Act has ‘no benefit for mankind’

Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington (UW), believes the Climate Commitment Act “is not a good investment” for the state or its residents.

“The impact of what we’re doing here in Washington state, it doesn’t make any sense at all. And that’s the truth,” Mass said on “The John Curley Show.” “The impact [towards global warming] of the U.S. is only like 15% of the total problem, and Washington state is way, way, way, way less, like 10% or less. So we’re not the problem, and the Climate Commitment Act will have no benefit for mankind.”

KIRO host John Curley provided Mass with a frequently used counterargument: that we all have to do our part in order to make substantial change.

“If we don’t do anything, then no one else does anything, then nothing happens,” Curley said. “But if we’re all in it, doing our part, it will help save this planet, the only planet that we have, from existential disaster.”

“There are a lot of weaknesses in that argument,” Mass countered. “First, global warming, even continuing what’s happening right now, is not an existential threat. It’s not even close to an existential threat. So that whole argument is false. Mankind can easily handle the moderate warming that’s going on.

“Secondly, the way to get out of this business is technological,” Mass continued. “In the end, we can use nuclear power, and we can use fusion power, which will eventually be available. Once we have that, the game is over. We will have unlimited energy that will put no CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, it’s even better than that. Once we have large amounts of nuclear or fusion power, we can actually pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, if we choose to do that. So this is not a threat of any significant nature. And in any case, the way to fix this problem is not by putting a few more windmills up, or something which don’t really help that much.”

Many climate activists are hesitant, or simply do not accept, nuclear power as a climate-friendly alternative, citing nuclear waste, accidents, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the damage to local ecosystems, cost, and the amount of energy required as reasons against it.

“Well, I think the environmental activists, for some reason, have decided that nuclear is no good. It’s not a rational decision,’ Mass said. “We need a more rational approach to energy. And again, nuclear is definitely very, very useful. Fusion power, it will come, that is very useful. If we do have modest changes in climate, we can adapt to that.”

Follow Frank Sumrall on X. Send news tips here.