Prospects for Climate Progress in the Absence of Energy Democracy: Lessons from the State of Washington

Abstract

Humanity is in a race to save itself, and much of the natural world, through decarbonization. The era of climate change requires drastic action on a short timeline if dire outcomes are to be avoided or minimized. The challenges are monumental, and a happy outcome is far from assured because real mitigation involves sacrifice and great expense. Every option should be on the table, and so it is fair to ask under what political structure it is most feasible to achieve sweeping, timely actions. Democratic forms of government are designed to follow the will of the people and, unfortunately, in many jurisdictions there isn’t much will for decarbonization. One can imagine a farsighted autocrat who would impose an effective climate solution, but there is little evidence that real-world autocratic leaders are willing to spend their political capital pursuing aggressive climate mitigation. The state of Washington may be a pertinent example of how government can move in the right direction. The population is unusually disposed to take on the disruptive costs of addressing climate change. Furthermore, the state is blessed with abundant hydropower, which gives it a big head start. With these advantages, Washington has implemented some of the strongest decarbonization policies in the United States. Results are limited so far, but if climate-change policies can succeed in the state of Washington, perhaps they can be made to work in democracies elsewhere. This thesis weighs the prospects for climate success in an aggressively “clean” state that operates in a capitalistic democracy. Evaluations have been informed by public policy documents and by verbal interviews with carefully selected experts, many of whom have a practical understanding of how emergent policies are changing the state of Washington. The interviews were conversations that explored the state’s decarbonization policies, asked whether the policies are adequate to meet state goals, and speculated about whether amending the form of democracy— making it an “Energy Democracy”—would speed things up. Using abductive social constructivism, public policy analysis, and the Multi-Level Perspective, the thesis analyzes five major policies in the state of Washington that were implemented in recent years. Together, these policies form an impressive and comprehensive plan for dealing with climate change on the state level, thus demonstrating that timely action in a democracy is possible. Ominously, however, an initiative on the state ballot in November 2024 threatens to undo key elements of the state’s climate plan in the name of saving money for consumers. It is backed by a vocal minority that is adamantly opposed to acting on the climate. It could find favor with an electorate that has proven itself capable of using initiative ballot issues to cut taxes at the expense of important programs that voters would endorse if they didn’t have to pay for them. Furthermore, some of the progress being logged by the state may be illusionary. Although utilities in the state are weening themselves off electricity from coal-fired generators in the nearby state of Montana, those same generators won’t go out of service anytime soon because the electricity they generate will merely be diverted for use in another state. The path forward isn’t always straightforward. Nevertheless, heartening progress is being made, and even though not all goals may be met on time, my conclusion is that there is a good chance that Washington can meet its future decarbonization targets—and likely without dramatically changing its form of democracy. If this proves to be true, we will have at least one example of a democracy acting in a timely and relatively comprehensive way to make progress. This success could be a model for other jurisdictions. As for meeting the existential threat of climate change, the odds may be stacked against the state of Washington—and all human society—but there is reason for hope.

Humanity is in a race to save itself, and much of the natural world, through decarbonization. The era of climate change requires drastic action on a short timeline if dire outcomes are to be avoided or minimized. The challenges are monumental, and a happy outcome is far from assured because real mitigation involves sacrifice and great expense. Every option should be on the table, and so it is fair to ask under what political structure it is most feasible to achieve sweeping, timely actions. Democratic forms of government are designed to follow the will of the people and, unfortunately, in many jurisdictions there isn’t much will for decarbonization. One can imagine a farsighted autocrat who would impose an effective climate solution, but there is little evidence that real-world autocratic leaders are willing to spend their political capital pursuing aggressive climate mitigation. The state of Washington may be a pertinent example of how government can move in the right direction. The population is unusually disposed to take on the disruptive costs of addressing climate change. Furthermore, the state is blessed with abundant hydropower, which gives it a big head start. With these advantages, Washington has implemented some of the strongest decarbonization policies in the United States. Results are limited so far, but if climate-change policies can succeed in the state of Washington, perhaps they can be made to work in democracies elsewhere. This thesis weighs the prospects for climate success in an aggressively “clean” state that operates in a capitalistic democracy. Evaluations have been informed by public policy documents and by verbal interviews with carefully selected experts, many of whom have a practical understanding of how emergent policies are changing the state of Washington. The interviews were conversations that explored the state’s decarbonization policies, asked whether the policies are adequate to meet state goals, and speculated about whether amending the form of democracy— making it an “Energy Democracy”—would speed things up. Using abductive social constructivism, public policy analysis, and the Multi-Level Perspective, the thesis analyzes five major policies in the state of Washington that were implemented in recent years. Together, these policies form an impressive and comprehensive plan for dealing with climate change on the state level, thus demonstrating that timely action in a democracy is possible. Ominously, however, an initiative on the state ballot in November 2024 threatens to undo key elements of the state’s climate plan in the name of saving money for consumers. It is backed by a vocal minority that is adamantly opposed to acting on the climate. It could find favor with an electorate that has proven itself capable of using initiative ballot issues to cut taxes at the expense of important programs that voters would endorse if they didn’t have to pay for them. Furthermore, some of the progress being logged by the state may be illusionary. Although utilities in the state are weening themselves off electricity from coal-fired generators in the nearby state of Montana, those same generators won’t go out of service anytime soon because the electricity they generate will merely be diverted for use in another state. The path forward isn’t always straightforward. Nevertheless, heartening progress is being made, and even though not all goals may be met on time, my conclusion is that there is a good chance that Washington can meet its future decarbonization targets—and likely without dramatically changing its form of democracy. If this proves to be true, we will have at least one example of a democracy acting in a timely and relatively comprehensive way to make progress. This success could be a model for other jurisdictions. As for meeting the existential threat of climate change, the odds may be stacked against the state of Washington—and all human society—but there is reason for hope.