Does anyone else have carbon markets on the ballot this election cycle? Here in Washington state (I’m in Seattle), we’re voting on an initiative in November that would eliminate our state’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA), Governor Jay Inslee’s signature piece of climate policy legislation (under the leadership of Laura Watson, director our state’s Department of Ecology, who is here in the CDRANet group when she’s not overseeing a staff of 1900 employees).

CCA is only three years old and is still a work-in-progress, but its main purpose is to put a hard cap on carbon emissions while at the same time making sure our state is better equipped to respond to what climate change is bringing to the Pacific Northwest—more droughts, floods, extreme heat events and wildfires. CCA also helps us transition to a greener energy grid, build more charging stations for electric vehicles, fund more energy efficiency projects, launch electric ferries, set aside funds to improve air quality, and more.

The initiative going before voters in our state would not only wipe out CCA, it would also bar our state agencies from participating in the carbon market going forward. The initiative specifically bans the cap and trade activity (and would eliminate the state’s carbon auctions and efforts to combine with other markets). It’s too poorly-worded to know whether voluntary emission trading systems might also be affected (and whether this prohibition could affect Microsoft, the world’s largest carbon buyer, which is headquartered just outside of Seattle).

And why? Because Washington state has some of our country’s most expensive gas. Its base price is high because we’re tucked way up in the corner of the country and refinery/shipping costs add up (we only have north/south pipelines because east/west is blocked by mountain ranges), but our state also levies taxies at the pump (about 50 cents/gallon), the CCA adds an additional 12-25 cents/gallon, and then there are federal taxes, local taxes, and wide variation by gas pump. Fuel taxes are regressive and people drive a lot here—we aren’t subway-friendly NY—so there’s understandable consternation.

But CCA is taking the brunt of voter anger because it’s the low-hanging fruit. It’s easy to whip up people’s emotions about unnamed bureaucrats taking money for climate projects when: (a) you’re not entirely convinced that climate change is even a real thing, and (b) 25 cents/gallon (opponents claim it’s twice as much) is a pretty noticeable rate, even if you are convinced that climate change is a real thing.

Are there other ballot measures out there attempting to do the same thing? And is there anything we can learn from Washington’s experience as far as developing global carbon market policy is concerned?