Clean fuel standard: An unconvincing case to adopt one

Re: “State clean fuel standard needed to heal our climate,” (TNT, 3/8).

This TNT editorial makes a questionable evaluation of our current air quality and doesn’t bother to attempt any meaningful cost-benefit analysis of the bill.

You say “we haven’t fared too well” at protecting our fresh air in Washington. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that our state’s Department of Ecology ended vehicle emission testing on Jan. 1 due to every community having met all federal air quality standards.

You imply that House Bill 1110 will address our “rising frequency of wildfires” and “profound changes in marine ecosystems.” How do you know? Exactly what results will we see from a clean fuel standard, and when will we see them?

You may argue it’s better than doing nothing, but by how much? How do taxpayers know their dollars will result in noticeable improvements?

You point to how California’s clean fuel standard has reduced emissions by 38 million tons in seven years. But this figure is meaningless without the context of its percentage of total emissions.

More importantly, has California seen a reduction in average temperature? In the intensity and frequency of wildfires? I doubt it.

This story was originally published March 11, 2020 at 1:38 PM with the headline "Clean fuel standard: An unconvincing case to adopt one."