Editor,

Thanks to Oak Harborite Bob Hallihan for his super informative viewpoint (Oct. 16 letter to the editor) about the fallacies of. It’s confusing, but a no vote on this initiative preserves a wonderful cap and trade system created by the state Climate Commitment Act (CCA).

Being a climate guy, I’ve been treated to a bazillion responsive goals from just about every jurisdiction, industry, United Nations and country you can imagine to reign in our greenhouse gas problem. It seems, everybody is going to cut emissions by some percentage and get to carbon neutral by 20xx, etc – but just not now – is nebulous at best.

Then miraculously in 2021 our state passed legislation to actually accomplish, and pay for, the goals it professed, it started in 2023.

The CCA has definitive goals to reduce emissions: 45% below 1990 levels by 2030; 70% below 1990 levels by 2040; and 95% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Amazingly, these goals are actually funded and identified by the CCA, as Mr. Hallahan described.

Emitters of greater than 25 tons of CO2/year (mostly utilities and oil companies), will face a progressive limit on their emissions. If they can’t make it, they must buy credits. From a business perspective, these emitters can invest in cleaner operations to aid both the planet and their bottom line.

The CCA has collected around $2 billion which pays for an assortment of clean technologies that combat climate change, described by Mr. Hallihan. Our ferry system (for one) is slated to get $600 million for new hybrid ferries that reduce ferry emissions by 76% by 2040.

We’d all like to do something to address climate change and this year it’s quite easy – just vote NO on I-2117. While you’re at it, vote no on all four of those initiatives that come to us from whom the Seattle Times describes as a “Tim Eyman with deep pockets.”

Dean Enell

Langley