Climate Commitment Act: Don’t gamble on future

Re: “Voters should do their homework on what repeal of climate law means” [May 12, Opinion]:

Thanks for the considerate editorial on Initiative 2117 that factors out so lots of the issues we might lose if voters repeal the Local weather Dedication Act.

The editorial didn’t point out {that a} massive chunk of funding for the Transfer Forward Washington transportation bundle to restore roads and bridges throughout the state additionally comes from the CCA. Whereas constructing roads could appear inconsistent with lowering emissions, the fact is that visitors slowdowns enhance emissions.

I agree that many individuals who signed the initiative petition are offended over fuel costs, however they may be fairly disillusioned to search out that nothing on this initiative requires oil corporations to scale back costs if it passes — so we’d discover ourselves paying the identical for fuel in any case.

We are able to’t afford that gamble with our future. Vote no on I-2117 in November.

Lee Nathan, Bainbridge Island