The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW State Offers $200 to Voters to Keep Carbon Taxes in Place

Episode Date: February 28, 2024

After an explosion in taxes due to "carbon taxes", voters created an initiative to repeal. The state has responded with naked bribery — both carrot & stick — to keep the law in place. Todd Myers, Director of Center for the Environment, Washington Policy Center, and author of "Time to Think Small" joins to talk about the importance of free markets in truly protecting and managing the environmentFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

All right, joining us now is Todd Myers. He is director of the Center for Environment at the Washington Policy Center. He is in Seattle, Washington. And there is an amazing thing that is happening there. But just as an introduction, he has written for the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, the National Review, Seattle Times, USA Today. Been on numerous news networks, including CNBC, Fox News, and CNN. And his wife, Maria, live in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State. Good for you.

That sounds like a beautiful place. With 100,000 honeybees. And he's been busy as a bee himself. And he has an amazing story coming from this left-wing state and what they're trying to do to keep some environmental legislation in place thank you for joining us todd nice to chat with you thank you tell us first of all about this initiative to repeal a climate Commitment Act. Tell us what the Climate Commitment Act is.

Well, people are probably familiar that in California, and maybe they're familiar with Quebec, have what's called a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions. So Washington passed a similar law in 2001 that just took effect in 2023, where we have a cap on total CO2 emissions. And then we charge, people have to buy allowances for CO2, essentially a tax, there's a tax on CO2. And so it's very similar to what's happening in California. So that's what's called the Climate Commitment Act. It's just a simply a CO2 cap and trade system. So we passed that. Like I said, it just went into effect in 2023. Governor Inslee, who constantly talks about how

he's sort of the climate governor, and this is his big priority, said it wouldn't have much of an impact. It would cost about pennies. He said pennies on a gallon of gasoline. We did the math and we said, well, no, it's actually going to cost more like 46 cents a gallon. And he said, we're wrong. In fact, it ended up being about 43 cents a gallon. And at one point last summer, for the first time in Washington's history, we had the highest gas prices in the nation, higher even than California. So as a result, people, as you can imagine, were unamused. And so they got signatures to repeal the Climate Commitment Act, and that is likely to be on the ballot this November, the repeal of that tax on CO2.

Wow. And that is really amazing because when we look at California, it has extremely high taxes. Plus, they have to have a bespoke kind of gasoline made for them. So there's only a few refineries that can make that customized gasoline and that drives the price up as well. But even without that, Washington's high gas taxes made it the most expensive. You know, I've always seen this when people want, when the government would want to raise the sales tax, Todd, they would say, well, it's only a penny. You know, we're only going, we're only going from 5% to 6%. It's like, okay, well, that's a 20% increase. It's not a penny increase. It's a 20% increase, you know, and they always play those types of semantic games with people. So besides the tax on gas, does this carbon tax manifest itself in other ways? Yeah, it covers all CO2 emitting fuel.

So it's not just gasoline. It's also diesel. Diesel is actually more expensive. It's about 53 cents a gallon on average last year. It also has natural gas, propane. So we have a lot of people in washington state who heat their homes with natural gas um it impacts that as well so yeah it covers but it's not on uh food and meat that yet right because that's where they were right

well i mean of course it's it's on the energy uh you know transport and everything else so yeah it shows up everywhere yeah oh yeah it's gonna yeah you increase the price of energy and fuel it trickles through everything and we all saw that with the oil embargo uh but you know they want to get there with their special additional taxes on those prohibited things and it reminds me all these carbon taxes todd remind me of uh the medieval indulgences right you buy an indulgence from them in order to sin and uh the carbon usage is now supposed to be a sin it truly is amazing so people saw this and wanted to get rid of it so how has the white and they got an initiative together how has the state of

washington responded so uh the because the prices of the co2 tax were so much higher, the way that the tax is set is at an auction. So there's a limited number of allowances. Everybody who has covered fuel suppliers, natural gas suppliers, or things like that, they all have to bid. So the prices go up and down. So the prices were much higher than anticipated in Washington state because the system was essentially set up to create extreme scarcity. Why? Because all of that money goes to the state in form of taxes. So the tighter you make the market, the higher the prices, the more taxes go to the government. So they estimated that there would be about $300 million raised in Washington State in the first

year. Instead, it was about $1.6 billion. So they have an absolute gusher of money that has come in. And now the legislature, which is in session right now, is trying to figure out what to do with that. And of course, they're spending the vast majority of it. But one of the things that they did with about $150 million was to say, all right, we're going to send out a one-time payment of $200 to starting with low-income utility customers and then moving up to see how far we get with $150 million. And there are several fun aspects of this. So the House and Senate versions are fun aspects of this so the house and senate versions are slightly different but in the house version the first pay the first check goes out october 15th 2024 three weeks before the election the other fun thing about that is is that the way

it's administered is is that utility because it's for utility customers utilities are the ones to send out the checks but the law says the proposed law says that the utilities have to use language approved by the washington state department of commerce so they can't say here's money they're likely going to have to say here's money that we're giving you thanks to the tax on co2 yeah oh yeah yeah this is uh this is crazy it is an outright bribe uh don't remove this thing you know we taxed you with all this and the taxes brought in five times more more than five times what they thought it was going to bring in and so don't remove this heavy burden that we put on you uh instead we'll catch you a check if you leave it in place and then

of course what a what a foolish bargain that is for people a lot of people will take it i guess yeah and as you pointed out it's a one-time paycheck so it's not so you know the costs in 2024 the cost in 2025 they don't nobody gets any relief from that it's a one-time paycheck timed to go out near the election the other thing is is, is that there's a second, in the House version, there's a second round of checks that would go to different people that are scheduled for February of 2025. And what the law says is, if the CO2 tax is repealed, that round of checks is canceled. So if you want your check, vote against this. Otherwise, we won't send it to you. Now, not only is that pretty blatant what the game they're playing there, but it's also dishonest because the money has already been collected. The

legislator who wrote that into the bill said, well, we don't if they repeal it, we don't know if we're going to have the money. That's completely false. The money has already been collected. As I said, as you pointed out, they've collected, you know, five or six times what they expected. The money is already in the state treasury. And in fact, the Senate version pays out one hundred and fifty million all at once um so the game that they're playing saying oh well we might you know we might not give it to you if you vote the wrong way it's just it's not only bribery it's dishonest yeah yeah carrot and a stick you know you get the carrot just before the election and then uh you know to keep it in there and then they hit you with a stick if uh in february after the election

if you don't keep it in there it's kind of interesting it's a little bit of a stimulus check for the green agenda just like we had a stimulus check for the pandemic agenda uh and instead of universal basic income accustomed getting people accustomed to that i guess we can start to get accustomed to direct bribery of the uh the voters. We call it universal basic bribery is what this is starting to look like. But this is an important thing for people to understand because this is Washington state. It's a Democrat state. We can expect to see this type of stuff, certainly the carbon taxes, replicated across the country. And this is a new wrinkle in terms of trying to get people to continue to enslave themselves to pay these taxes and never to take them off. I mean, it really is an idiot deal, but a lot of people are going to take that. Just like they love the stimulus check, and this is a little bribery check, and they'd love to do that, I think.

Well, New York is considering following and creating its own cap and trade CO2 system, and they are looking at Washington. And I guarantee that they are probably looking at how this goes down, because if even voters in Washington state say that they don't like this, right, I think that's a message to the whole country that these sorts of systems are not popular. Yes. Let me just say, though, there's a, you know, as a, I have worked in environmental policy for 25 years, I am on the center, right? There are lots of things that people on the center right can do to help the environment. As you read in my bio, I live in the foothills of the Cascades, I live in a forest, right? That's look at a political map about where people on the right tend to live, it's close to nature.

And so another frustrating thing about this is that stories like this tend to make people on the center right cynical about all environmental policy. And I think that we need to reject that. I think what we need to say is, look, we actually are the ones who care about the environment and our policies work, right? We're not just using environmental policy as a Trojan horse for big government or to raise money for special interests or things like that. Our policies, our approach is actually about stewardship of the land and caring about the planet. So as crazy as the story is, what I don't want people to take away is, oh, this is just another example that environmental policy and concerns about environment are nonsense. That's the wrong attitude. The right attitude is, look, their stuff, as much as the left loves to brag about how much they care about the environment, their policies don't work.

Our approaches, which are based in stewardship of the land, actually are the ones that help the environment. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, as a matter of fact, you're with a policy institute that is state-based. And it was, I guess, 2008, 2009. I can't remember the exact date. I think it was around that time. I went to, you know, I can't remember the name of the group that does it. But they have think tanks from all 50 states.

And then, of course, there's some that are national, like the Heritage Foundation, stuff like that. of the group that does it. But they have think tanks from all 50 states. And then, of course, there's some that are national, like the Heritage Foundation, stuff like that. And it was in Seattle. They went to a beautiful place that was there. But one of the guys that I worked with, with the group that I was in, his name is David Schneer. He worked for the EPA for 30 years. I know David.

Yeah, you know David? Yeah, good guy. He was, you know, he cared about the environment. He wanted to clean it up. But then he saw it Yeah, you know David? Yeah, good guy. He was, you know, he cared about the environment. He wanted to clean it up. But then he saw it transferring, you know, this mission creep that they were on. You know, they started getting these other things. And, you know, I also saw this with my uncle who was head of the forestry department at University of Missouri-Columbia. And he said, you know, there's a big difference between conservation and environmentalism.

You know, he said, we want to care for the land and we see ourselves as stewards of the land. These people just want to lock everything up. And, you know, they're not going to remove any deadwood. He said, that's going to burn the forests down. And we've seen that type of stuff. You have to actually work it instead of just leaving it in a wild state. But now, you know, the EPA seems to me like it is completely off the rails. That's certainly what David Schneier thought.

He retired and he fought against them, you know, because he didn't like the direction that they were going. The good thing, I think, though, is that there is a growing recognition and a growing frustration, even from some folks on the center left, that government policies are not solving problems. And what you see is that, and I talk with a lot of people on the center left that government policies are not solving problems and what you see is is that and i talk with a lot of people on the center left who care about the environment who are finding new ways ways that you know through non-profits or businesses or on the ground actually making a

difference and there is a growing movement of people who recognize that government the 1970s style of government's top heavy environmentalism isn't solving problems. And so I actually wrote a book called Time to Think Small about folks who are doing really cool things. And it shows that markets, personal stewardship, innovation, those are the things that really help the environment. And a lot of the stories I tell in my book are people who are not on the right, they're on the center left, they have the same frustration and so i agree i wrote my book because i know a lot of conservatives are like care about the environment but are frustrated with environmental politics they're looking for alternatives and the good thing is is that with

technology we now have those alternatives we don't have to you know fall for the trap of the epa where they take more and more power and have you know one of my favorite quotes is that you know fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you've lost sight of the goal and i think a lot of government programs have done that but there is an opportunity to do some things that actually are good for the environment that's right what is the name of your book again time to think small good how environmental technologies can solve the planet's biggest problems and you know i know i talked to a lot of conservatives who whose kids come back from college and they're very frustrated because they have all these ideas about environmentalism in their mind

and so i wrote the book you know to appeal to people who are on the center left in fact the forward is written by somebody from the world wildlife fund because there are people like i said on the center left who recognize that we need to change the things that we're doing to help the environment and just government you know having a government program and a tax just doesn't do it anymore i agree i agree and and you know when you say time to think small we're talking local that's where things get done uh everybody understands that and when you look, when you say time to think small, we're talking local, that's where things get done. Everybody understands that. And when you look at what has happened with the EPA, they have been as counterproductive to the environment as the department of education has been to education.

You know, when the federal government gets it, what do they do? They start throwing money around and they tend to misallocate that money. They tend to, you know, reward the wrong things, which, as we always see, happens with central planning. When it's something that is small, when it is local, you have a better chance of getting it done right. And people can see the need. And there's just a completely different approach than trying to get everything solved centrally.

And I think that's a real important lesson for both the left and the right to understand because now I see a lot of conservatives saying, well, we've got to fix all this in Washington. I just don't think that that's the right way to go about it. I think we need to revitalize things at the local community level. At the small level is where we need to grow this stuff and need to fix it from the bottom up, I think. That's exactly right. And you see really tremendous examples because at the local level, you not only have better knowledge, right? You know the problem because you're close to it, but you also have accountability. And if things don't work,

you make changes. And politicians screws up. When have you ever heard a politician say, boy, I really screwed that up. We need to change, right? They never say that. But if you're on the ground and you're actually trying to make a difference, there is that accountability and that incentive to change. And one of my favorite examples is of tribal stewardship of forest lands. Here in Washington State, if you look at federal forest lands, they are horrible. They're very unhealthy, very fire prone, horrible habitat. But you look right next door on tribal lands where they have control of their forests.

Forests are very very healthy much less fire prone why because they can go in they have the ability to take action to thin out those forests to make them so that they to do the work that they need to do and because if those fire if those forests burn guess what the the tribal members know whose door to knock on who's managing those forests so there is that direct accountability and and it's really interesting because you can see The tribal members know whose door to knock on, who's managing those forests. So there is that direct accountability. And it's really interesting because you can see where tribal lands are up against federal lands and the federal lands are red and dead and the tribal lands are green. And it's not has nothing to do with tribes per se.

It has to do with they have the local knowledge and the incentives and the accountability to do it right and that's the ethic that we need to bring to stewardship generally rather than as you say trying to do everything from washington which clearly doesn't work yes and i've seen that over and over again i've seen it in wyoming what you're talking about uh and it's not necessarily even just the tribal lands it's just private property that people have there and so i've seen it in wyoming i've seen it in um uh here've seen it in, um, uh, here in Tennessee, uh, when they had the big fires and the, you know, the federal forest and everything that spilled over into other people's property, a really bad case of it in Idaho where, uh, my son and I interviewed a guy who was a logger and, uh, they were just shutting down the logging industry left and right, but he had taken very good care of his land, and he had gradually invested in this and was gradually working the land and selectively taking out trees that had died and stuff like that.

But that was going to be his retirement. And because of the negligence and the mismanagement of the federal lands, a fire got out of control there and went on to his land and burned up what was going to be his retirement. And it's such a tragedy to see that because they won't manage the lands properly. And, you know, look at that. It's not the Bureau of Land Management. They're really trying to just manage people off their private property. They don't really manage the lands that they have there. And that's really what has happened to the environmentalism. So that's a great idea. I think time to think small, get back to the local area.

As you point out, people can see if something is working and they can make that adjustment. And that is true when we look at every aspect of a centralized, federally controlled, federally funded program, every single one of these programs, whether you're talking about the environment or you're talking about welfare, if it's happening at the local level, it used to be with volunteer organizations, then people can see what is happening and they can make those adjustments. That is a much better model, isn't it? Yeah.

And the other nice thing about that is, is that we have this traditional notion of stewardship of local land and things like that. But now we have technology that can multiply our efforts. So one of the common critiques is, oh, only government can do this because only government has the scale that can solve these big problems. But in fact, with technology, now the efforts of individuals can be multiplied through technology, through information, other things like that, and make really big difference. and there's a great example people you know people always talk about climate change but there are other issues like ocean plastic and a group called plastic bank goes to where the plastic is going into the ocean which is not the

united states as developing countries right and they see people on their cell phones to pick up plastic recycle it and then they sell it to sc john. So when you go buy a Windex bottle, it'll say made with ocean bound plastic. And they have a webpage that shows you exactly where they've picked up the plastic. Now what's the technology involved? Cell phones and a webpage, nothing very crazy, but just that has allowed them to pay people and show that they're actually making a difference. And they have collected a quarter of a billion pounds of plastic that might have washed into the ocean. Wow.

Again, small efforts can really make a difference. And with technology, we can multiply them. So this whole, you know, this excuse that only government has the capacity to solve these problems is just simply false. And in an age where we have technology and tools like that, small actions multiply into big environmental benefits. Yes. And, of course, as you point out, a lot of the ocean plastic is not really coming from America. It's coming from Asia.

You know, it's where the big aspects of that are. But it's all being used for political purposes. That's the point. I think, you know, cutting through all of the BS that they're putting out there, they're not really that interested in the environment. They're interested in the political power that it gives them. I think that is what people are starting to realize. That's what makes conservatives cynical. So it's a good idea to get people to understand, yes, we do need to take care of the environment.

Yes, we did have toxic places out there, but look at what happened when we tried to solve it at the federal level. It's turned into this metastasizing cancer that is off of the mission and onto something that is completely different than what it began with. Well, I'll give you a quick example of that. In Portland, Oregon, just south of where I am, they passed what's called the Clean Energy Fund, which is a tax that was designed. And what they claimed it was going to do was to create clean energy in Portland and help Portland meet its climate goals. But when the first round of grants came out, a reporter called me and said what do you think of these and i said well these don't actually reduce co2 emissions they're really expensive

and they do almost nothing for the environment and so the reporter did a good job and went to the head of the sierra club and asked you know hey these uh projects that are chosen under the clean energy fund which you supported aren't actually helping the environment. And he said, well, yeah, that wasn't the goal. The goal was to use this fund to address systemic racism. So here is a policy that is supposed to address climate change, something they call an existential crisis. And instead of actually using it to address that policy, they use it for some other political goal. And that I think is that we have to fight that because environmentalism is being used as a political goal. But I think that's also the opportunity for conservatives and for people

on the Senate right to say, look, they're not really serious about environment and climate change. We are serious about solving environmental problems because we demand results where they play political games. Oh, yeah. And the bigger scale, even when you look in the Paris Climate Accord, right, that allows China and India, the two biggest polluters of the two biggest populations to build as many power plants as they want without. And they can be as dirty as they want. It's not about that if they want to talk about a global crisis or something like that then um why would you give the two biggest countries uh the ability to continue to expand and build the stuff and a lot of people who uh believed that it was an existential crisis were very furious about that that said all

you're doing is transferring industry from the west to china and to India. And, of course, they want to do that because the labor costs are less. And they can also, they don't have any regulation, so they can get very cheap energy costs. And then they say they're protecting the environment at the same time. I mean, the whole thing was predicated off of that. But I guess maybe they could also call it fighting systemic racism or something if they transfer everything to China and India. But it's just a sham in so many ways that we see this.

And some of the people who actually are concerned about that still see that as not really doing anything about what they perceive as a problem. Well, yeah, and that's the problem with these sort of political solutions is that they have to play games like that. Right. What they say is, well, it's not really fair. It's sort of justifiably. They say it's not fair for us to have industrialized and then to put a cap on India. Right. We need to give them a chance. But the point that you're making is exactly right, which is that the political compromises then have to carve out India and other places like that. So where are we going to find solutions? Where are they going to find that?

You know, how are they going to reduce CO2 emissions? How are they going to reduce pollution? How are they going to make their environment better? It's not from government agreements, international agreements. It's from technology. It's from market. And that's the beauty about free markets. There is no system that has been developed that encourages people to do more with less.

It is so effective at finding ways to economize. And economize simply means using fewer resources. So, you know, India in the future is going to be cleaner, not because of international agreements, but because of technology that they've developed, that we've developed and traded with them. And that's where environmental progress comes from. Yes, yes. And so you have situations like Toyota, you know, they said, well, we want zero emission cars. Okay, we can do that.

Instead of doing a battery, we'll do like hydrogen technology or something. Oh, no, no, we can't do that. You know, I mean, there's always, we need to understand that what these people are pushing from the central authorities, when they have their centralized top down solutions. They've got a political agenda. They're feeding you a line about what they actually want to do.

And you can see that when they say, no, only this particular solution we have put forward is going to be the one that's allowed. It's like, OK, so you don't think that other thing really is an existential risk that needs to be addressed you've got something that you want us to do and you're using this as as a beard uh to to force us or to scare us into doing what you want to do i think is we see this over and over again this seems to be the hallmark the antithesis of a free market a command control economy where they have already picked a solution they probably already invested into these different markets, the people who are pushing it. And so that's why you're only going to have one solution that's going to be offered to people, I think, in many cases. Well, and the other example of that, of course, is nuclear, right? All the people who say it's an existential crisis then turn around and say, oh, but we can't do nuclear,

even though it's obviously one of the best options to produce carbon-free energy but my favorite example with regard to toyota and technology is that in the 1990s california had a law that said that a certain percentage of cars would have to be electric by the year 2020 and there was this documentary made called who killed the electric car as you know remember that electric cars could have been available if only you know we had we had actually done it well we know today we're still struggling to get affordable electric cars but there was this law but toyota rather than meeting the electric car uh law that was in california which was totally infeasible and wasn't going to happen

they said we're going to do the technology that makes sense and that's a hybrid yeah and the irony is is that toyota rejected california's law and said we're going to make something that fits with the technology and the prius ended up ironically becoming sort of the symbol of the environmental movement for a while right if you wanted to show we're an environmentalist, you bought a Prius. And what ended up happening was that California had to change their law to count hybrids. So again, it was the market that saw the way to create a vehicle that was more fuel efficient, emitted less CO2, but was feasible technically and would appeal to consumers rather than sort of politicians saying, well, we want you to achieve 5% of vehicles electric by,

you know, 2000, which is completely arbitrary. So that's the market actually, it does a better job sometimes of meeting the politicians own goals than they do. Oh, it absolutely does. Yeah. And so we've got this constant struggle back and forth. As you point out, they didn't like the hybrids, but the market did, and so it kind of forced them to acknowledge it. They keep pushing the battery EVs, and yet the market doesn't like it. They say, we can't afford it, and all this other. And so now you've got the companies are starting to pull back

and starting to look for other alternatives, and yet you still have these politicians that are going out there in many places saying, well, we've got to have absolutely zero emissions. So that excludes the hybrid. So there's constantly this back and forth between what people want and what the government demands. I think ultimately, especially when it starts to come to things like what you drive, how you heat your house, what you eat, and all the rest of these things, they have become so addicted to power.

I think it is going to blow back on them significantly. We're starting to see that in many different ways with the cars, with other things like that. I think that's going to continue. People are going to start voting in the marketplace. That is one of the best places to vote because they have the least amount of control over that. They still have control over that. They can control what's on the ballot in many cases by outright banning it. But still, that is a place where we get to vote frequently in the marketplace in terms

of what we buy outside of bans. And once they go to that banning, that kind of pulls the curtain back and we get to see exactly where these people are coming from, I think. Well, that's right. And the other thing that's great about markets and technology is you don't have to think climate change is an existential crisis. You don't have to be worried necessarily about drought or anything like that. But if you can find a way to spend less on energy, if you can find a way to spend less on water, you're going to benefit. And markets encourage people to do more with less, whatever they may believe about individual environmental issues. And that I think is the real power.

When you force people to do things and oppose a one size fits all, it's all cost. And, you know, as in the case of, you know, the Portland Clean Energy Fund and many other things, you pay this very high cost, but then they do a bait and switch and they don't actually use the money for what they claim. So I think that's the real opportunity that we have. Look, I grew up, you know, being on the center right because I care about individual choice, individual liberty. And that I think is people perceive that people perceive prosperity and liberty as being at odds with environmental policy. But that's only because we as people on the center right have allowed the left define what environmentalism means. And we need to stop doing that. And I think

that, you know, as much as I am frustrated with the environmental left and I point out their flaws, I think the conservatives have hurt ourselves by making it sound like we don't care about the environment and ceding this issue to the left. And we need to really stop doing that. I agree. Yeah, we've got to take the high ground. And it matters how we make the argument. And it matters what the labels are out there as well. I like the tagline for the Washington Policy Center, improving lives through market solutions. And so, you know, we don't need to we don't need to run from that.

And we need to fight against this idea that freedom and markets are antithetical to a clean environment. They're actually a much, as you point out, a much better solution and a much better way to get there, a much more efficient way to get there, and to do it without breaking arms and beating heads with people. You just use the collective understanding of individuals who really all want that. And so they're going to be more inclined to choose that. But it's really kind of the collective judgment of the people who are there on the ground, as you point out in your book, Time to Think Small. It's their collective observations and judgment that really are important. And they actually work better, I think, than as we've seen over and over again.

You can have the smartest person in the world in a highly centralized and control environment, they're not going to make as good of decisions as a large group of people who have actually more information because there's more of them and they're making that collective decision. I think that's the power of the marketplace, don't you? And they pay the price for failure and they're accountable. You can have the best plan in the world, but if something goes wrong wrong you need to have the incentive to change you need to have the incentive to say okay that didn't work let's try something else and if you're in washington dc and the problem you're trying to solve is in you know oregon or california or anywhere else uh when things go wrong you aren't going to want to admit that you

were wrong and that just and that's a big reason why we see environment left wing environmental policies failing. There's a wonderful group in Montana called PERC, P-E-R-C, that is a free market environmental organization. This is the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act. And they've put out a really fantastic report noting that the Endangered Species Act has done fine in terms of stopping animals from going extinct, but it is horrible at recovering species. Basically, that species go on the endangered species list and they never come off. And so how do you turn that into solutions? But again, when you talk to people on the left, they say the Endangered Species Act is a success. And it's a

success in one way but not in the way that they claimed which is is that it would cause species to recover and yet nobody wants to address how it is that we can work with private landowners where most of the habitat is to recover species private and landowners are seen as the enemy and And that's why the ESA is failing is because the people that you need to be working with, it treats as enemies. Yeah, that's right. And the federal government has an incentive to fail. As you point out, they're not going to apologize. They're never going to say they have a failure except to say, well, this failed and we need more people and we need more money.

And so crank up the money making machine there and send us some more paper. You know, that's it. They take every failure as an incentive to grow and to continue to do the same thing that they were doing. They never change what they're doing at all. They never pay a price for it. There is, it's like an open loop system. And, you know, because the money printing machine is just, it's completely open and it's running at full gear. And so they don't need any feedback. They don't need to produce any results. And it works to their advantage because they have to argue for more money and more headcount because that's what's needed.

Never going to change the approach that they have. And I think the thing you're pointing to is that the incentives are perverse, right? The incentives are to protect the organization, to expand the organization. And I think that one of my, the most dramatic examples of that is the Flint water crisis. So Flint, Michigan had this water that they switched sources of water. And so it corroded the pipes and there was lead in the water. And for a while, government, both at the state and federal level, denied there was even any problem. And then finally, when residents were showing them water that had lead and that had rust in it, they, you know, actually had to realize the EPA is like, OK, we've got to do something. And there was a discussion in the regional EPA office about using a fund of money to buy water filters for the community. The fund wasn't supposed

to really do that, but they could sort of justify it. So they looked at it and they said, okay, should we do this? And ultimately they decided against it. And one of the people in the regional EPA office said, we could do this. And this is a quote, but I'm not sure Flint is the kind of community we want to go out on a limb for. Wow. So when you think that the EPA and other folks in government are looking out for your best interests, they all remember that they also have incentives to take care of the organization, not to create trouble, not to bend the rules, even if they know that it would be good for people on the ground. And at the end of the day, the people in Flint, Michigan, did more for themselves than the EPA,

who was supposed to be the one looking out for them. Yes, that's right. And when you look at it, I mean, you think about the water in Flint, Michigan, the fact they don't want to buy water filters for them, and the fact that a lot of people are buying water filters because they're concerned about what the EPA is encouraging people to put in the water you know we got a trial that's going on about fluoride and part of that trial is the fact that um uh you have um um rachel uh levine i call him dick divine he his uh he he was shutting down information from epa

scientists that was derogatory to using fluoride. And how do you, you know, when, when you put this kind of stuff out there, you know, what, what is the purpose of mass medicating the public through the water supply in

the first place? But you've got EPA scientists who have an issue with it. They have, um, uh, uh, counter, um,

research to doing this and the political figures shut it down. Uh, just like they did you know in flint michigan so yeah they work antithetical to what we really think of their mission is and we've seen that with so many different agencies it's great work that you're doing there at the washington policy center again you're the director of the center for the environment at the washington policy center and i would recommend everybody take a look at your book because it sounds like you're spot on. Thinking Small, Time to Think Small.

And so that's by Todd Myers. I guess people can find that on Amazon, right? Yep, it's on Amazon. And if they want to follow me on Twitter, I'm at WAPolicyGreen. I talk a lot about Washington state politics. But as you noted, a lot of things that start here don't stay here. They go out elsewhere. And so, yes, unfortunately, Washington and California are not like Las Vegas.

It does not stay there. It goes as rapidly copied everywhere. They're kind of like the shock troops, you know, for a lot of radical ideas. And so it is important to fight that. But it truly is amazing the way they are going to bribe the voters after they have seen this massive tax to bribe them to keep it on. Just give them a one-time payment and they'll keep it on. Thank you so much for joining us. Again, Todd Myers, Director of the Center for the Environment at Washington Policy Center. Thank you so much, Todd.

Appreciate it. Yeah, it was a very fun conversation. Thank you. We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back. Stay with us. ¶¶ Thank you. Analyzing the globalist's next move. Music And now, The David Knight Show.