As federal budgets move toward reducing support for renewable energy sources like wind and solar, some climate advocates are pledging to end taxpayer funding for unreliable “green” energy. They’re also exploring new strategies to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. One prominent figure in this ongoing dialogue is Jay Inslee, the former governor of Washington.
During his time as governor and in his brief presidential bid, Inslee positioned climate change as a central theme of his agenda. He claimed that Washington became a “leader” in the climate fight, even earning the 2025 Earth Award from Time Magazine. He has expressed his belief in local action as a powerful tool.
However, having dedicated 25 years to environmental policy, one could argue that following Inslee’s approach could lead to significant missteps.
In a recent editorial, he suggested Democrats leverage climate change to appeal to younger voters drawn to Trump. His repeated error—and one he encourages national activists to adopt—lies in viewing climate change primarily as a political weapon rather than seeking practical solutions.
Carbon emissions in Washington actually rose during Inslee’s first decade, except for 2020. In fact, by 2019, Florida’s per capita CO2 emissions were lower than those in Washington, a stark contrast considering Florida was about 10% higher just six years prior. This was all under Inslee’s watch, revealing a lack of meaningful climate strategy.
Inslee frequently prioritized political expedience over honest assessments of his policies’ outcomes.
When he assumed office, he promised to track policy effectiveness and to create a platform for sharing progress towards climate targets. However, just before announcing his presidential campaign in 2019, his administration shut down that platform, resulting in a significant number of climate goals being unreported. This absence is quite telling, especially for someone calling themselves a “climate candidate.”
At present, Washington struggles to meet its 2030 emissions goals, showing difficulties that arose even during the pandemic-related emissions drop.
Inslee’s electric vehicle policy also showcases these shortcomings. Last year, he rolled out a $45 million initiative aimed at making electric vehicles more accessible to low-income residents. Yet, the outcomes have been mixed at best, with reports suggesting that the targeted community didn’t benefit as intended.
While Inslee pivots away from addressing these challenges, he introduced a CO2 Cap and Trade System in 2023, promising future improvements. But early indications reveal that many projects funded through this system are not generating the expected emission reductions. A report from his administration noted that around two-thirds of the state’s climate initiatives showed no measurable reductions in emissions.
This recurring pattern of unfulfilled promises contrasts sharply with the bold declarations of success that follow. Despite these failures, Inslee has gained recognition and praise at a national level, which hasn’t translated into tangible benefits for the environment.
This approach is problematic, fostering skepticism and undermining efforts to develop effective climate policies. For those genuinely concerned about climate and environmental issues, there seems to be a pivotal choice: either adopt Inslee’s politically-driven path or critically evaluate the last two decades of climate initiatives in search of better methods.
Those who acknowledge climate change—something Inslee often labels an “existential crisis”—need to shift away from politicians who obstruct progress. In contrast, looking to corporations like Microsoft and Amazon, which invest in verified CO2-reduction projects, can be more effective. It’s essential to prioritize innovative and effective strategies over politically motivated grandstanding if we truly want to address climate change effectively.
In the future, individuals interested in mitigating climate risk can either follow the flawed, partisan path advocated by Inslee or seek out non-political alternatives aimed purely at achieving results.
Todd Myers has spent 25 years focused on Washington’s energy and environmental policy and serves as Vice President of Research at the Washington Policy Center in Seattle.
