Supporters of Washington’s new CO2 tax argue the billions of dollars collected so far are necessary to help meet the state’s strict emissions targets. However, many of the grants that claim to reduce emissions don’t even measure or prioritize environmental benefits. Instead, grants are targeted to politically connected groups without consideration as to whether the funding actually helps the environment.

The latest example is a $9.6 million grant from the Department of Ecology that purports to “reduce methane emissions from landfills.”

Methane capture at landfills can be an effective and inexpensive way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas, and traps 28 times as much heat as CO2 according to the EPA. Funding spent to prevent methane from reaching the atmosphere is more effective than reducing CO2 emissions.

Despite that opportunity, the “Landfill Methane Emissions Reduction Grant Program” doesn’t even attempt to measure how much the grants reduce emissions. Grants are allocated based on a point system that scores each proposal using five categories.

In fact, Ecology staff admit they do not have the data necessary to “fairly and equitably award grants based on emissions reductions and reductions potential.” They don’t explain what “fairly and equitably” means.

Put simply, a program that claims to "reduce methane emissions" doesn't even attempt to priortize methane emissions.

Instead of basing funding decisions on actual outcomes, most of the points in the grant are awarded using political metrics.

For example, 30 percent of the points are awarded based on where the landfill is located. Landfills in places where there is an “Environmental health disparities score of 9 or 10,” or “identified as disadvantaged on the Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool,” or “is on Tribal Lands” get full points. Lower environmental health disparities scores get fewer points.

Giving extra points to landfills in disadvantaged communities doesn’t make sense because methane is not a local air pollutant like particulate matter, which can contribute to health problems.

Greenhouse gases have a global impact. Cutting emissions anywhere in the world ultimately benefits everyone. Treating methane like a local pollutant is unscientific.

This issue was raised by members of the public during the comment period on the rules. Ecology staff admitted that “We understand and recognize that methane emissions produced at a particular landfill location will rise and mix into the atmosphere resulting in climate impacts beyond the immediate surrounding community.” They dismissed this reality, however, claiming that “investments in vulnerable communities will likely reduce climate-related health inequities and have economic and health benefits,” but did not explain how that would occur.

There is no reason to favor certain locations other than to be able to claim the agency is meeting some nebulous definition of “equity.”

Even if reducing methane would have local benefits, the grants don’t measure how much methane is captured, so projects funded by the grant would still not prioritize benefits to nearby communities.

The next 30 percent of points are awarded based on who owns the landfill. Landfills that are “Publicly or tribally owned and operated” get full points. Privately owned landfills get fewer points. Why? No reason is provided other than staff at government agencies favor publicly owned landfills.

The grant awards 15 percent of points based on the status of the existing landfill gas collection and extraction system. Landfills without any methane extraction systems get the most points. Another 15 percent is based on how the gas is disposed of. Landfills without systems to flare the gas are prioritized.

Both of these criteria are fine, but again, neither of them actually measures how much methane is captured and disposed of. A landfill that has no systems in place could receive the maximum points even if the amount of methane being emitted is tiny.

The final 10 percent is based on monitoring.

How much will the $10 million in funding from the CO2 tax actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Nobody knows and the Department of Ecology doesn’t even attempt to find out.

The grants are simply intended to shift the costs of complying with existing methane regulations to state taxpayers, but only for certain landfills that meet political – not environmental – criteria.

Ultimately, just like the “Community decarbonization” grants from the Department of Commerce that don’t prioritize community decarbonization, Ecology’s “Landfill Methane Emissions Reduction Grant Program” doesn’t actually prioritize landfill methane emissions reduction.

This is even more remarkable because these two programs are both sold as policies that reduce the risk of climate change by reducing emissions. Most of the spending from the CO2 tax isn’t intended to reduce emissions. The fact that programs sold as reducing emissions don’t even make it a priority is an indication of how wasteful and ineffective the CCA’s spending really is.