Washington State Gives "Climate Commitment Act" Funds To NGOs For "Advocacy" -- With Some Then Used To Attack The State's Farmers and Ranchers.

A study of 21 projects showed only one included any projections on how pollution would be reduced, whereas most revealed that the bulk of funds would go to staff and overhead -- the great NGO Grift.

** This is my third article focusing on Washington State’s carbon emission “cap and trade” program, and how it supposedly funds hundreds/thousands of “pollution reduction” projects across the state — when in fact all it really does is pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the left-wing NGO ecosystem that has been created and lives there. The research and these articles are being done in partnership with America First Policy Institute.

The cartoon above reflects a dynamic that has been noticed by some with respect to how the State of Washington is funding “environmental justice” projects with money raised from the “Climate Commitment Act” — the use of the funds for political attacks.

The label “environmental justice” is just a masquerade ball mask hiding the identity of the same intersectional identity-based “politics of grievance” that has been the stock-and-trade of the Democrat Party for 60+ years. Among the best descriptions I have seen of what the label “environmental justice” cloaks is that is like the “Green New Deal” — but the woke version.

It is quite literally the Green New Deal with an overcoat of racial justice politics to sell it as advancing the unifying goals of intersectionality in the political arena..

“Intersectionality” is the framework for grievance politics that helps “explain” how an individual’s race, gender, class, sexual preferences, and “differing abilities” all combine to discriminate and oppress them through the western white colonialist Anglo-Judeo-Christian culture in which they are trapped.

I’ve written previously about the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) and the Healthy Environment For All Act (HEAL) passed and signed into law in Washington state in 2021 — both articles are free to all. The combination of the two created a funding mechanism by taxing what the state legislature identified as industrial polluters, and then a structure using that money to fund literally hundreds — and eventually thousands — of NGO-run Green New Deal programs all over the state.

Liberal interest groups in Washington state are so proud of their achievements that one has created an interactive map that allows you to click-on individual programs to learn who the NGO is, a description of the project being funded with CAA money, and the amount of money given to the NGO for that purpose. My earlier two articles focused on “environmental justice programs” as defined in the statutes, and the requirement that literally hundreds of millions of dollars be put into the hands of NGO operators in “overburdened communities” where “vulnerable populations” are found. The CCA defines those phrases as follows:

But the money to fund “projects” — doing stuff — that addresses problems as identified by liberal/progressive advocates of combating “climate change” is, at the same time, being diverted to fund advocacy attacking the political opposition because they believe the billions being taken from industry and turned over to NGOs is a colossal waste of money.

The HEAL Act did contemplate various types of “community engagement” and “outreach” with public information campaigns. The statute refers to this efforts as “community storytelling” and other kinds of “warm and fuzzy” names.

But there are examples of the “advocacy” taking on a more aggressive tone directed at what the left-wing NGO community identifies as the villains in the state that they blame for victimizing the “vulnerable populations.”

An example of how funds are wasted — and just as likely used to line the pockets of the NGO operators — is referenced in this article looking at 21 programs that using HEAL Act funds for projects to address “air pollution” causing the states Democrat Governor called an “epidemic of asthma” among the “vulnerable populations” of “overburdened communities.”

In 2024, then-governor Jay Inslee warned that “We have this epidemic of asthma in our state,” saying that funding from the state’s CO2 tax would help fund projects to reduce air pollution. The next year, the Department of Ecology distributed $8.5 million in grants to improve air quality in “overburdened communities” and improve “health disparities.”

An examination of the 21 projects they funded shows that only one is likely to reduce air pollution. Most of the funding went to community outreach and political advocacy for groups like the Somali Independent Business Alliance and the Urban League of Seattle.

Rather than funding projects that reduced air pollution, funding from the “Washington State Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Grant” was spent on:

• “Policy advocacy” to “groups to push for environmental justice legislation, such as the HEAL Act…”

• Paying $2,000 each to members of a “community advisory board” on air pollution

• Giving away 50 refurbished bicycles and providing middle school students “with the skills to maintain their bikes”

• Subsidizing the purchase of electric bicycles, which has not shown to reduce air pollution

That article links to the actual study of the 21 programs that are mentioned. The bottom line is that a huge percentage of the grant money for these 21 programs ended up in various “advocacy” efforts — NOT programs that actually impact air pollution. But even beyond that, the Advocacy programs that were funded spent a large majority of their money on staffing and internal operating costs — and not advocacy efforts.

It’s one giant NGO grift.

On average, 58 percent of funding for each project was spent on staffing, with several projects spending between 80 and 100 percent of the funding on staff. Another ten percent was spent on un-itemized “overhead.”

An average of just 13% of grants is spent on equipment to improve air quality. Additionally, none of the projects indicated they would collect environmental monitoring data that would be useful in assessing the impact of the project. Few of the projects are even projected to produce measurable results, meaning there is little to monitor.

But the Report goes on to make clear that some NGOs don’t want to do any of the “heavy lifting” that might be involved in the effort to lower what they believe are airborne pollutants. They’d rather just talk about the issue — and then go home with a nice paycheck.

For example, the Urban League of King County received $411,691 for “Advancing Environmental Justice in South Seattle’s Vulnerable Communities.” The project promised to educate 2,000 residents about environmental justice and the health risks of air pollution….

Although the grant application claimed it would equip 500 households with “energy-efficient home upgrades,” none of the money in the budget the Urban League included with the grant application was used for those upgrades. Instead, it funded 10 ½ staff, which accounts for nearly 80 percent of the funding. Another 20 percent was requested for overhead.

Just in case you thought fraud in the Somali community was just a Minnesota or Ohio thing, there happens to be a “Somali Independent Business Alliance” in Washington dedicated to getting money from HEAL Act grants — NGO grift the legal way. No need to commit fraud to get it — all you have to do is tell the state you want to talk to folks in your community about the problem.

Similarly, $170,200 was granted to the Somali Independent Business Alliance to run “inclusive meetings, educational workshops, & stakeholder feedback” to learn about air pollution impacts….

The budget allocated $104,000 for salaries and benefits, another $13,000 on consultants and contractors, $11,000 to pay people to participate in the meetings and $15,000 for un-itemized overhead.

That “un-itemized overhead” fits neatly into the overhead luggage compartment on flights to Mogadishu.

Granted, it’s not as lucrative as providing fake autism treatments to healthy children who don’t have autism, but at least it doesn’t come with the risk of federal prison.

One last example — the Community Health Worker Coalition for Migrants and Refugees spent $219,575 for the “Latinx Migrant/Refugee Communities Engaging in Air Quality Improvement” project.

The grant application noted that the money would fund a Community Advisory Board, conduct three community workshops, and facilitate a “one-day summit” to produce three “actionable and innovative interventions” to reduce pollution in the Moxee Valley. A multimedia campaign would encourage community participation in reducing air pollution.” To achieve this, the group would

“…. use Liberating Structures exercises as a guide for the activities. Liberating Structures are easy-to-learn microstructures that enhance relational coordination and trust.”

Afterwards the group announced that 62 people attended and thatheir participation “inspires a relentless spirit of advocacy, fostering a dynamic community committed to safeguarding our environment for future generations by improve [sic] air quality.”

The author of the study wrote to the organization asking for the three "actionable and innovative interventions” that were developed.

“Those contain HIPAA protected information are the intellectual property of our community…. We could tell you, but then we would have to kill you.”

[I added that part at the end.]

$219,000 for 62 people to meet for one day to have coffee and donuts, and then produce three “action items” that are the “intellectual property of the community” and therefore must remain a secret.

This is all money taken from industries in Washington in the form of taxation — but the Washington legislators don’t want to have their fingerprints on this nonsense.

The report’s author summed up the problem as follows:

Despite arguing that CCA-funded air quality grants would “decrease health inequities caused by criteria air pollution and environmental injustices,” the program provided very little real-world benefit. Instead, much of the funding went to staff and overhead costs. Few projects produced actual improvements in air quality. None of the projects tracked their results. And only one project is likely to tangibly reduce particulate matter in a cost-effective way.

Finally, part of this “advocacy” problem is the fact that some of this money taken from industry in Washington is used by the NGO groups to attack those same industries. One notable area where this is taking place is premised on the liberal/progressive/socialist idea that there is a universal “right” to food, and that the “agricultural industry” is an illegitimate gatekeeper to that right. The way to attack “corporate” farming — including family farms and ranches that have operated over multiple generations in Washington — is to brand them a “polluters” of the environment and “exploiters” of “black” and “brown” laborers in such a way as to de-legitimize them — and then target them with the state’s regulatory apparatus to drive them out of business.

One funding mechanism in the CCA is a fuel surcharge on all gasoline products sold in the state. There are some industries exempted from the surcharge, but agriculture is not one of them. So all gasoline and diesel used in farming and ranching operations includes funds going into the CAA, with that money then distributed to the vast NGO network.

Some farming and ranching interests in Washington make the case that the surcharge they are forced to pay is being used for grants to groups who use those funds to sponsor political attacks on the industry. One NGO received a HEAL Act grant of $500,000, and it used those funds to produce a documentary and several companion videos attacking the dairy industry. The NGO behind the documentary is “We Are ELLA,” based in Yakima, Washington. Here is the group’s published Mission Statement published on its website:

We are building a network of Latinas and allies to assist us better serve the needs of our hermanas. We all have something to contribute and we all have various ways in which we can help. We pool together our collective talents and expertise so that we can lend a helping hand when needed. We serve as a liaison between women who need help and those that can give help.

In our community organizing, ELLA is direct about our priorities and the way we choose to accomplish our goals of equity and justice. Our communities provide us guidance about what is most important to them, and they take the helm in all our initiative. We are a grassroots organization that works for the people and with the people to build real community power.

The documentary produced by ELLA, “Price of Plenty,” is an attack on the dairy industry in the Yakima Valley. Critics from the farming industry — including groups that advocate for the benefit of family-owned farms and not “corporate agribusiness” called out false claims made in the ELLA documentary.

The documentary first caused controversy when ELLA used the logo of the Washington State Department of Health at the very end, suggesting some type of sponsorship or support for the points raised in the film. After reviewing the film and evaluating its contents, the Department of Health required ELLA to remove its logo — quite a step for the Agency that provided the funding for the project.

As of late April, ELLA had not taken the videos down off its website or removed the Department of Health Logo from the documentary.

They do not care, as they are almost certain to continue to receive grant money regardless of the controversy.

They put out the following statement in response to the controversy:

Through the 2023–25 state budget, DOH received Climate Commitment Act funding to create and manage a grant program designed to strengthen Washington communities’ capacity to engage with HEAL agencies. ELLA’s submission was selected through a statewide competitive process by a community advisory committee,” the statement reads.

“A portion of the grant supported community storytelling through media, documenting environmental justice issues from the community’s perspective. Respecting the autonomy of our partners, DOH did not provide editorial oversight and did not sponsor or produce any specific content of the videos created under this grant.”

Next, I’ll focus on the regulatory efforts by various departments of the Washington State government to punish or hinder farming and ranching interests in the state, working hand-in-hand with some of these NGOs to bring about a radical change in the way these progressive/socialists want food to be produced and delivered in that state.