I’m always leery of actions promoted by Hawaii political leaders as “the first in the nation.”
It could be because they’re brilliantly out in front (stop that laughing). Or it could be just a bad idea that appealed to nobody else.
It can go either way with Hawaii’s new “green fee” passed by this year’s Legislature and signed last week by Gov. Josh Green to tap tourists for climate impact.
As is often true of legislative good intentions, it’s all about the delivery.
The climate fee increases the state hotel room tax to 11% from 10.25% a night to help fund mitigation of climate change and the impact of tourism on Hawaii’s environment.
It allows wide usage of the new funds, including natural resource management, improving the visitor experience and protecting against deadly effects of climate change such as wildfires, hurricanes, floods and sea level rise.
The tax is projected to raise about $100 million annually, well short of the $500 million to $600 million more Green says is needed to protect against natural disasters, beach erosion and other threats as the climate warms.
But he hopes to multiply revenues using bond issues and appeals for philanthropic matches.
“Hawaii’s doing what other states and other nations are going to have to do,” Green said. “I hope that the world is watching.”
His grand hope of providing a blueprint for the U.S. and beyond depends on whether the fee is truly used for high-impact new climate projects or is swallowed by the state budget as just another general tax increase to be spent on whatever lawmakers wish.
The Legislature didn’t put revenues raised by the climate fee into a special fund specifically for climate impact. Instead, the money goes into the general fund, and the governor must include in his proposed state budget a list of climate projects equal to the amount the impact fee is expected to raise.
The Legislature can monkey with the list and possibly fill it with climate and tourism projects the state is already funding, resulting in less new money for climate impact and extra for lawmakers to spend on other things.
This structure for getting climate tax revenue to fresh climate needs is based entirely on good faith, which can be in short supply when it comes to money and politics.
Even if the governor produces a worthy list of new climate projects that fulfill his signature initiative, we never know what creative accounting will emerge from the Legislature’s last-minute rush of opaque conference committees to finalize the state budget.
It would be in the public interest — and the Green administration’s own interest — to begin this process transparently by issuing a public inventory of the tens of millions the state is already spending across many departments on efforts that would be eligible for funding from the new fee.
Then we can track whether projects on the “green fee” list in the next state budget are truly new resources directed at climate and tourism or just funds being shuffled from account to account.
It’s important we get this working very well here before we crow about saving the world.
Reach David Shapiro at volcanicash@gmail.com.
