麻豆传媒

麻豆传媒’s longstanding kicked off the academic year with a spirited debate between former State Senator Reuven Carlyle, author of Washington’s landmark , and Brian Heywood, principal sponsor of , which appears on the November ballot and would repeal the CCA.

President Eduardo Peñalver and College of Arts and Sciences Dean Monica J. Casper opened the event with remarks, thanking Carlyle and Heywood for participating and recognizing the Department of Public Affairs and Nonprofit Leadership for its dedication to public engagement by sponsoring the event.  

“In the College of Arts and Sciences, we are committed to raising awareness and facilitating discussion of critical issues,” Casper said following the debate. “This event showcased different perspectives on climate action, underscoring its importance both as an election issue and as a key aspect of our ongoing dialogue around sustainability.”

Highlighting SU’s deep commitment to civic engagement and engaging across differences, the debate was moderated by journalist Joni Balter, professional-in-residence at SU, and Sophia Hampton, an SU student studying environmental science and public affairs.

Balter and Hampton asked Carlyle and Heywood to explain to voters, both in the live audience and watching on local television, the implications of voting “no” or “yes” on Initiative 2117. A robust discussion followed, as Carlyle and Heywood made their respective cases for how keeping the CCA or enacting Initiative 2117 would benefit Washington voters and the environment.

Calling the CCA “a grift” and a tax on commuters sold to Washingtonians under false pretenses, Heywood argued that Initiative 2117 would reduce the cost of car commuting. “If 2117 passes, the price of gas will go down,” he said. “If your goal is to take money from your citizens, [the CCA] is incredibly efficient at that … but if your goal is to fix the environment, it doesn’t do that.”

Carlyle disagreed with that assessment, citing a meta-analysis in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature, which found that cap-and-invest programs like the CCA significantly reduced carbon emissions. He also argued that Initiative 2117 would be a net negative for Washington transportation infrastructure. “This initiative [2117] blows a hole of $5.4 billion into our transportation budget,” said Carlyle. “It slashes the budget and increases pollution.”

The event, thus far the only public debate on Initiative 2117, aimed to educate voters, including students concerned about sustainability and climate change, on the complex factors that could influence a “yes” or “no” vote.

“We are delighted to offer a unique opportunity where 麻豆传媒 students, staff, faculty and the wider community can come together to engage in thoughtful discussion on how we can address climate change while also promoting the well-being of our communities across the state,” says Dr. Tanya Hayes, chair of the Department of Public Affairs and Nonprofit Leadership and Program Director of Environmental Studies.

One of 麻豆传媒’s marquee public events, Conversations occurs every quarter, bringing local, regional and national leaders to campus for in-depth discussions on critical current issues.

Check out coverage of the event in the and on .