HAWAII VISITOR AIR TRAVEL EMISSIONS AS CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING!
This paper attempts to answer the question “How much global warming emissions are
generated though air travel of visitors to Hawaii?” Though discussion and criticism will
appropriately arise, the core answer will be 18 million tons of CO2(equivalent) emissions arose
from air travel of visitors in 2019. To gain perspective on this number, the emissions from all of
Hawaii’s Stationary Combustion (electricity generation from power plants, petroleum refineries,
etc.) was 7.8 million tons CO2(e), and all emissions from ground transportation in the islands
reached 4 million tons CO2(e). (Hawaii State Greenhouse Gas Inventory) It is therefore
proposed that Hawaii’s imperative efforts toward conversion of power generation and ground
transportation to zero emissions sources will make only modest improvement in the state’s
emissions profile if we continue to host the current numbers of visitors.!
The derivation of the figure of 18 million tons CO2(e) from visitor transport must be
understood.!
#!
The above table, in it’s first two columns, collates information from the Hawaii Tourism
Authority 2019 data regarding numbers of visitors from each of 8 ‘Regions of Origin’. The third
column chooses an origin airport representative of that ‘region’. The fourth column calculates
the round-trip miles in the most direct flight itinerary from that origin airport to Honolulu. We
will discuss the 5th column momentarily as we choose the correct method to convert each
itinerary into it’s CO2(e) emissions.!
For this discussion the number of miles traveled for each passenger itinerary, and the
CO2(e) emissions for which each passenger is responsible, are calculated by the Carbon Offset
websites. The several available carbon offset websites calculate carbon emissions from
various activities including air transportation and then allow the purchase of ‘offsets’ to be
applied to environmentally restorative projects to compensate for those emissions. Each
‘offset’ website has it’s own methodology for these calculations.!
REGION
# of VISITORS
ORIGIN CITY
ROUND TRIP MILES
EMISSIONS -CO2(e)
U.S. West
4,600,000
Portland
5,200
6,440,000 tons
U.S. East
2,300,000
Washington
D.C.
9,600
5,750,000 tons
Japan
1,600,000
To k y o
7,600
1,600,000 tons
Canada
500,000
Vancouver B.C.
5,400
700,000 tons
Europe
140,000
London
14,000
546,000 tons
Oceania
360,000
Sydney
10,000
972,000 tons
Korea
230,000
Seoul
9,200
552,000 tons
China
90,000
Shanghai
9,800
234,000 tons
EMISSIONS (EQUIVALENTS CO
2
) TOTAL:
18,394,000 tons
!
The number of miles traveled by visitors from each region is derived from the most direct
itinerary from the chosen airport in that region to Honolulu. Factoring the number of travelers
from each region in 2019, it is determined that the average visitor to Hawaii travels
approximately 7,000 miles in their round-trip to the ‘most remote inhabited archipelago from
any continental land mass’ on the planet. From the 2019 Hawaii Tourism Authority data,
Hawaii hosted 10 million such visitors in 2019 (70 billion miles traveled). I must pause to
acknowledge that we don’t know what percentage of those travelers might have been stopping
here in an otherwise necessary trip across the Pacific, or how Hawaii as destination might have
been shaped by other travel plans. That limitation of this study should be understood.!
The calculation of the emissions associated with flight itineraries is the major
accomplishment of the Carbon Offset websites. In order to determine which website we would
use for our calculations, we looked at eight of the most commonly used international websites
and calculated the emissions burden of round-trip flight for the example: Portland to Honolulu.
The outcome was as follows:!
ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization): 1,317 lbs. CO2!
Terrapass (US): 3,365 lbs. CO2(e)!
Atmosfair (German):# # # # 3,740 lbs. CO2(e)!
Sustainable Travel International:# # 2,640 lbs. CO2(e)!
My Climate: # # # # # 2,800 lbs. CO2(e)!
Native Energy:## # # # 3,460 lbs. CO2(e)!
Carbon Footprint: 2,340 lbs. CO2(e)!
Climate Care (British):## # # 2,500 lbs. CO2(e)!
(This British site multiplies the carbon emissions by 1.9 to account for non-carbon emission,
as recommended by the British government environmental agency)!
The Carbon Offset website coming closest to the average (2,770 lbs.) of the calculated
values is the site My Climate. I have therefore chosen this Offset calculator to derive the
emissions reflected in Column 5 of the above table. However, it is imperative that one
understands the reasons between the large discrepancy between the calculations of ICAO and
those of the other Offset sites. !
Other than ICAO, the computations of the carbon offset sites include the ‘non-CO2’
emissions and other factors which go tho make up the Radiative Forcing Index and Global
Warming Potential. These are measures of the total heating potential of any activity, not just
the CO2 emissions. The IPCC, through the work of various investigators has determined that
in air traffic flying above 9,000 meters (which would comprise 90% of all flight time to Hawaii)
the non-CO2 emissions such as water vapor and ice crystals (as contrails) and nitrogen oxides
and particulates are substantially more contributive to global warming than the CO2 emissions
themselves, up to a factor of 2x. Most regional air traffic does not reach this height. For a
more complete description of these factors and calculations see the Atmosfair Carbon
Calculator Methodology (particularly Chapter 4 on non-CO2 emissions) here:!
https://www.atmosfair.de/en/standards/emissions_calculation/emissions_calculator/ !
The ICAO (which, though UN affiliated, is airline industry operated) computations do not
acknowledge ‘non-CO2’ factors. Atmosfair factors Non-CO2 emissions above 9,000 meters as
equivalent to fully 2x the CO2 emissions, acknowledged by the IPCC with “not less than low
confidence (not ‘very low’)”. This then is added to the CO2 component of emissions.
Countries such as Austria or Germany consider a warming effect of non-CO2 that is
comparable to CO2 in national assessments of aviation impacts. This reflects that much of
their air traffic is regional and below 9,000 meters. The IPCC has indicated that they will
address the issue of ‘non-CO2’ factors again in their 2021 assemblies. Suffice it to say that
there is uncertainty in how to apply the ‘non-CO2 emissions’ factor. However, the
Precautionary Principle should apply to all climate change associated considerations. The five
pages of Documentation and References at the end of this paper focuses on the issue of the
importance of ‘non-carbon emissions’.!
Using the emissions calculator of the carbon offset site ‘My Climate’ as the mid-way or
middle-ground method between ICAO and Atmosfair, and applying it to the representative
airport from each of the origin airports and factoring the number of visitors from that region, we
derive the emissions of CO2(e) from that region. Adding these we derive a total emissions of
over 18 million tons from visitor air travel to Hawaii. !
It follows that, with 10 million visitors in 2019, the ‘average’ visitor’s emissions burden is 1.8
tons CO2(e) from his round trip flight. It is important to understand this 1.8 tons emission
burden for the average visitor in terms of the notion ‘climate justice’. The IPCC in late 2020
has recalculated the equitable yearly CO2(e) budget for each world citizen.. There is a 66%
chance of keeping world temperature increase below 1.75 degrees C if a yearly equitable
carbon budget for each world citizen of 2.75 tons CO2(e) emissions is achieved and world
CO2(e) emissions reach net 0 by 2050. That visitor has ‘blown through’ 2/3 of this yearly
equitable budget in his flight to Hawaii. Further, because the government of Hawaii, through
funding the Hawaii Tourism Authority, actively promotes this tourism for the benefit of it’s
people, the citizens of Hawaii must assume ownership of these emissions. Each Hawaii
resident has thereby appropriated the equitable carbon emissions allotment of five world
citizens. (18 million tons/1.4 million residents/2.75 tons/person). The carbon budget
calculations do not include positive feedback loops such as progressive methane release from
melting arctic permafrost or drying or burning of the Amazon rainforest. Nature Conservancy
states that the US average yearly carbon emissions now amounts to 16 tons per person and
the yearly global average is 4 tons. !
It is notable that the Hawaii State 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory designates the category
‘Domestic Air Transport’. It reports the 2019 emissions as 3.2 million tons CO2(e). This
category includes inter-island flights and flights departing from Hawaii to the US mainland. It
does not include US mainland arrivals. It does not include international flights (either arrivals or
departures). It does not include the ‘non-carbon emissions’ above 9,000 meters (considered to
have up to twice the global warming potential of the accompanying CO2 emissions, and which
comprises 90% of the flight time to and from Hawaii.)!
Will the development of Sustainable Aviation Fuel be the answer for the Hawaii Economy’s
reliance on tourism? Because of EU’s cap & trade policy Europe may have taken the lead in
SAF development. A European study estimates that by 2030, with ideal policy support and
continued favorable conditions, plant based SAF could account for 6% to 9% of European air
transportation fuel use. < https://skynrg.com/news-and-inspiration/expert-opinions/expert-
opinion-on-green-horizons/ > Though we should explore SAF, we should not paint the picture
that aviation is about to become sustainable. Hydrogen powered flight is being actively
investigated. However, I refer to calculation by a French astrophysicist of the amount of
renewable electricity required to make the hydrogen sufficient to power all current flights at
Charles de Gaulle Airport: 5,000 sq. kilometers of wind turbines or 1,000 sq. kilometers of
solar panels. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPoDjNWJJ0w > !
Ultimately, advertisement of Hawaii as a visitor destination must be abandoned. This
imperative will eventually be forced upon us, but by being proactive we could lead the world in
commitment to climate change mitigation. However, if the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s $80
million budget for the promotion of tourism were discontinued, the multi-billion dollar visitor
industry itself would quickly step in with funding for advertising Hawaii. Though the public
would save this money, which is derived from the Transient Accommodations Tax, the visitors
would keep coming, the goal would not be achieved. In 1990, 8 years before promotion of
tourism by public funding through creation of the HTA, the Hawaii Visitors Bureau reported 7
million visitors. !
Another approach might be to modify a modest proposal currently before legislature of a
$20 ‘green fee’ applied to the TAT for each Hawaii visitor. This $20 Transient Accomodations
‘Green Fee’ could become a nightly fee. This nightly fee could be raised by $5 to $10 each year
until the number of visitors in the preceding year had fallen to the ‘desirable’ level. Hopefully
this level would reflect respect for the above notion of ‘climate justice’. What is that level?
Keith Amemiya, as candidate for mayor, was asked that question. His reply (after some
thought) - “somewhere around 6 million”. This examiner would place that number lower.!
The Hawaii Tourism Authority reports that the ‘average’ visitor to Hawaii spends $1,800 on
their visit. Is that visitor going to be dissuaded from his 10 day visit by an extra $200 spent as
‘green fee’? A few, but not most. The Hawaii Tourism Authority has endorsed the position that
perhaps 2019’s numbers reached ‘too many’, and that we may want to reduce the number of
budget or economy travelers, but continue to encourage the more high end or extravagant
visitors. Those ‘higher end’ travelers will not even notice the extra $20 per day spent. !
Our world is ‘on fire’. Twice in the past year, temperatures have been recorded above the
arctic circle at 100 F or higher. These times are unprecedented. This is the beginning. The
scientists are saying that global warming is coming faster than they had imagined possible. It is
time for commitment. !
DOCUMENTATION AND REFERENCES
1. Yerton, S. (2019, August 27). Air Travel’s Carbon Footprint Takes a Big Environmental Toll in
Hawai‘i. Civil Beat.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/08/air-travels-carbon-footprint-takes-a-big-environmental-toll-in-
hawaii/
2. Shkvorov, A. (2020, July 3). Hawai‘i’s Runaway Tourism. Excerpts from the transcript of the
main presentation delivered during the virtual colloquium “Hawai‘i’s tourism futures: What
constrains the realm of possibilities?”
http://hrt.hawaii.red
3. Atmosfair Emissions Calculator Methodology.
Chapter 4: Climate Impact of Non-carbon Emissions.
https://www.atmosfair.de/en/standards/emissions_calculation/emissions_calculator/
Chapter 4 Summary:
Aircraft engines emit various pollutants that contribute directly or indirectly to raising global
temperatures. Among them, carbon dioxide (CO
2
) is the easiest to explain in terms of origin and
effect. The combustion of kerosene produces CO
2
: the more kerosene is consumed, the more CO
2
is produced. CO
2
is used as the basis for calculating climate damage. Other pollutants and their
effects can be summarized using an internationally recognized calculation method and these
warming effects can hence be converted into those of CO
2
. First, the emissions calculator
calculates the fuel consumption per passenger and based on this result, determines the amount
of CO
2
that has a comparable effect to that of all other pollutants emitted by the flight added
together (effective CO
2
emissions). This is the calculator’s final CO
2
output, which Atmosfair will
then offset through climate protection projects.
The degree of climate impact for emissions and their effects depends on the altitude and the
state of the atmosphere at the time of the flight and when the aircraft emits the pollutants. The
emissions calculator only processes the non-carbon emissions when the flight profile exceeds
9000-meter altitude. For a short-haul flight of 400 km, the amount of time spent at over 9000 m
usually equals 0% of the flight profile (depending on the aircraft type) and then gradually rises to
over 90% (for distances of 10,000 km and beyond). In order to properly include the effect of those
emissions in the calculations, the CO
2
-emissions produced at over 9000 m are multiplied by two
and then added to the actual carbon emissions (“factor 3”).
The effects those pollutants have on the climate have been described in detail by the IPCC,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 1999, 2013), and by subsequent studies
directly based on the IPCC’s findings (Grassl, Brockhagen 2007). This document will only address
the major pollutants and their effects. See the above Atmosfair website for further discussion.
4. Articles referencing the contribution of ‘non-CO
2
’ air transport emissions to global warming.
4.1. Gössling, S. & Humpe, A. (2020). The global scale, distribution and growth of aviation:
Implications for climate change. Global Environmental Change 65, 102194.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779
An important omission of Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement is their focus on CO
2
and other
long-lived greenhouse gases, ignoring aviation’s contribution to radiative forcing from short-lived
emissions such as nitrous oxides (NOx), or in the form of contrails or clouds (H
2
0) (Lee et al.,
2020). These non-CO
2
emissions are not directly comparable with long-lived GHG, but they do
contribute to global warming (Lee and Sausen, 2000).
Non-CO
2
warming is expected to remain relevant in the short and medium-term future (Bock and
Burkhardt, 2019). To account for non-CO
2
warming, countries such as Austria or Germany consider
a warming effect of non-CO
2
that is comparable to CO
2
in national assessments of aviation
impacts (Environment Agency Austria, 2018; German Environment Agency, 2018). In 2018, aviation
has been estimated to account for 2.4% of anthropogenic emissions of CO
2
including land use
changes (Lee et al. 2020). There is an additional warming effect related to contrail cirrus and
NOx, which is larger than the warming from CO
2
, if calculated as net effective radiative forcing.
Lee et al. (2020:2) conclude that “aviation emissions are currently warming the climate at
approximately three times the rate of that associated with aviation CO
2
emissions alone”.
4.2. Le Page, M. (2019, June 27). It turns out planes are even worse for the climate than
we thought. New Scientist.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207886-it-turns-out-planes-are-even-worse-
for-theclimate-than-w e-thought/
Burkhardt and her colleagues used a computer model of the atmosphere to estimate how
much warming contrails caused in 2006 – the latest year for which a detailed air traffic inventory
is available – and how much they will cause by 2050, when air traffic is expected to be four times
higher. The model accounts for not only of the change in air traffic volume, but also the location
and altitude of flights, along with the changing climate. The team concludes that the warming
effect of contrails will rise from 50 milliwatts per square metre (mW/m
2
) of Earth’s surface in
2006 to 160 mW/m
2
by 2050. In comparison, the warming due to CO
2
from aviation will rise from
24 to 84 mW/m
2
by this time. In a scenario in which the airline industry increases fuel efficiency
and reduces the number of soot particles emitted by improving fuels and engines, the warming
from contrails by 2050 is limited to 140 mW/m
2
and the warming from CO
2
to 60 mW/m
2
.
4.3. Timperley, J. (2017, March 15). Explainer: The challenge of tackling aviation’s non-CO
2
emissions. CarbonBrief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-challenge-tackling-aviations-non-co2-emissions
4.4. Larsson, J., et al. (2018). Measuring greenhouse gas emissions from international air
travel of a country’s residents. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 72: 137-144.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925517303116
There are also non-CO
2
effects from aviation on the climate including nitrogen oxides,
contrails, and aviation-induced cirrus clouds (Azar and Johansson, 2012; Boucher et al., 2013;
ICAO, 2013; David S Lee et al., 2010). There are significant uncertainties about how large these
effects are. Our choice to include them is mainly based on that they are accounted for in the last
scientific review carried out by the IPCC (Boucher et al., 2013). We apply this by using the most
cited scientific estimate (David S Lee et al., 2010). The inclusion of non-CO
2
effects is done by
multiplying CO
2
emissions by an Emission Weighting Factor (EWF). The EWF is highly dependent on
the time perspective considered: the shorter the time perspective, the higher the EWF will be. In
this paper, we used Global Warming Potential (GWP) with a 100-year perspective, for which the
EWF is 1.9 (Lee et al., 2010).
4.5. Sullivan, A. (2020, January 21). To fly or not to fly? The environmental cost of air travel.
Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/to-fly-or-not-to-fly-the-environmental-cost-of-air-
travel/a-42090155
Many estimates put aviation’s share of global CO
2
emissions at just above 2 percent. That is
the figure the industry itself generally accepts.
But according to Stefan Gössling, a ‘‘professor at Sweden’s Lund and Linnaeus universities and
co-editor of the book Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions, “That’s only
half the truth.” Other aviation emissions such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), water vapor, particulates,
contrails and cirrus changes have additional warming effects. “The sector makes a contribution to
global warming that is at least twice the effect of CO
2
alone,” Gössling told DW, settling on an
overall contribution of 5% “at minimum.” A few years ago, environmental group
Germanwatch estimated that a single person taking one roundtrip flight from Germany to the
Caribbean produces the same amount of damaging emissions as 80 average residents of Tanzania
do in an entire year: around four metric tons of CO
2
.
4.6. IPCC. (1999). Aviation and The Global Atmosphere. J.E.Penner, D.H.Lister, D.J.Griggs,
D.J.Dokken, M.McFarland (Eds.) Prepared in collaboration with the Scientific Assessment
Panel to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Cambridge
University Press, UK.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/aviation-and-the-global-atmosphere-2/
In an attempt to aggregate and quantify the total climate impact of aircraft emissions, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that aviation’s total climate impact
is some two to four times that of its direct CO
2
emissions alone (excluding the potential impact of
cirrus cloud enhancement).
4.7. Azar, C. & Johansson, D. J. A. (2012). Valuing the non-CO
2
climate impacts of aviation.
Climatic Change 111 (3-4): 559-579.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0168-8
While the principal greenhouse gas emission from powered aircraft in flight is CO
2
, other
emissions may include nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (together termed oxides of nitrogen or
NOx), water vapor and particulates (soot and sulfate particles), sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide
(which bonds with oxygen to become CO2 immediately upon release), incompletely burned
hydrocarbons, tetraethyllead (piston aircraft only), and radicals such as hydroxyl, depending on
the type of aircraft in use. Emissions weighting factor (EWFs) i.e., the factor by which aviation
CO
2
emissions should be multiplied to get the CO
2
-equivalent emissions for annual fleet average
conditions is in the range 1.3–2.9.
4.8. Jardine, C. N. (2009). Calculating the Environmental Impact of
Aviation Emissions. https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/
downloads/jardine09-carboninflights.pdf
In 1999 the contribution of civil aircraft-in-flight to global CO
2
emissions was estimated to be
around two percent. However, in the cases of high-altitude airliners which frequently fly near or
in the stratosphere, non-CO2 altitude-sensitive effects may increase the total impact on
anthropogenic (human-made) climate change significantly. A 2007 report from Environmental
Change Institute/Oxford University posits a range closer to 4%
cumulative effect.
4.9. Faber, J. & Nelissen, D. (2017). Towards Addressing Aviations Non-CO
2
Climate
Impacts. CE Delft.
https://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/towards_addressing_aviations_non-co2_climate_impacts/
1961
Aviation has different impacts on the climate. While the EU and ICAO have started to address
the impacts of CO
2
emissions, the other impacts remain unaddressed directly. This note argues
that they should be addressed in line with established European policy as well as because of the
precautionary principle.
In terms of radiative forcing, the non-CO
2
climate impacts of aviation are estimated to be
about as large as the impacts of CO
2
. In other words, the cumulative effect of the non-CO
2
impacts on the current climate is about as large as the cumulative effect of aviation CO
2
emissions. (Note, however, that radiative forcing is not a good metric for designing policies as it
tends to measure the impact of past activities rather than influence future activities, and so does
not fully account for the different lifetimes of the CO
2
and non-CO
2
impacts).
In view of the impact of aviation’s non-CO
2
-emissions on climate, there are good reasons to
implement policies to address them. The uncertainty about the exact size of the impact is not a
valid argument to postpone action when the precautionary principle applies. This section shows
that this appears to be the case.
In its communication on the Precautionary Principle, the European Commission (EC, 2000)
states that the precautionary principle can be invoked to take action when the following criteria
are met:
▪ It should be “considered within a structured approach to the analysis of risk which comprises
three elements: risk assessment, risk management, risk communication. The
precautionary principle is particularly relevant to the management of risk”.
▪ “Potentially dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process [should]
have been identified”.
▪ “Scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty”.
Each of the criteria has been met for non-CO
2
climate impacts of aviation.
There exists a well-established EU policy to deal with emissions causing climate risks in
general, as is evident from the 2020 climate and energy package and the 2030 climate and energy
framework, for example. This policy underlies the EU ETS and effort sharing, as well as policies
aimed at for example fluorinated greenhouse gases. The EU policy contributes to a global policy
framework within the UNFCCC.
The potentially dangerous effects of climate emissions, including aviation NOx-emissions,
have been identified, but there is ongoing discussion about the size of the impact.
Although it is clear that the non-CO
2
climate impacts add to the global temperature increase,
the level of scientific understanding of the aviation non-CO
2
impacts is still considered too low to
calculate the risks exactly (Lee, et al., 2010). Moreover, there is an ongoing discussion about the
relevant metric for comparing long-term and short-term climate impacts which is in itself not a
scientific but rather a political decision because it depends on the type of risk that a society is
willing to accept.
4.10. Hemmings, B. (2017). The non-CO
2
impacts of aviation must be tackled. [A Tran sp ort &
Environment briefing]. Brussels.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2017_06_non
CO2_aviation_briefing_final_0.pdf
Non-CO
2
effects of aviation have been acknowledged by scientists but ignored by
policymakers. It is estimated that gases other than CO
2
have at least as large a climate impact as
CO
2
. The European Commission has so far failed to address aviation’s non-CO
2
effects despite
undertaking to do so in 2008. This risks undermining the EU’s climate policy. T&E recommends the
Commission now acts on its 2008 promise and proposes a charge on NOx emissions and earmarks
funds for research into other non-CO
2
effects such as contrail and cirrus formation and their
avoidance.
Measures proposed or in place to address aviation’s climate impact, such as EU Emissions
Trading System (EU ETS), the CO
2
standard for new aircraft or the proposed global measure
Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission
April 7, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.
Video conference
Aloha. My name is John Kawamoto, and I’d like to submit testimony relating to the UHERO report
on carbon pricing.
To its credit, the State Climate Commission has been advocating for carbon pricing for several years
now. The UHERO study substantiates the Commission’s understanding that the carbon fee and
dividend model would substantially reduce carbon emissions while being equitable because low-
income households would benefit financially.
A carbon fee and dividend bill was introduced this legislative session in the House and Senate, but it
died, along with the other carbon pricing bills. Unfortunately, the UHERO study was not a factor
because it was issued after all of these bills died. Attention should be shifted to the 2022 legislative
session.
As you know, one of the Commission’s statutory mandates is to advise and governor, legislature and
counties on the economic and budgetary ramifications of climate change impacts, mitigation, and
adaptation.
The Commission would be acting in accordance with its statutory mandate, and also its stated
mission, by sponsoring and promoting a carbon fee and dividend bill in the 2022 session. Other
State agencies initiate bills, and the Commission can do the same.
Carbon pricing makes sense, and it is supported by the public. At the hearing by the House Energy
and Environmental Protection Committee on HB 1319, a carbon pricing bill, 33 individuals and
agencies supported the measure, while only 7 opposed it.
The Commission is a respected agency, so if the Commission and its members seriously promote
the carbon fee and dividend model by sponsoring a bill and advocating for it, the Legislature would
certainly give it serious consideration.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.
John Kawamoto
808-852-2656
jk1492@gmail.com
D01810F1-62C0-4138-AAE4-0439BDED69CF