Editorial: Green fee only for climate projects

By Editorial Staff for Honolulu Star-Advertiser

State of Hawai‘i / Green Fee Advisory Council

Good grief. With only days left to wrap things up, do lawmakers really need to pull political shenanigans over the state’s new “green fee”?

Authorized by legislation in 2025, the green fee is collected as a portion of the state’s transient accommodations tax (TAT). It’s projected to raise about $100 million annually for projects that build state resilience in the face of climate change — though about $26 million of that is in limbo while the cruise ship industry challenges its inclusion, and because Senate Bill 2698, which would drop cruise-ship TAT collections in favor of a flat per-passenger fee, is still alive.

About $130 million in “green” funding is at stake this legislative session as part of the state’s annual budget bill, but in this eleventh hour, key senators have offered alternative line items — substituting out fully half of the priorities, worth $65 million, that were carefully crafted by the 10-­member Green Fee Advisory Council (GFAC). Both the cruise ship bill and these last-minute switcheroos create unnecessary and counterproductive hurdles for the green-fee plan and the projects it supports.

Even at $130 million, the money is a drop in the bucket compared to acknowledged need — and to let cruise ships off the hook disregards the value of the environmental remediation targeted, sending the wrong message to a fossil fuel-dependent industry, while leaving important needs to be reckoned with by taxpayers and future generations.

Legislators must support a more akamai model for doing business — one that values Hawaii accurately as a remote, fragile and irreplaceable destination, recognizes the necessity for preservation, and aligns investment, taxes and law in accordance with local needs.

Adopting most of the well-considered priorities for environmental funding developed by the advisory council would be a significant first step. It would be positive movement, even if not quite “at the scale this moment demands,” as environmental advocate and GFAC Chairman Jeff Mikulina notes.

GFAC members have expertise spanning climate change, agriculture, fire safety, tourism and sustainable commerce. Upending the advisory council’s recommendations without consulting the body is suspect — particularly since some of the legislative replacements have dubious nexus to the green-fee mission.

State Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz, chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, claims some recommended projects aren’t ready to spend money allocated, and others should apply for state money through other existing grant programs. “Readiness of projects,” however, was a priority point for GFAC.

Projects Dela Cruz and the Senate would eliminate are clearly important. They include community­-driven reforestation and natural habitat improvement ($10.6 million); retrofitting homes to protect against high-wind damage ($5 million); expanded, community-based visitor education and stewardship programs ($7.6 million) and cesspool conversions for nearshore homes in Honaunau, Hawaii island ($1 million).

Instead, alarmingly unrelated spending for a food and product innovation network ($12 million); Department of Education actions to conform with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ($800,000); and — what? — a “sports and signature events study” ($350,000) have been inserted.

This is frankly infuriating. As Mikulina warns, discarding half of GFAC recommendations threatens to undermine public confidence in the fund. It is also likely to further undermine confidence in the Legislature.

As the House and Senate hash out budget differences over the coming days, spending must be realigned to prioritize GFAC recommendations. And where substitutions are warranted, they must address actual green fee targets: climate change, with its escalating effect on wildfire risk, eroding shorelines and chronic flooding; and economic stability, with over $19 billion in statewide assets threatened by tightening insurance markets, neglected infrastructure and risk of disaster.

“There’s still an opportunity to restore some of these investments,” Mikulina said. “We hope the Legislature recognizes that.”

Click here to read the full editorial published by Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Apr. 29.