Carbon Tax

I-732   Carbon tax shift                   

Ballot language:  Initiative Measure No. 732 concerns taxes. This measure would impost (sic) a carbon emission tax on certain fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity, reduce the sales tax by one percentage point and increase a low-income exemption, and reduce certain manufacturing taxes. Should this measure by enacted into law?

 This initiative is sponsored by Carbon WA  https://yeson732.org/  and would impose a carbon emission tax on certain fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity. Sadly, many environmental organizations have opposed I-732 because it does not do everything for everybody. I was very much involved in the early discussions about which initiative to support and what was possible. Several of the large environmental organizations (Fuse WA and Sierra Club) insisted that they were going to run an initiative and that 732 was just not the right vehicle. So we waited – and we almost waited too long because the alternate initiative never happened. So its 732 or nothing.

Here is partner Steve’s response to critics of I-732:   The claim that I-732 is going to “blow a hole” in the state budget is grossly misleading. The respected progressive think tank Sightline analyzed this claim. See http://www.sightline.org/2016/08/02/does-initiative-732-carbon-tax-have-a-budget-hole/ as well as the other articles in their series analyzing I-732 and discussing the disagreement about it.
Sightline’s conclusion is that the supposed budget deficit created by I-732 is at worst 1% or less of the entire state budget. For all practical purposes, this is within the margin of error of budget forecasts.

We can pass I-732 and finally start orienting our economy in a sane way. Tax what we don’t want (pollution) - or wait for an unknown and uncertain effort by the entrenched Seattle-centric “progressive” and green organizations. Really, there is no alternative to which to compare I-732, because the progressive and green opposition has yet to produce anything other than a very long list of “principles” and a requirement that any action must have “buy-in” from every conceivable faction and constituency. Frankly, I’m reminded of so-called revolutionaries in the 1960s who spent all of their time arguing dialectics and scheming against each other instead of ever getting off their butts, organizing people, and getting out in the streets to stop the war and make change. There really is more than a little bit of turf guarding behind the “progressive” opposition.

Of course, the actual ‘no’ campaign is simply using this conflict to hide behind. FYI: the 5 biggest donors to the ‘no’ campaign (run by the Association of Washington Business) are:

Kaiser Aluminum

Ash Grove Cement Company, Inc

Northwest Pulp & Paper Association,

Nucor Steel Seattle, Inc.

Western Petroleum Marketers Association

Climate deniers all, and fossil fools.

New information is coming out practically by the minute and I can't keep up with it. I may well post updates as more comes to light.





Back to my own opinion (as of 10-17-16):

I listened to a rather heated debate between Duncan Clausen of Carbon WA and Jeff Johnson of the Washington State Labor Council. Johnson asserted that yes, climate change is real and we really do need to do something about it, but nobody supports 732. He agreed that we needed to put a price on carbon but again, 732 is not the way to do it. He claimed that charging a tax on carbon would not decrease the amount of fossil fuels being used. He said the price would simply be passed on to consumers and the pollution would be exported. He said energy intensive industries don’t like this. He gave the usual argument about not having an alternative source of energy in place to take up the slack as fossil fuels are reduced.

Duncan Clausen countered that pricing carbon was really the only way to reduce its use, and 732 is the first tool to make that happen. A state mandate was passed in 2008 and it is not being met. 732 went to the legislature this year and they punted and said they wanted to see the issue on the ballot. Ok, now its on the ballot. Climate change is the single biggest issue of our times and this is a policy which we can put in place now, rather than waiting for someone to come up with something better someday.

It is painful to see the environmental community divided like this. I have checked the positions of the pro and con groups and find the con groups, many of whom I have supported and worked with for years, acting like spoiled children because its not their proposal on the ballot. We have to start somewhere – and they have to grow up.

Here’s how this will work. A tax will be levied on fossil fuels at the wholesale level, starting at $15.00/ton of CO2 emitted and increasing incrementally to $100.00/ton by 2059. It is understood that the cost will indeed be passed on to consumers. To offset that cost, the state sales tax will be reduced by 1¢. There will also be tax rebates of up to $1500.00/year for low income households. And the B&O tax, acknowledged to be one of the most regressive in the US, will be reduced or eliminated for manufacturing. The intent was to create a revenue-neutral measure, one which shifts the burden from consumers to fossil fuel generators & suppliers. And behind all of this is the intent to reduce the generation and use of fossil fuels in Washington.

This system has been in place in British Columbia for a while now and it seems to be working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax  The graph in the referenced article shows that petroleum consumption in BC has declined significantly since 2008 when the carbon tax went into effect. Bottom line: we have an example before us and 732 is modeled on that example.

Out of a sense of fairness, here’s a link to KUOW’s piece on the issue http://kuow.org/post/should-carbon-emissions-be-taxed-washington-voters-will-decide

We have to start somewhere. Waiting for something better someday maybe is just not an option.

I will be voting a resounding YES on I-732