If you listened to Gov. Jay Inslee, you’d think everybody in Washington enthusiastically backs his environmental agenda. Well, everyone except those pesky legislators, that is, who thwart him at every righteous turn.
By Inslee’s estimation, they’re the only roadblock to ending wildfires, cleaning Puget Sound, and driving cars powered by our own sense of self-satisfaction.
What Inslee never seems to mention when throwing shade at those darn legislators (something he did as recently as yesterday) is that Democrats run both chambers of the Legislature. He also fails to mention that his carbon tax plans have never even been brought to a vote in either of those Democrat-controlled bodies.
If “we’re the last generation that can do anything about” climate change, as Inslee likes to say, he’s done a terrible job of convincing his own party of that.
It’s unclear why Inslee thinks that his agenda is any more popular with the public. Voters, after all, handily defeated a carbon tax initiative in 2016 that was revenue-neutral. He thinks they’re now much more excited about a tax-raising carbon tax? (Oh, wait, it’s a fee. We forgot.)
We doubt higher taxes have become much more popular in the past two years. And if oil prices remain up, that just makes it all the more unlikely voters will want to make their trips to the pump more expensive.
Some groups point out that regressive carbon taxes are regressive
Some surprising voices are questioning the wisdom of making energy more expensive. Even some environmental groups – many, actually – question the tactic and worry about the impact on lower-income groups.
At the national level, a broad coalition of environmental groups recently sent a letter to far-left congressmen complaining about their “The People’s Budget.” This is not the Prius-driving wine-and-brie-fundraisers crowd. They want carbon taxes removed from the proposal in part because of its impact on the poor.
The coalition wrote that including a carbon tax would make it impossible “for some groups representing environmental justice communities” to support the Progressive Caucus’ budget. The groups used terms including “inequitable, discriminatory, ineffective and ultimately regressive” to describe carbon taxes.
Rebates for the poor don’t work, but I-1631 doesn’t offer them anyway
The groups directly attacked the idea that spending a portion of carbon tax proceeds on lower-income groups will somehow make those taxpayers whole. They wrote:
“Carbon taxes would be highly regressive, irrespective of the proposed unworkable rebate schemes. Lower-income families dedicate a larger proportion of their income on energy, so a carbon tax hits economically struggling family the hardest. These households are already forced to make difficult financial choices between food and rent, and medicines and education.”
Past carbon tax proposals included spending and/or rebates to help lower-income Washingtonians pay for their higher energy costs. Because Initiative 1631’s carbon tax is branded a “fee” instead, that was not legally an option.
So it is certainly true that the carbon tax on the ballot this year is going to hit poor families hardest. This is the path I-1631’s authors chose.
Closer to home, even Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic seems skeptical:
Novoselic might be a celebrity and on the left, but he’s no vapid Hollywood liberal. He puts thought into political positions, and he’s piped in to Washington politics. If he’s skeptical too, well, I-1631 might really be in trouble at the ballot box.
Thank you for the kind words. I am not a liberal. I am Liberal in the international sense of the word; as in centrist. I voted Gary Johnson for president. I support Washington Independents.
I gave money to the I-732 campaign, as it made sense to knock down the sales tax by a point and virtually eliminate the B&O tax. But lefty Seattle enviros wanted more money for Oly and scuttled the initiative. If you wonder why a group like Sierra Club testified in favor of the Washington Voting Rights Act, it is also a case of underlying ideology driving policy.
I-732 was modeled on a law passed by British Columbia Liberal party BTW/. (Not to digress, I had the pleasure of meeting Christy Clark — who supports Single-Transferable Vote / proportional Ranked Choice Voting). I will be voting no on 1631. I am a rural dweller and most people drive long distances to get anywhere. Indeed, this is a tax on working people.
Well, people rejected I-732 so time to try something else. We are paying a carbon tax now it is just in a hidden form in increased cost of warming climate (seen the wildfires lately) and increased cost of healthcare as burning fossil fuels has an affect on all of us, especially lower income and POC.
Your second sentence is only valid IF climate change is, indeed, caused mainly by humans. So far, the “true” science has not been able to bear that out (either has there been a positive link between cell phones and brain tumors). As for fossil fuels causing lower income…I’m not sure what planet you are talking about. The industrial revolution (largely fueled by petroleum and coal) brought human kind out of the dark ages and has done more to improve wages and living conditions than any natural effect on earth.
Such misinformation…
I assume that your second sentence is based upon the misguided (and unproven) belief that humans are the major cause in our warming climate. That discounts your first claim.
Secondly, if you recall any history, at all, you would know that the Industrial Revolution, largely powered by coal and oil, has done more to improve our lives and income levels than anything else. If it weren’t for petroleum products, it’s entirely likely that neither you nor I would have ever been around to create these posts.
No convincing a climate change denyer so I will not even try. The vast majority of scientist and a majority of the public believe differently than you.
I do not deny the role of coal and oil in our development. It is a different time now. we have new technologies that we did not have then. It is called progress. We rode around in cars without seatbelts at one time also
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.W2yeftJKiPo
Yes…the carbon tax. That should help the world, though I’m not sure how giving the government more money to spend on social engineering programs will help with climate change. Then, again, what else should we expect from a state government that is considering allowing its employees to charge their personal (electric) cars, at work (and at taxpayer’s expense).
Hey you don’t even have to be a state employee to charge for free at some state facilities. I will think of you every time I plug into one.
Which state facilities would those be? I’m sure there are a number of pro-taxpayer groups that would be delighted to investigate these occurrences.
Washington State law allows free charging for State employees and those doing business with the State. Go for it if you would like to challenge it.
http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/November-2014/Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Stations-To-Charge-or-No.aspx
You probably ascertained, from my previous comments, that I was aware of the discussion to allow this. I just wasn’t aware that it was already law (though I was informed that our particular agency was still debating the issue).
It’s absolutely clear, the distaste our Democratic government has for oil (and disrespect for their constituents), when I would be fired for putting a gallon of state gas in my pickup, but be welcomed to charge up my (government subsidized) Prius on the taxpayers nickel.
The point is there is a public benefit to provide incentives that encourage the move to electric transportation. Not so for gas vehicles. I understand you do not believe fossil fuels play a part, I do. Probably will never know in my lifetime, but my children most likely will.
You could add all of the incentive that electric transportation receives and add all the free charging in the US and I doubt it would come close to the subsidies oil and coal receive. My tax dollars have been subsidizing fossil fuels for many years. Last I saw to the tune of $26 billion a year.
https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/index.html
到你的博客走一趟，如同阳光洒在我脸上，心里暖洋洋！