BY JACK STROUD
Although Washington voters rejected a carbon tax in 2016, they once again must vote on a similar proposal.
In 2016, initiative-732 proposed a revenue neutral carbon tax based on a similar tax implemented in British Columbia eight years prior. To account for the increased cost of fossil fuels on Washington residents the initiative would have included a one percent reduction in the sales tax — from 6.5% to 5.5%. With nearly sixty percent of 2016 voters in opposition to the initiative, it did not pass.
Those in support of this year’s initiative, I-1631, want voters to take careful note that it is a fee, not a tax. The distinction lies in the allocation of the collected moneys. Robin Chapman, an Evergreen student and an advocate of 1631 explained the distinction. “Since its a fee we get to dictate where it goes,” said Chapman. “If it gets thrown in the tax money pool it can go to anything.”
While I-732 would have been a tax borne directly by consumers, I-1631 would charge the states top carbon polluters. If passed, I-1631 will cost the state’s top polluters $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, with notable exceptions such as aviation fuel, aluminum manufacturers and other trade dependent businesses, a coal fired plant in Centralia scheduled to shut down in 2025, and pulp and paper mills which are considered carbon neutral under Washington State Law.
This fee would be implemented in 2020 and increase annually by two dollars, with inflation taken into account. If the state’s 2035 carbon sequestration goal is met and things are likewise on track to meet the 2050 goal, then the fee will no longer increase except for inflation adjustments.
I-1631 aims to reduce WA’s carbon emissions by twenty million metric tons by 2035 and fifty million metric tons by 2050. A study conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology concluded that the 2035 goal is too lenient and should be pushed up to 2030.
Estimates of the how much money I-1631 could generate in the first five years of its implementation range from $2.2 billion to just under $3 billion. A fifteen member panel, all appointed by the governor, would have the ultimate say in how this revenue is spent. The statute stipulates for what purposes the money must be spent, however, flexibility and adaptability are constitutive of the initiatives budget plan.
In a discussion facilitated by the Yakima Herald Editorial board, a representative of the No on 1631 coalition, Dana Bieber, said “this 15 member board can spend the money in any way they choose.” Bieber suggested board members might invest money generated by I-1631 into personal hedge funds or spend it out of state where Washingtonians would reap no benefit.
In that same discussion, Mo McBroom, representative of the Nature Conservancy and proponent of I-1631 retorted that Bieber’s claims were “absolutely not true.” While there is no concrete budget plan, the initiative states that money must be spent to further one of three environmental categories: clean air and energy investments, clean water and healthy forests, and healthy communities investments.
The initiative would create three Investment Advisory Panels, one for each of the above environmental categories. These panels are intended to be a check on the jurisdiction of the 15 member board, even though the panels would likewise be appointed by the governor.
“This initiative was drafted in large part by people representing the voices of lower income communities,” said McBroom. The initiative itself states that “at least one-third of the membership of each panel must be representatives of the interests of vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas.”
I-1631 advocates feel that this diverse participation in the creation and continuance of the measure can justifiably assuage concerns of accountability. Opponents aren’t so sure.
Some worry that the fee intended for large oil companies and other polluters will be passed on to consumers. The estimates of increased cost of living vary widely. Bieber relied on predictions that foresee an additional $440 a year for Washington families. Chapman, on the other hand, stated that, “It’s only going to cost the average household ten dollars a month.”
McBroom argued that “the oil companies want you to think that they will pass the costs on, but if that were the case, why would they be investing $20 million to defeat this initiative? They know that it is going to hit their bottom line.”
Jon Devaney, President of the Washington State Fruit Association and opponent of 1631, pointed out a contradiction he saw in McBroom’s and other proponents argument to the Yakima Herald Editorial Board. “Our growers will be able to pass on these added energy costs to our customers and they expect us to believe that oil companies will somehow not use that market power to pass costs on to their customers, who are my members.” Devaneys main argument is that Washington farmers will be put at a competitive disadvantage due to increased costs of fuel.
The initiative is intended to reinvest the money it generates to help disadvantaged communities. The initiative states that “funds for this community capacity program must be allocated through a competitive process with a preference for projects proposed by vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas and rural communities.” Speculation to the efficacy of this and other provisions of the initiative run wide.
Advocates feel that it is too late to wait for a perfect solution. A recent United Nation study paints a devastating picture of global temperatures at 1.5˚C above pre-industrial levels within the next 50 years, suggesting we are well on our way to a disastrous tipping point and drastic measures will have to be taken to prevent it.
Devaney feels that proponents of I-1631 set us up with a “false choice of either you do nothing about environmental issues and air quality or you pass 1631.” He goes on to say that Washingtonians care deeply about the future of our environment and much is going on to protect it in spite of 1631.
If the initiative passes it will be the first of its kind in the United States and will potentially be a model for other states and countries to follow. If it does not pass those battling for environmental protection will likely not tire.
