Washington state’s largest newspaper is urging a No vote on I-1631, the carbon tax initiative on the state’s Nov. 6 ballot.
The Seattle Times editorial raises a few sound objections. But the paper falls into the same trap that ensnared some I-1631 proponents who fought a predecessor carbon tax initiative, I-732, two years ago: missing the forest for the trees.
Despite its flaws, it’s critical that Washington voters pass the initiative.
The Times editorial drills into I-1631’s prime weak spot — accountability:
It [I-1631] would collect more than $1 billion yearly. An un-elected board appointed by the governor would propose how to spend it. The initiative requires seats for powerful entities, such as labor and tribes, promising them large cuts.
The Legislature has the final say on appropriations. But the carbon board is structured to be a political juggernaut. Legislators might have difficulty mustering political will to change course.
Graphic courtesy of Sightline Institute.
Yes, taxpayer dollars ideally should be appropriated by the legislators those taxpayers elected rather than by an unaccountable panel of interest group representatives. (If you don’t see the problem there, imagine a board chosen by a conservative Republican governor.)
And granted, the initiative specifies that most of the carbon revenues must be dedicated to “clean air and clean energy investments.” But the language leaves plenty of room for projects that might have little or no impact on the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Times also expresses dismay that the measure will — gasp! — raise prices of fossil-fuel energy, as if that weren’t the whole point. It’s a bit like complaining that cigarette taxes will raise costs for smokers.
Most of the revenue from the defeated 2016 carbon tax initiative, I-732, would have gone to cut the state’s regressive sales tax, easing the cost burden on households and businesses. I-1631 dedicates some funds to bringing cleaner energy to low-income households. But some Washingtonians with high energy bills relative to their incomes — especially low-income and rural residents — will nevertheless face higher costs. Proponents counter this concern in part by noting that some funds will flow to and benefit rural areas, as this Sightline Institute report argues.
Notwithstanding its drawbacks, passing I-1631 is critical. If the U.S. is ever to price carbon in a serious way, some state will have to go first, and that first measure probably won’t be perfect. Some of the groups promoting I-1631 today got that wrong two years ago when they opposed I-732 because they didn’t like how the revenue was used. Now the Seattle Times is repeating that mistake.
We need to start taxing carbon, — even the apolitical IPCC said so earlier this month — and arguably the best thing to do with the revenue is whatever will get the most votes for taxing carbon. I-732 wasn’t it. I-1631 might be.
A recent poll by the reputable firm Elway Research found 50% of voters supporting and only 36% opposing the initiative this time. Still, Elway’s survey size, just 400 voters, was thin, and polling on public questions is notoriously tricky. Moreover, there’s a $26 million oil-money war-chest working to turn the vote around in the final days. Anything can happen.
The good news is that this time the pro-initiative forces are also well-funded, with almost $14 million banked, including $1 million from Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Gates posted a powerful endorsement of I-1631 on LinkedIn earlier this month. He gets what the Seattle Times doesn’t:
If 1631 passes, it will create the first [carbon] fee in the United States. Going first is never easy, but Washington has a history of pioneering new ideas. And because of all the benefits — shoring up nuclear and hydropower, enhancing the state’s role as a leader in innovation, and most of all accelerating progress on climate-change solutions — I believe it will be worth it.
Drew Keeling says
This welcome analysis captures the key importance of the initiative. If passed, it would constitute an overdue but welcome start towards more sensible carbon pricing in America.
The predecessor initiative (I-732) had a more transparent disposition of revenues from the carbon fee levied. Whether or not that would have made it more readily replicable in other US states, or nationally, is an interesting question. In any case, however, a later and weaker start is preferable to an earlier and stronger non-start. Furthermore, if the current Washington state proposal (I-1631) is approved next month, other US jurisdictions will be able to compare it (lacking revenue-neutrality) to the national carbon tax recently adopted in Canada (having such revenue-neutrality) in considering potential carbon pricing programs of their own.
The chief shortcoming of the Washington state carbon tax initiative, and of nearly every preceeding proposal, adopted or not adopted there or anywhere else, is that it amounts to a fee on carbon fuels far below what economically advanced countries can afford and what we all owe in fairness to future generations. For centuries -if not millennia- to come those generations are going to wonder why our generation chose, for pennies on the dollar, to benefit at the expense of their climate and economic well-being.
For many decades, European and leading Asian countries have taxed gasoline at rates three to eight times higher than in the United States. This has not hurt their economies, and most of them have better public transportation and less urban sprawl than America. If applied to carbon generally, those rates would be on the order of ten times the current British Columbia and new Canada national carbon taxes. (Many of these of countries also have carbon taxes that are higher than Canada’s, albeit only slightly so). Washington’s I-1631 carbon tax rate would be even lower than those in Canada.
I-1631 is nonetheless a significant opportunity. It would be the first genuine carbon tax in the United States, the world’s largest economy and greatest cumulative contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Seattle Times editorial correctly spots more than a few trees, but has indeed missed seeing not just the whole current forest, but the future of forests and forestry. CTC is on the right side of history, and so is this small imperfect step being weighed now in Washington state.