 |
In
this photo taken Oct. 29, 2015, Carbon Washington campaign organizer Ben
Silesky, left, leads a group of supporters and organization members into the
Elections Office for the Washington Secretary of State in Olympia, Wash. to
deliver signatures in support of putting Initiative 732 on the ballot. Voters
in Washington state will weigh in on Initiative 732 in the 2016 election as
they consider whether to approve the nation’s first
|
Washington lawmakers have
tried and failed in recent years to make polluters pay for their carbon
emissions to fight climate change. Now, voters will get to decide.
 |
In
this April 2, 2010 photo, a Tesoro Corp. refinery, including a gas flare flame
that is part of normal plant operations, is shown in Anacortes, Wash. after a
fatal overnight fire and explosion. Voters in Washington state will weigh in on
Initiative 732 in the 2016 election as they consider whether to approve the
nation’s first direct carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels. (AP Photo/Ted
S. Warren)
|
An
initiative on the November ballot asks voters whether the state should impose
the nation's first direct carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels such as
coal and gasoline.
Sponsors
say residents have a moral responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and
a carbon tax is the best way to do it. The tax encourages businesses to
conserve or switch to clean energy by making fossil fuels more expensive, and
it makes the tax system fairer by using the revenues to reduce other taxes,
they say.
Businesses
say the tax will drive up fuel and energy costs and put Washington companies at
a competitive disadvantage.
And
in a move that has bewildered some, major environmental and other groups —
including those that backed Gov. Jay Inslee's proposal last year to cap
emissions and make carbon polluters pay — oppose the initiative. They say it
takes the wrong approach.
Yoram
Bauman, an economist who founded Carbon Washington, the grassroots group that
gathered more than 350,000 signatures to qualify Initiative 732, defended it as
great climate and tax policy.
"It
does almost everything right for Washington," he said.
Audubon
Washington supports it.
"Our
members came down on the side of urgency. We don't have time to wait,"
said Gail Gatton, the group's executive director. "Climate change is
happening, and this is our best available option right now to protect
birds."
But
the Sierra Club, Washington Environmental Council and the advocacy group Front
and Centered say the initiative is the wrong carbon-pricing approach and will
hurt the state's revenues. Whereas Inslee's pollution fee would have raised
money for education, transportation, clean energy and programs to help
disadvantaged communities affected by climate change, Initiative 732 provides
no such investments, critics say.
"It's
not a path that makes sense for our communities," said Rich Stolz,
executive director of OneAmerica, which works on social justice issues. Stolz
said the initiative ignores climate justice and lacks input from communities of
color.
Stolz's
group is part of a coalition that worked on an alternative carbon-pricing
measure. Last-minute talks between that coalition and I-732 supporters to
collaborate on one ballot measure fizzled last year.
The
initiative is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the tax revenue increase
from fossil fuels would be mostly offset by decreases in other taxes. In this
case, revenues would be returned to people and businesses by cutting the state
sales tax by one point, virtually eliminating business taxes for manufacturers
and providing rebates for working families, sponsors say.
A
state analysis, however, estimates the measure could cost the state about $800
million in lost revenues over the first six fiscal years. Initiative sponsors
dispute the state's analysis, saying it double-counted the rebates in the first
year.
The
carbon tax is modeled after one in the nearby Canadian province of British
Columbia. California has a cap-and-trade program, which limits emissions and
allows carbon polluters to buy and trade pollution credits. If approved,
Washington's carbon tax starts at US$15 a ton of carbon emissions in July, goes up
to US$25 the next year and incrementally increases afterward.
The
Washington State Tree Fruit Association, which represents growers, packers and
marketers, is among those opposed.
It
takes a lot of fuel to grow and transport produce, and the tax will be paid by
those in the state, not competitors outside it, said Jon Devaney, the group's
president.
"Raising
food prices in Washington state will make us less competitive compared to
others," he said.
Initiative
sponsors say a US$25 carbon tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 25
cents per gallon and the price of coal-fired electricity by about 2.5 cents per
kilowatt-hour. They say power plants and fuel suppliers likely will pass those
costs on to consumers, but that consumers will see price reductions in other
things they buy because the sales tax is cut. The tax wouldn't apply to
electricity from renewables like hydro, wind or solar power.
The
campaign has raised US$1.2 million from nearly 1,200 unique donors; more than
half of those total contributions are under US$200.
The No on 732 campaign sponsored by the Association of Washington Business has raised US$300,000 to oppose the tax.
No comments:
Post a Comment