Just to break the ice (pun intended), I want to let everyone reading this know that this is my first time writing a post on DKos, although I have been enthusiastically following the site for years now. Keep in mind that even though the title of this post is meant to be provocative, sadly, I don’t think its that far off the mark. I know that some reading this may disagree vehemently with my characterization of the debate while caring just as deeply about the fate of our oceans, biodiversity, cities, and human health and security as I do. I’ll try not to be too dismissive or hypocritical. I’m writing this from the perspective of a new resident/voter and a newbie to the carbon tax scene specifically. I’m open to real dialogue and counter arguments. To those in the DJT camp, no, there is no Mandarin code talker hoax, faux-science Da Vinci Code plot, Illuminati shadow high-council scheme, Agenda-21 world government takeover plan, or other alt-right whacko conspiracy contained in this blog. Shoo! Shoo, god damn!
As someone who recently swam north across the Columbia River from Clackamas County, Oregon to Clark County, Washington, I started delving into my new state’s political intrigue just as this crazy presidential election wound it’s way through the mind-melting, eye-searing, ear-bleeding debates so beautifully parodied by Kate McKinnon and Alec Baldwin. Perhaps because there was a mere utterance of climate change that I turned elsewhere to get my cerebral fix...and dear God, I got it. There are few issues, perhaps no issue, as monumental, challenging, and uniquely engaging as the double ‘C’. I don’t think too many people here would disagree with that assessment. I’m a millennial who grew up fascinated by this issue, absorbed by the magnitude of problem, and lucky enough to go back to grad school (thanks Wall Street) so that I could at least understand some aspect of this planetary jigsaw. Needless to say, I became hyper-interested in ballot initiative I-732, our nation’s first real shot at implementing a carbon tax similar to, but more aggressive than, the one British Columbians passed in 2008. [ I’ve decided I’m going to break this post up into parts now that I have realized how much there is to cover and refute. Digestion takes time and many different organs. ]
Let me rephrase my feelings: THIS INITIATIVE IS A BFD! It has recently gotten a lot of attention because it has essentially pitted environmental and labor groups, the Washington State Democratic Party, climate deniers, people who drink gasoline like Augustus Gloop, anti-tax zealots, many small businesses and rural voters, and Others against some of those same advocacy group’s own members, climatologists and economists, Count von Count, climate friendly conservatives, large tech corporations, and (you guessed it) Dragons. Also, its almost ballot-casting time so peeps are paying attention. Politics is a blood sport and now the pocket-knives are out in the PNW (some sharper than others — looking at you Seattle Times editorial board, get a whetstone). This whole debate touches upon some serious ethical considerations and the nature of public discourse voters don’t often see surrounding ballot measures (except legalizing weed). Namely, those issues include journalistic integrity, intellectual honesty, scientific literacy, public engagement, and political opportunism.
Here’s what I-732 does, or what Washingtonians who read the voter’s pamphlet summary see:
“During the first six fiscal years, state General Fund revenue would decrease by a net amount of $797.2 million. This results from implementing a new carbon tax, reducing the state retail sales tax rate by 1 percentage point and reducing certain manufacturing business and occupation taxes. The Working Families Tax Exemption Program would be funded. Sales tax revenue for the state Performance Audits of Government account would decrease by $8.9 million. Local tax revenue would increase by $156.1 million. State expenditures would increase by $37.4 million.”
Sounds super intriguing, right? I know but hang on to your Dragon saddles and grip those Leathermans tight, it’s about to get messy. I’m going to gloss over much of the background regarding how this all came to be. I think doing so will allow for a little more objectivity on the merits without me muddling everything by botching recent history. One of the largest contentions about the measure is it’s purported revenue-neutrality. For those of you who live in sane states, Washington relies heavily on a regressive sales tax with no income tax of any kind (one more reason why Oregon and Washington are fraternal twins — different tax eggs). I’ll get to the alleged net revenue shortfall described in the summary in a sec but maybe my righteous Oregonian heritage is all I need to invoke tax policy superiority, or Yoram Bauman. What I’m trying to say is that Washington state’s tax structure and its budget are a giant mess of stupid.
The issue of revenue-neutrality is contentious because environmental and labor groups in the state are concerned that funds generated from a proposed revenue positive carbon tax could instead be reinvested in renewable energy projects and provide low-income and historically disadvantaged minority communities stronger resiliency against adverse climate impacts. Many have called for a cap on emissions in addition to or as an alternative to a carbon tax. But primarily, they are in favor of a more holistic approach to fighting climate change, social injustice, economic inequality in general, and cleaner air and water, which are all singularly admirable goals. Now to the betrayal:
For years, climate activists and politicians in Washington have been trying to pass significant climate legislation to curb GHG emissions but have failed. Suffice it to say, the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy did not put their grandiose, big-tent policy proposal on the 2016 ballot because a different group advocating a revenue-neutral tax called CarbonWA got there first. The “Alliance” consists of some heavy hitters including the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, OneAmerica, minority community organizations, tribes, business coalitions, and many others (>150 organizations). The ballot successful CarbonWA, spearheaded by a guy named Yoram Bauman, devised a tax shift proposal with a carbon tax as its centerpiece that turned into I-732. With two separate climate initiatives on the same ballot, both would have failed for obvious reasons. Boom, dimensional Void wormhole just got created in St. Helens caldera circa 1980. Many of the same groups that make up the “Alliance” and the state Democratic Party turned right back around and either chose not to endorse I-732 or are actively telling voters to reject the measure. This is really simple: that kind of approach to real climate policy and emissions reductions policy, in particular, is naive, selfish, self-defeating, ironic, political cowardice, stonewalling, and downright dangerous.
A carbon tax is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). It is fundamentally no different than taxing other commodities such as alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, etc to account for the external cost associated with environmental degradation or adverse health impacts. Again, the desire to enact a comprehensive approach to climate change is laudable. Turning your back on good policy in an attempt to achieve that goal is not. With that said and so much more to cover such as the budget shortfall in the summary (ack!), I have to sleep now...so TBD but tell me if I’m wrong in the meantime. Lov. Peas.