The end note says four members voted against endorsing and three voted to endorse -- 4-3 against. Then you say the publisher "overrode the 4-3 vote to endorse." Huh?

As a certified environmental engineer who has worked in the environmental field many years, I would still argue for a YES on I-732. While the Stranger staff has brought up some decent points in this article, we have to get a start on the carbon taxation path somewhere and every year there is no economically driven (& state-sanctioned) reason to cut carbon emissions is another year lacking in any sort of R&D which will be required to put our carbon science on the right track.

R&D spending in the alternative energy sector is remarkably low compared to IT and Big Pharma. Whereas those field typically are spending 15-25% of annual budget on R&D, in energy that figure is close to 0.1%. Why the disconnect? It's because there is no economic reason to cut carbon emissions.

I agree with some of your points on the tax structuring issues of I-732, and it's no good to give companies like Boeing tax cuts when it comes to environmental-related "indirect costs." But for the love of god, we need a monetary driver to decrease carbon emissions! This is a chance for a decent start, and we will surely be coming back to the referendum when if it does pass and changing tax structures down the road.

Think about this editorial for a second. The Stranger really just argued "Plus, if the initiative works—if it reduces carbon emissions—the revenues from the carbon tax will decrease over time too. If, a decade from now, emissions have significantly decreased in Washington, then revenues from this new tax on emissions will have decreased as well—with nothing to backfill that loss."

If this situation did come to pass, it would represent a huge win for the Washington environmental movement! A decrease in carbon emissions of that level would surely mean that we have developed technologies which the state could begin exporting nationwide, if not worldwide, to help manage the most important global issue of the coming century.

Leftist and far leftist environmental movements have a long history of wishful pie-in-the-sky type idealism and it is frankly shocking to me that they would make that mistake again and argue against attaching a tax (of any sort, regardless of tax structuring) to carbon. It's a step in the right direction for the carbon-reducing technological market in the state.

Let me get this straight. You think the initiative is bad policy because among other things it doesn't address certain social justice issues. Ok fair enough. What are those issues? Following the links provided in the article gets me no closer to understanding your position. And why should anyone trust your say-so?

Enacting programs which support the communities most effected by climate change is a necessary and worthwhile goal, but using a highly regressive tax to do so seems self defeating. Placing a price of carbon emissions is inherently regressive as low income families spend a far greater percentage of their income on goods whose price will be most inflated (energy, heating, transportation, etc). 732 mitigates this by lowering the (even more regressive) sales tax and funding the Working Families Rebate. Any future carbon pricing plan which is revenue positive will necessarily make WA's tax policy more regressive, which just seems irresponsible given we already have the most regressive state taxes in the nation.

I'm voting no, we need world wide action promptly on a massive scale. For instance an increase in the federal gas tax to $2.00 a gallon from 18.4 cents and elimination of subsidies for animal agriculture. Screwing around with half ass one state measures wont work.

Very grateful for the publisher's veto here.

The Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy has been a complete failure - they had months to draft and propose alternative policy, and get it on the ballot for 2016. Instead, they devolved into infighting and sniping at CarbonWA. Why on earth should we trust the Alliance to come up with a good policy in 2020 when they've already proven incompetent?

732 is better than the status quo - it will prove to the nation that a carbon tax can win a majority vote, it will begin to reduce emissions, and it will reform our state's regressive tax structure.

I would describe it less as a veto and more as a mystical tie vote with the tie going to the publisher. But that's just me. And what @3 said and I'm glad Tim made this call and please ignore the four SECB members who are urging a no vote and listen to the four SECB members urging a yes vote.

This is the most progressive tax initiative we have in Washington - it reduces the hugely regressive sales tax and puts the burden on polluters. It isn't perfect, but nothing perfect will get through.

It is also a starting point. This can be built upon, changed in due course as flaws are found.

The opposition of supposed environmental groups is disgusting. Its more about 'not invented here' and 'doesn't tick our broader social goals', than whether its good for the environment. Obviously they don't believe climate change is a big issue which needs tackling.

I'm left very confused.

I think this veto is extremely shady. And it helps explain why I agreed with the Stranger's endorsements on everything but the 732 vote. I side with the approach that climate change is both an environmental issue as well as affecting many social and economic justice issues too. I look forward to Washington state being a leader of the best model of climate policy, rather than the best we could come up with at the time. And I think the Stranger's editorial board should have been clear about this veto in writing up their position and offered up full transparency in the first place.

"Based on what we’ve seen in in British Columbia and California, a carbon pricing mechanism only works to reduce emissions alongside a strong emissions cap, strong regulations, strong performance standards, and strong enforcement."

It's not clear to me from this sentence if the authors think the BC carbon tax is working or not, but the NYT seems to think it's working, at least until they froze the tax rate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/busine…

"If, a decade from now, emissions have significantly decreased in Washington, then revenues from this new tax on emissions will have decreased as well"

Which is why the measure explicitly escalates the tax rate over time! Moreover "shortfall in revenue" is infinitely preferable to "water shortages and mass extinction".

Or to summarize, good climate policy, good tax policy, and I could give two shits about whether it's good politics if it passes.

The article has so many problems I can barely wrap my head around it so I'll just pull out one part I take special issue with:

"the people behind I-732 are not the same people who should be telling the state what to do on climate policy."

This is plainly elitist and I reject it with every fiber of my being. Who is allowed to do climate work and who isn't? I'm 26. The average age of the people working on the I-732 campaign is definitely less than that. Am I allowed to do climate work? Should I have asked for permission first? I'll probably be alive through the worst of climate change - does that not give myself and others unique license to act? Should I be sitting at home right now waiting for the governor to fix it (though of course I'll help others who put forward their own aggressive solutions)?

No one can tell us to go home and stop being activists, to stop agitating for change, to stop putting forward solutions when others can't or won't - this is still a democracy and we are full members of it (even if these 4 from the SECB wish we weren't!).

-Kyle M.

http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/lear…

Absolutely ridiculous.
1. You say we can wait for another policy, because the changes will take 4 years to be enacted. Anything enacted in 2020 would be phased in just as slowly. This just emphasizes HOW URGENT this is, waiting 4 years means waiting 8.

2. OFM's analysis has been widely, repeatedly disproved and discredited, so why are you still touting false information?

3. The real reason you won't support, I-732 being "bad politics" has nothing to do with voters. When an alliance member was asked if she would regret failing to support I-732 if no other carbon tax passed or arose in the following years she simply said, "no." This the same standoff we saw when the government shut down because congress failed to pass a budget. Acting now to protect our planet and our children's planet is so much more important than party politics!

A flimsy argument propped up by misleading, half truths.

I was on the fence... now I'm sure I'm voting Yes.

"Placing a price of carbon emissions is inherently regressive as low income families spend a far greater percentage of their income on goods whose price will be most inflated"

Which is why this initiative couples the carbon tax with a cut of the hugely regressive sales tax. The net effect is a more progressive tax structure in this state. Vote yes.

"On climate mitigation, a carbon tax alone doesn’t do very much at all."

Say what? The Washington Business Alliance's thorough analysis (well worth a read) says I-732 by itself will achieve ~50% of Washington's adopted carbon reduction goal for 2035. That's not everything, but it's certainly "much."

You people are journalists?

Ansel comes from the self-defeating left. He doesn't want to win. He thinks winning is selling out. He wants to be superior. Guys like Ansel can be a help when you're halfway there but when you're on the 5 yard line it's Ansel under the bus, and onward.

I get the "we need action now" argument, but it's worth stopping and thinking about the context around this vote. The fate of the world does not rest on carbon policy in Washington State, which is heavily powered by hydro and responsible for ~1.3% of American GHG emissions. The reason we're doing this at the state level is to provide an example for climate action that can be applied at the national (and international) level. Any low-carbon future we can imagine is going to require massive changes to how we power our homes and how we get around. A tax is one variable among many on fossil fuels, the price of which fluctuate based on supply and demand and a host of other variables. (See BC, where carbon emissions actually rose several years back when the price of oil tanked internationally). We're not going to get where we need to go without massive investments in things like energy efficiency, solar, wind, battery storage, transit, urban density, etc. And it's not really clear where we'd get the money for that sort of thing, if not taxing dirty fuels. As far as "pass this and make it better later" goes, you think we'll be able to go back to the legislature in 2018 and convince them to reinstate the B&O tax (or raise the sales tax by 1%) so that we can fund green alternatives or help transition workers in fossil-fuel dependent industries?

All state climate policies are dress rehearsals for national action, which is really what we need. I-732 sets the bar extremely low. In a country that is getting more diverse with every passing year, it's hard to imagine a national climate policy that doesn't include communities of color or labor unions, both of which were ignored by I-732. I-732 would be the ultimate pyrrhic victory - white Seattle liberals get to pat themselves on the back for "FINALLY DOING SOMETHING" while setting the national climate movement back, as other states copy the model of revenue neutral climate programs that barely move the needle on emissions.

The authors of this piece don't understand basic economics. Their statement:

"On climate mitigation, a carbon tax alone doesn’t do very much at all. Based on what we’ve seen in in British Columbia and California, a carbon pricing mechanism only works to reduce emissions alongside a strong emissions cap, strong regulations, strong performance standards, and strong enforcement."

...simply isn't true. The whole idea behind a carbon tax is that if something costs more, people find ways to use less of it. It's the same reasoning behind cigarette taxes. Tax stuff that is bad for society, and people use less of it. In the case of energy, as emissions-heavy sources become more expensive, folks shift to away from fossil fuels and towards more renewables. In transportation the tax will send a strong economic signal to shift away from gas guzzling SUVs and move more towards towards low- or zero-carbon alternatives like hybrids, electric vehicles, public transportation, bikes and telecommuting.

A carbon tax regime does not need additional emissions caps. Emissions caps only apply in a "cap and trade" system. Enforcement of the I-732 carbon tax is, as things go, fairly easy as it is assessed at a few major places: refineries, power plants, etc.

I-732 is very similar to what has been successful in BC. (An no, there's no emissions caps in the BC program). Here's a couple of articles summarizing the results:

http://www.carbontax.org/blog/2015/12/17…
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasv…

According to the Economist magazine:
"BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country."

Thank goodness the editor and three other staff had the good sense to over-ride this nonsense.

@23 OK. Which initiative on the ballot this year is the one reflective of labor and social-justice unity, that will make Washington a beacon on the carbon hill for the rest of the country? I can't seem to find the output from that organizing effort.

Don't just crap on an incremental improvement in hand today and say "No." Bring something better to the table to which the public can say "Yes." If you can't get your act together and do so before 2020, that's on you. I'll gladly take a small step toward now.

Hutch, as a climate activist working on an initiative for California, and by the way one with environmental initiative experience going back thirty years, I can guarantee that a 732 loss will set back efforts elsewhere.

Is I-732 enough? Not even. But nor will an Alliance measure be enough. "Enough" is a measure that not only will address WA's share of the Paris 1.5C goal (a significantly higher bar than the actual commitment made by the U.S., BTW) but go farther since others will be falling short. So any measure that anyone does in the present is going to be an increment and will require follow-on, rather a lot of follow-ons.

The measure I'm working on will also fall short in terms of immediately implementable provisions, *but* will put the 1.5C goal up front and will be designed to advance CA's programs as rapidly as possible toward it. The Alliance could potentially put forward something like that, but from their behavior re 732 I suspect won't. BTW, the fact that CA already has a pretty broad set of climate laws will only be a help in terms of getting something stronger passed.

Reality check: The 1.5C goal is already blown, and the 2C one too. At this point we'll be lucky to keep things under 3C, which basically means a global disaster. But every added bit of carbon emitted will make things that much worse, and we can hope that some sort of affordable sequestration tech appears. Absent that, we'll have to do a lot of expensive sequestration and hope it's enough to keep things from getting really bad. Climate scientists know this, of course, which is why so many of them took the unusual (for scientists) step of endorsing 732.

Hmm, no embedded links here. The Washington Business Alliance 732 analysis I mentioned in 21 is at http://planwashington.org/blog/archive/t…. Well worth a read, to repeat myself.

@23 Hutch nailed it. The I-732 supporters have done amazing work and they rightfully want action; but the die hard revenue-neutral trolls are a pessimistic bunch - they really don't think we can pass a complete policy; even while the real thing exists just two states away (CA). They think we must settle for a half-measure that will, ironically, become an obstacle to the investments necessary to achieve deep greenhouse gas reductions. Climate change requires massive public investment; period.

A revenue neutral carbon tax puts carbon reduction on the backs of those that can least afford it and have few options to reduce emissions. A price on carbon, even up to $1 gallon of gas, will result in no change from a high income person because though they can easily pay the difference, and will. Meanwhile it will hit low income people hard; people who can't pay for it and have no options; people who live far out, away from transit in the cheapest housing they can find, housing that's also likely to be less energy efficient. That means a price on carbon that doesn't create alternatives is not only unfair; but it SIMPLY WON'T WORK - not for +1.5 to +2 C degree world. A $200 rebate check in the mail won't help anyone reduce emissions; it'll probably just become gas money. Economists live in the land of theory, we need policy grounded in reality.

On another note, the old dudes at The Stranger (e.g. Keck and Savage) are clearly out of touch - 25 years is enough - please retire and make room for the new leadership, its getting boring. Note the young folks who actually cover climate change all voted no. There seems to be a divide emerging in this publication between the Bernie/ Climate Justice crew who can actual imagine a better world and the Hillary/ I-732 crew who gave up long a ago.

That little note at the end about the SECB's vote? That should have been appended to the original endorsement! Glad I read this too before filling out that part of my ballot (which I hadn't done yet because of the NO recommendation from the Progressive Voters Guide from Fuse Washington).

@28: CA the real thing? You'll doubtless be amused that CA EJ folks hate cap/trade and want it replaced with (drumroll) a carbon tax!

Of course CA has more than just cap/trade going on, but overall what we have isn't a panacea.

Re the numbers you ran... wait, you didn't run any. You just tossed out a few figures and drew a conclusion. Maybe try reading that analysis I linked above.

Did the writer just say that white people shouldn't be allowed to discuss climate policy?

I really hope I read that wrong.

As far as "pass this and make it better later" goes, you think we'll be able to go back to the legislature in 2018 and convince them to reinstate the B&O tax (or raise the sales tax by 1%) so that we can fund green alternatives or help transition workers in fossil-fuel dependent industries?

Well the entire argument of the "no" side is that we can go back to the legislature (or the voters) in 2018 and create an entirely new tax to fund all those priorities you listed. So if raising taxes is hard, raising taxes is hard. So let's address the climate without trying to win a difficult battle to raise taxes.

sense @28: There seems to be a divide emerging in this publication between the Bernie/ Climate Justice crew who can actual imagine a better world and the Hillary/ I-732 crew who gave up long a ago.

It takes some chutzpah to be claiming the Bernie Sanders mantle on this issue. Throughout the primary campaign, Sanders was continually criticized for not adequately reaching out to minorities, for having an agenda that was too post-racial, even though his policies would have greatly benefited minorities. I remember my own exasperation--like, what does this man have to do? I remember my own frustration at Hillary's pandering to identity politics without having to put much in the way of substance behind it.

The simple fact is that I-732 has bent over backwards to make WA's regressive tax system less regressive, and thus on balance it mitigates in favor of minorities.

The lazy Republican leaders who pander to white ethnic resentment and the lazy Democratic leaders who pander to minority ethnic resentment would rather y'all just forget something. The policies that benefit the white working class the most and the policies that benefit people of color the most happen to be the policies that benefit all working folks the most.

And to follow my comment @35, I'll tell you why it really takes some chutzpah for the I-732 opponents to be claiming the Bernie Sanders mantle. Because Sanders himself has advocated for a carbon tax:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
http://www.carbontax.org/bills/: first entry on "Climate Protection and Justice Act"

Now, is Sanders literally advocating for a revenue-neutral carbon tax? No, but the senator's Climate Protection and Justice Act is pretty darn close, and it's a hell of a lot closer to I-732 than anything its faux-environmentalist foes would find acceptable.

Proceeds from Sanders’ proposed carbon tax would be returned to households making less than $100,000/year, a rebate of roughly $900 in 2017, rising to $1,900 in 2030. Revenue would also fund investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon energy.

wish the new editor would nerf the f out of dan savage's clout on this committee. crusty, white, presumptuous, old. hand the reigns over- i don't remember seeing you on the front lines of this issue in elliott bay. y'know who i did see? 3 of these four young, capable, impassioned leaders on this issue.

@36 Bernie Sanders advocates for a revenue POSITIVE carbon tax: https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate…. Revenue-neutral carbon taxing is a neoliberal approach to climate change that any decent social democrat would see right through - we'll give you a little tweak - but the market knows best!

@33 you're right on the energy sector, although an RPS and that's why price on carbon is good idea, its just not enough. Note my example was on transportation a much harder sector to approach. Plus I-732 does its own undoing by pumping cash back into the economy at large that will leak into uncovered sectors like air travel or consumer goods. Carbon revenue needs to good to solutions that reduce carbon consumption.

@30 well aware cap and trade is busted; its tax and invest + performance standards we're after. If you throw out the tax there's simply nothing to invest.

How's about a reference from an environmental oriented newspaper in BC: "Forget the Praise: BC's Carbon Tax Is a Failure Higher emissions, slow growth, regressive taxation." Sorry, what's to celebrate? http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-…

@26 You are missing the social justice angle of this controversy. Low income demographics are disproportionately affected by a carbon tax, which has to be offset effectively if you want the support of low income folks against burning fossil fuel. This is a critical issue that cannot be glossed over if you want to give yourself a chance to drastically reduce emissions.

sense @38, you seem to be a little willfully dense and misleading here: @36 Bernie Sanders advocates for a revenue POSITIVE carbon tax:

As I said @36:

Now, is Sanders literally advocating for a revenue-neutral carbon tax? No, but the senator's Climate Protection and Justice Act is pretty darn close, and it's a hell of a lot closer to I-732 than anything its faux-environmentalist foes would find acceptable.

On a continuum between the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy position and the CarbonWA position, Sanders's own position is way over toward the CarbonWA side, like 85-90 on a scale of 0-100. In fact, I can all but guarantee that, if the compromise on the table had been modeled after the senator's legislation, Yoram Bauman and his committee would have snapped it up in a minute. And likewise, the alliance would have rejected it out of hand. In fact, since when has this alliance ever called for a carbon tax? Instead all we hear is the hide-the-goalposts cap-and-trade shenanigans favored by the likes of Goldman Sachs.

sense, it wouldn't kill you to be honest and admit that, at least on this issue, Bernie Sanders is your ideological opponent. It's OK. I've been a Bernie supporter and there are things I disagree with him. on.

@39: I missed the social justice angle? How? 732 *does* offset the cost of the tax to low-income people in two specific ways. Indeed, analysis shows that many low-income people will receive a net financial benefit.

The Alliance says it wants some of the offset to take the form of programs. OK, but that means reducing the cash offsets while losing the advantage of the revenue neutrality argument. I too would prefer such an approach, and it might have a chance of passing in CA, but having reviewed WA's demographics and the recent history of climate legislation (noting especially the failure of Alliance organizations to make progress in state legislative races) it seems doubtful there. Also, will low-income voters not prefer cash on the barrel to programmatic offsets that don't exist yet?

The more I look into this, the more it sounds like the Alliance's real goal is to be in charge. If that means being in charge of nothing happening, that's fine with them.

@38: I have news for you, *all* carbon tax and and cap/trade mechanisms are "neoliberal" market schemes.

Re BC's carbon tax, it's effective within its own terms, but (big but) simply isn't high enough to have a large effect. Size very much matters in these things. The increase in BC GHG emissions is attributable to increasing NG *extraction* in the northeast. Finally, it lacks low-income offsets, which 732 has.

"Plus I-732 does its own undoing by pumping cash back into the economy at large that will leak into uncovered sectors like air travel or consumer goods."

And that will happen to a degree, but only to a degree. OTOH a low-income person e.g. reducing gas purchases and using their offset payment to buy big-screen TV is still a good thing in terms of GHG emissions. Some might even purchase a bicycle with the money. Sin taxes are shown to work very well, BTW, *if* set high enough (as 732 will).

"well aware cap and trade is busted; its tax and invest + performance standards we're after. If you throw out the tax there's simply nothing to invest."

So no direct tax offsets? What about the low-income people who will be paying a tax but not benefiting from the programs? Have you thought this through carefully?

And CA's program is hardly busted, as with BC's carbon tax it's just too weak. IMO CA EJ groups are advocating for a tax mainly because it's a better political tactic than pushing for patching up cap/trade (revenues from which are currently going to GHG reduction programs, BTW)

I'm really getting sick and tired of people saying "NO" without providing any viable alternatives.

I don't think the authors understand that Carbon Washington is more than just Yoram Bauman- Carbon Washington is made up of hundreds of volunteers most of them progressive millennials who are deeply concerned about their future. The Alliance's offer was rejected because they didn't have a real policy on the table for negotiation when they said they would have one for months, and the volunteers and executive committee members didn't trust them to follow through with a real policy that would do much better AND collect enough signatures with the limited time left. The groups that make up the Alliance have had more time, resources, and money to come up with a better policy before the grassroots organization that created I-732. If the roles were reversed, I guarantee you Carbon Washington would be supporting the Alliance's proposal. The blame is on them for not coming with an adequate proposal in a timely manner during such a critical time. The science says we cannot afford to wait 4 more years to act on climate change. If you really care about communities of color disproportionately impacted by climate change, then we should be acting to start reducing emissions now to avoid the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-onl…

A No vote on I-732 is not a vote for something better. It's rejecting the opportunity to help nearly half a million families in poverty in the state with the most regressive tax system. It's rejecting the opportunity to build momentum for national, bi-partisan climate action before it is too late. An alliance member advocating against the initiative was asked, “If this initiative failed, and no other carbon pollution tax passed, would you regret your opposition to this one?” Her answer was a flat 'No'." I find it deeply disturbing that the very people that say they're standing up for low-income communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by climate change would rather submit those communities to complete devastation from climate change. They are not making "the perfect the enemy of the good"; they are making the NOTHING the enemy of the good. I-732 is a great step in the right direction towards fighting climate change and poverty in Washington state, and it has the potential to spread across the U.S because it is simple, replicable, and bi-partisan.

Ansel Herz, Sydney Brownstone, Ana Sofia Knauf and Heidi Groover think climate change is so important that we should take no action for four years so that we have time to properly prepare a policy that will put the cost of it squarely on the backs of poor people.

As they know, the lowest income Washingtonians currently pay eight times more of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. Any kind of carbon price, a widely recognized and well studied contribution to efforts to transform our economy towards sustainability, is a kind of excise tax that also falls most heavily on the poor if you don't mitigate it. Since they haven't gotten everyone to agree on a policy yet (the one area they agree on is not to give the money back), we don't know how many more times the Alliance's policy will increase that burden.

A NO vote is a vote to take approximately takes $250 million per year out of the pockets of 460,000 low-income families in Washington. The cost of further delaying the implementation of this bare-minimum policy is paid for in lives.

Taxing poor people to subsidize solar panels in one of the cloudiest states in the union is not good tax policy, and it's not good climate policy. It very well may be good politics. /barf

And those "hardest hit communities", which ones are they? Everyone who lives within 40 feet of sea level? Everyone who might be impacted by forest fires? Everyone who might face economic disruption due to the collapse of our ecosystems? How do you decide where that money goes and who gets it?

What if there was a policy that didn't make anyone worse off, that helped the people who need it most, and that directly addressed the source of our climate change problems? That policy is 732. Please, for all our sakes, vote YES.

It doesn't save the whales or end hunger in Africa, either, so a No vote is a must!

There's only one way to solve climate change and that's to make fossil fuels more expensive than the alternative. Everyone wants to get to work, heat their home, run their business the cheapest way they can and as long as that's fossil fuels nothing will change, the moment it switches everything will change. Today a carbon tax is the easiest and best way to do that, I hear you, we have wealth inequality and we need to fix that too, so things we do for the environment should also be progressive, and I-732 is designed to be progressive, giving a larger portion of the revenue back to the poor. So what's not to like, it's about as close to perfect policy as it gets. The idea that it's not perfect and we are going to somehow, someday create a better solution, but nobody's sure what that is yet is just nuts. Keep in mind I-732 was designed by a PhD economist and has the support of most of the scientific community and basically the entire economic community, it's really a smart policy created by really smart people and today it's truly the best we got and everyone should just vote yes.

Seattle Progressives are great at talking and patting one another on the back but are pretty piss poor at actually getting things done. The "upstarts" backing I-732, by contrast, are mostly students who don't have time for the kind of "it's not your place" nonsense promoted by these four authors. They watched the "Alliance" not even manage to get a floor vote on their cap-and-trade bill (which is way less effective than a carbon tax, according to many economists). They worked hard, gathered signatures, got it on the ballot, and have been working their tail off ever since to get it passed.

They know that on this issue we can't afford another typical Seattle hand-wringing session over the right way to do something so that no one is offended. Let's do something now. If it needs to be tweaked later it can be by the legislature - the same people who the Alliance will need to convince to support anything they want to do on climate change anyway.

Please vote Yes on I-732!

p.s. I just saw this:
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/wash…

So let's see:

Four pissed off SECB members...

...or the country's leading and most well respected climate scientist?

It doesn't find my lost house key. Vote no!

I-732 is the most effective approach to stop the accumulation of greenhouse gases from WA state emissions for 4 reasons, i think:
--Energy change impacts the entire economy so returning the collected fees in reduced taxes is needed to offset the drag of increased fuel prices with stimulus - without this one must stick with small emissions cuts like Jay Inslee's cap
--Sales tax reduction most benefits low incomes that are also most dependent on gasoline for transportation
--The very steep fee over $100/ton will stimulate R&D into next gen technology and infrastructure; while Inslee's cap for example will direct all investment to existing technology in order to obtain offset credits
--I-732 will stimulate nuclear energy increase (WIN project for SMRs) which is necessary to support electrification of transport in WA state. Inslee's cap, at present, only lists renewable energy and conservation as allowable projects for offset credits

First thanks to those who expressed their opposition to I-732. Expressing opinions is critical to engaged debate. However, I respectively take issue with some of the above:

1. Passing I-732 is only a single step. It doesn't "torpedo" any future action, preclude any further proposals, nor are its components cast in stone. Things can be altered - and probably will be - as the state moves forward, as we learn more, and as we see how it works.

2. The "budget hole" predicted by the state is an estimate with nowhere near the precision that the OFM number ($800 million, or incredibly $797.2 million as reported by OFM) might lead one to believe; it might be twice as bad or half as bad. Or perhaps even revenue positive. It involves estimating many economic factors (how much carbon based fuels will be burned, how much folks will buy and pay sales tax on, etc.) over the next 6 years - not something capable of precise estimation, at least not in the real world. And of course adjustments can be made if needed. In any case, although $800 million seems like a lot, it is a very small percentage of the total state expenditures over six years. Sightline's analysis of I-732 called the predicted "budget hole" a red herring. I believe it is.

3. Sure, Carbon Washington could have brought more folks to the table when initially developing I-732. But given the diverse economic, social, environmental, and political interests surrounding any serious climate change proposal, it's questionable whether any policy could have emerged if too many folks were in at the beginning. Surely nothing as simple in concept or implementation as I-732 would have emerged. Alas, no policy will satisfy all groups on all points. Nor will - or should - any climate change policy be expected to help solve the many serious state needs, e.g., education, infrastructure, tax structure, etc. Those need to be dealt with separately.

4. There have been ample opportunities over the past several years for others to propose climate change alternatives; no one has. The Legislature could have acted; it has not. If I-732 does not pass, will the various environmental groups, the social justice folks, the economic and political interests be able to agree on a viable future climate policy and if so be successful either via the Legislature or via the initiative process? Whatever the fate of I-732, continuing efforts locally, nationally and globally will be needed. Hopefully the future focus will be mainly on climate change issues and less on what happens to the collected revenue. Hopefully reasonable future efforts will be supported even though they may not satisfy everyone's idea of a "best" policy or impact everyone in an precisely identical manner. Hey, one can hope.

One of the reasons that I believe that I-732 is a really good policy is that it is not a partisan approach. Past efforts at addressing global warming have been easily labeled as Democrat proposal. I-732 in its approach is purposely neutral. And that is a good thing. With as big of an issue as global warming, we need everyone to accept that addressing the problem is OUR problem to solve. It is not the Democrats' problem or the Governors' problem or the Environmentalists' problem but OUR problem. Because once we agree that it is our problem we then will take ownership in its solution. And we can look to work together. It is much easier to solve problems when those on all sides of the political spectrum can agree on the problem. Sure it may not be perfect but it is the right thing to do to bring people together.

It is our obligation to act on climate change. That's why I like 732. It doesn't depend on the good will of politicians. It is up the the people to decide. This policy also doesn't preclude any of the work of other organizations. In fact, it sets an unprecedented foundation to achieve greater goals. The idea of a "perfect policy" has been used to bypass climate action before, let's not let that happen again.

As a mother I am voting for 1-732. It is my moral obligation to my kids. My kids future trump liberal political squabbles any day. We do not have time for this insane political bickering. I am horrified by the "Alliance for Clean Energy." What a crock. All of these people should be ashamed of themselves. And, I know a thing or two about climate change, by dad is a PHD climate scientist, I have traveled the world, from the Arctic to the Antarctica and I can tell you WE NEED TO MOVE ON THIS NOW.

Entrenched political interests are playing politics with our future. Millennials demand action on climate change and we stand behind 732!

I just saw that Leo DiCaprio, whose foundation has been doing great work on Climate Change, has endorsed I-732
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/polit…

In regard to the NYT article (@14) describing how BC's carbon tax is working well, "Local leaders now recognize that they probably have to do more. Carbon emissions started rising again after the province froze the tax at 30 Canadian dollars in 2012. An advisory panel to the Ministry of the Environment recently laid out the problem: British Columbia is missing its goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a third from 2007 to 2020. On its current path, the province will also miss its target of an 80 percent reduction by 2050."
Also, from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/enviro…
Are industrial emissions going up or down?
Industrial emissions for reporting operations were 2.1 per cent higher in 2014 than 2013, excluding emissions attributable to electricity imports (which are reported but not counted towards B.C.’s greenhouse gas targets in accordance with international accounting procedures).

I am leaning towards a yes vote but still get a little confused with the economics. Can someone explain how the initiative is working in BC despite these statistics? Thanks

@59 The problem with the BC tax is that it topped out at around $30/ton of carbon. I-732 attempts to avoid this problem by having the tax start at $30 and gradually increase until it hits $100/ton.

You guys are nuts. Aside from the fact that you're flat out wrong that putting a tax on carbon is the only way this is going to get done, we don't have time to be messing around looking for your "perfect" solution (which I guarantee will not have a hope in hell of getting bipartisan support). We need to get this done, and we need to get it done NOW. Stop cutting off your nose to spite your face. Please please please please please please vote yes for the sake of my children. Thank you - a concerned UW Atmospheric Sciences Ph.D. and OR renewable energy consultant.

"flat out wrong that putting a tax on carbon" should be "flat out wrong because putting a revenue neutral tax on carbon". Come on folks, don't squander this opportunity to start action that could snowball nationally. Please please please don't.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Some key phrases that made me shake my head:
"environmental justice," "white environmentalism," "systematic environmental racism."

Climate change isn't happening because of racism... it's happening because of carbon in the atmosphere.

It reminds me of the occupy wallstreet protests, which were originally about protesting... wallstreet. Then a million different causes tried to hijack it, until there was no clear objective behind the movement and it just turned into a bunch of people living in a homeless camp.

Environmentalism is about environmentalism. Climate change is a threat to our entire civilization. That should be enough for one bill.

If they want to make an initiative to fund social justice programs, they should make that initiative and put it on the ballot. They shouldn't by trying to hijack unrelated climate change legislation.

A carbon tax is really needed globally to tackle climate change. This would make Washington State a leader. A handful of foundation funded nonprofit boardmembers sipping their cocktails at the fancy galas can't just claim to speak for all "people of color" and call things racist without any reasoning to back that up. I mean they can but they ought not be taken seriously. The lack of a sense of urgency and the whole I'm all for it but I'm not so lets send it back to committee shtick is such classic Seattle faux progressive politics. It's good that it's revenue neutral, we don't want to be in a situation where we need pollution in order to keep the schools open, we want to get rid of the pollution. It also reduces regressive taxes like sales tax, if this makes it more palatable to at least some conservatives that's a plus. I like 90 percent of what Ansel says but he's wrong on this once. That whole PC left scene gets real hivemindy sometimes.

The comments here arguing for taking action on climate change now are so smart, so right, so clear-headed. What is wrong with people who are voting no? Do you think we have plenty of time to dither? We do not. Read the science; the scientific data (and what we can see around us happening now) is more than alarming; the scientific consensus, the prognostication for our future is grim, desperate, terrifying. Washington State could be a national leader, but instead, we choose to follow the Kochs, PSE, an aluminum company, and a bunch of nonprofits scapegoating people of color for their inaction and sabotage? I find this last excuse really insulting and divisive.