Vote NO.

1

For sure.
This will get out the GOP's voters...

I'm sure over the years I've shared dozens of comments on this blog advocating for a carbon tax of some sort. Many times I have name-dropped the Carbon Tax Center (https://www.carbontax.org/).

Now, based on what I'm reading here, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm leaning towards a no on I-1631. The prototypical approach to a carbon tax is to make it revenue-neutral, to offset the tax increase with a reduction in taxes elsewhere, preferably in taxes on activities we want to incentivize. This is what I-732 was about. Now with I-1631, I'm just seeing all the ways the revenue will either be spent or be directed toward a subset of the population that is deemed to be more deserving. And in these respects, the ways the money is being spent look more like a case where we have a tax in search of expenditures rather than some needed spending in search of a revenue source. (Reminds me a bit of the head tax on this front.)

Yes, I realize we have a regressive tax system in this state, but there's a difference between a tax+spending plan being progressive and its being redistributive. There's a difference between trying to shift our economic incentives around fossil fuels and trying to expand that purview to addressing inequality.

P.S. Another annoying, little indication of the decline of this media outlet. The removal of HTML markup.

If a carbon tax will finally start to put a dent in fossil fuel burning it really doesn't matter much whether it addresses social justice issues or not. It's about damn time we did something about the climate problem, and fixing the problem helps everyone. This is not something like a chemical plant that affects the people in the low-income neighborhood where they would likely site it more than others. Climate stress and ocean acidification are threats to all of us. Vote YES even if you think this one is not perfect.

Too small.

Should be $70 a ton.

But I’ll vote for it

The carbon fee will appear on the ballot again and it will fail again because it is a regressive tax on poor people that will do nothing to mitigate climate change and will create an unelected "Committee of the People" who will decide how to spend tens of millions of taxpayer money on politically favorable projects which will incentive a brand new corrupt bureaucracy. What a good idea. Let me spell out why the legislature of this state, the people elected to actually work on this stuff in its real context, has said NO.

I am 35 years resident in Seattle, a taxpaying homeowner, a lifetime liberal bisexual Democrat consistent voter and an environmental scientist and unlike the advocates of this ideological phantasy, I can do math and I understand economics.

The industries that create the most carbon and will pay the most tax are the basic industries of society: Metals, and plastics, and transport, and chemicals, and food processing. If you tax them they raise their prices and you pay more in your shopping and utilities. In Washington, that means the vast majority of the price increase is absorbed by the poorest 75% of the people. For the poorest, it's a BIG proportional increase in their cost. The rich don't care. If some companies find their new cost too high, they leave and we lose jobs. So smart! This carbon tax is on the backs of poor and working people in Washington.

This tax creates a slush fund for a "committee" of 15 people appointed politically, not elected, to decide how to spend the money. Don't you want to be on that committee? What about your brother-in-law with the biogas company that needs a grant/free money? This carbon tax creates an entire new bureaucracy with no elected accountability deciding who gets the money. Note in the article that the previous initiative attempt at this failed because various lobby groups felt they were not going to get enough of the gravy train. Now it's different: Even more lobbyists will get your money! This carbon tax is an assault on financial accountability and elected legislative authority.

This tax will make no difference to anyone who is not involved in the money transfer from the poor to the "green". It will have no effect of any kind on climate change. It won't impress anyone outside of Washington except the companies that decide not to do business here because of high taxes. It won't create "leadership on climate change" because no one cares what a small group of ideologues who flunked economics AND climate change science thinks. This tax will do nothing to affect climate change.

This tax will cost you and I more money, for no benefit to the climate crisis, so a small group of people can have a good time spending our money on their pet projects and favorite groups. Ask yourself: Why have almost all Democrats in our legislature rejected this repeatedly? Because they live in the real world, and they do the math, and they don't want to lose their jobs when voters toss them out. Just like the Seattle City Council members are going to lose their jobs for trying to impose a head tax on companies to cover up their failures to lead intelligently.

"racial justice advocates."

Because if there's one thing people of color need, it's higher prices on everything including energy.

I just saw a news story on I-1631. Carbon tax. Spend the revenue on (among other things) 'renewable energy' sources. As the narrator said this, they put up a picture of a hydroelectric dam for a couple of seconds.

Wait! Was that the Elwha River dam? Sure looked like it. So, are we going to be putting that back up?

Skyhiker @7, I've expressed my own skepticism about this initiative. I'm not quite buying YOUR skepticism.

You write: "This tax will make no difference to anyone who is not involved in the money transfer from the poor to the 'green'. It will have no effect of any kind on climate change."

So what's your alternative?

@6 is absolutely right. sadly, however, anything that infringes on people's God-given right to cheap gas is doomed. 'Cuz were 'MURICANS and we don't have to think about what's good for the rest of the planet.