Glad you caught that one, Nathalie. What would anyone expect from Rob McKenna? The truth?Accountability?

Ugh Rob McKenna, I hadn't thought about him in a while and I was happy with that.

"No sweet heart it won't."
"But do not for one second attempt to tell the one of BS to anyone about it reducing carbon emissions."

Sargon's solution to climate change: Poorly articulated condescension and reflexive, unsupported contradiction.

If "businesses won't stop doing business" when carbon is taxed, then why not tax it? Especially if the evidence in favor of doing so is this compelling:

http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406

Thanks Fred. I was also uncertain whether a carbon tax was a mechanism that could actually accomplish any goals, but the article you linked to suggests that almost any way that it is structured is beneficial, and that if fully implemented properly, could actually meet, or exceed, the United States' Paris Accord "commitments".

I also agree that I would rather tax carbon emissions (a thing that is bad for everyone, and ought to be reduced) even if those taxes are passed on to me, the consumer, than income tax, sales tax, "sin" taxes, etc.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has put out a helpful blog post debunking the myths being spread about I-1631 by the no campaign (99% funded by big oil).
Who do you trust -- the Union of Concerned Scientists or BP & Chevron?
https://blog.ucsusa.org/julie-mcnamara/facts-on-1631?_ga=2.63250479.1202292940.1539831425-914337324.1503536930

Rob McCinn sells out and misinformation
is key in the Age of Trumpfy.

Thanks for shedding some Light on Bihorn's shade, Fred.
Kathy @6, too!

@7 Correction:

Rob McKenna sells out after having sounded oh-so
Reasonable on KUOW's 'the Record.'

@6: Thank you Kathy. Big Oil won't stoop low enough to lie about I-1631 or any voter initiative on the ballot to tax carbon emissions or use green energy.
@8 kristofarian: It's okay--I knew who you meant. Rob McKenna--what a pathetic lying sell out. He was supposed to the AG for Washington State and couldn't even do basic math.

This article is good but your headline is terrible and confusing. "Backs anti-carbon fee"? Does this mean he's supporting the fee which opposes and reduces carbon emissions? No, he's opposing the carbon fee. Please fix it.

The PDC may have cleared McKenna, but in failing to disclose his representation of Chevron, he may have violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4.3:

"In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by a lawyer, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding."

Weird, huh, McKenna?

I am so glad this has come up, Stranger, because I've seen the ads on TV and thought "hmmm, I wonder who is paying this creep?" Answer: Chevron, what a surprise. And #11, you are right, very confusing headline. I'm so sick of dishonest crap from politicians/former politicians and their advertising.

Also, I HATE it when smug know-it-all posters condescend to call others "Sweetheart". Get stuffed with your sweetheart crap.

This pipsqueak also wanted everyone to believe he is "one of those moderate GOP guys" while running for office. Oh, one of those. Back then they pretended to exist.

14 - Sweetheart, I still love you despite what everyone has been saying.