"white male economist"... "good-old-boys"... "mansplained"

Nice that we can have a substantive discussion, Ms. Mangaliman.

The sad thing that the I-732 debate has exposed is that, when you get right down to it, all too many of the people in power in the environmental movement who claim to care about climate change really don't. They care more about maintaining their political power and getting funding for their projects, they care more about identity politics, they care more about voters complaining that they might have to make some kind of sacrifice. And hey, same for voters. We care about climate change so long as it doesn't involve any sacrifice.

Instead, we're all supposed to wait for some technological deus ex machina that lets us maintain a lifestyle just like the fossil-fuel-dependent lifestyle we've grown used to.

And by the way, when Ms. Mangaliman says "let’s put a price on carbon" and talks about this supposedly wonderful model that California is, she's being deliberately vague. She's not talking about a carbon tax; she's not proposing anything remotely like Bernie Sanders did. She's talking more of the same, old "cap and trade" shenanigans that the Goldman Sachs crowd loves. If you press them, they'll call it some euphemism like "cap and invest," but it's still just the same, old "cap and trade."

If this plan is such shit, why didn't your group get off their ass and get something better on the ballot? Do you just not give a shit about the climate or what?

You are basically saying that people don't change their behavior if the cost of something goes up. That is absurd. Ever eat generic brand cereal? It isn't as good as the stuff sold in boxes. But guess what? People buy cereal in a bag because it is cheaper.

When the price of gas goes up, people buy more high mileage cars. When the price of gas goes down, it is the opposite. People also adjust in lots of other ways. For example, insulating your home becomes more cost effective. Do you want to spend $1,000 to save $100 a year? Probably not. But how about saving $200 or $300 a year. Suddenly that begins to make a lot of sense. As it turns out, we also live in a state where most of the energy we get comes from hydro. So a tax on oil would be much higher than a tax on electricity. This would make converting from an oil furnace to a heat pump a better choice than ever. This is not only a switch to cleaner form of energy, but a much more efficient one as well.

Private companies would do the same. A landlord that doesn't charge for heat does the same calculation, and adding insulation suddenly makes a lot more sense. Right now Northwest utilities still buy energy from coal plants (just not that much). But if the energy they provide becomes a lot more expensive, then they will switch to wind and solar. Manufacturers who put off efficiency improvements because they didn't pencil out, now get to work.

All of this hits the poor, of course. An energy tax is similar to our sales tax -- it is regressive. But this will cut the sales tax 1%. Even so, making the argument that this doesn't mitigate the pain felt by the working class is a reasonable one. But saying this won't reduce green house gas emissions is absurd. Of course it will.

But it isn't about just us. It is about setting an example. Just as we were the first to legalize the possession of cannabis, other states -- and perhaps the country as a whole -- will follow. Which do you think would gain more political traction: A carbon tax that included a reduction in FICA fees (for both employers and employees) or a carbon tax that included a massive new bureaucracy? It isn't close.

Besides, if I'm wrong, if people really do want to spend huge amounts of money on such a bureaucracy, then they'll fund it later. Just as with the cannabis initiative, it is a step in the right direction, but we can modify it later. That would mean increasing the sales tax 1% so that we can "invest the money in green jobs, clean energy, and the communities hit first and worst by fossil fuels.". That is essentially what you are arguing for. Good luck with that.

@1 -- We finally agree on something, cressona. Identity politics is the biggest political problem this country faces, and it permeates our civic discussion to a ridiculous level. It is bad enough with the politicians. In an age when it is trivially easy to read arguments from the candidates, elections still depend on which candidate the idiot voter would rather have a beer with. Now it spills over into the initiatives, and we are supposed to vote against this because the people supporting it aren't "our kind of people" or vote for it for the opposite reason. Fuck that. I don't care which white male economist likes this or not -- I'll vote for it because it will be effective and not too hard on the working class while serving as an effective model for the rest of the country.

I didn't read the entire editorial, I admit. I just got too distracted the sixth or so time I found myself saying "Wait a minute, I thought this was about climate change?" If this is the most coherent argument against, then I'm content with the ballot i cast.

I don't vote for the perfect; I vote for the good. That's why I'm voting Clinton and not... I dunno, some imaginary elf candidate who sprinkles good feelings everywhere he goes and has tons of experience but no dirt to dig up and no scandals. There will probably never be a single piece of legislation that does what I-732's detractors want. If it were an initiative, it would probably be ruled unconstitutional because it would touch too many topics at once. A good running start and corrective steps along the way seems to be a fair compromise.

I'm still waffling on 732 but will probably vote for it. I'd love to see it improved instead of starting over from scratch in four years, a presidential election being the only timeframe I can imagine where something that effects real change even stands a chance. I would love to see a piece that talks about how we can't get from Point A to Point B. What are the real challenges in starting with 732 and fixing its problems? Legislature won't raise taxes due to cowardice? Challenges in the judicial system? Backlash from the public? I'm thinking something like the Sightline pieces (I'd link but, mobile) but drawing the opposite conclusions, based on the merits of the legislation and best guesses about its effects.

I don't see that. I see arguments mostly like this one, which give me pause but don't convince me based on merit alone that I should vote no. I am actually holding out so that I may be convinced -- I-732 is the last empty bubble on my ballot. There's still a week left where I could be swayed... but given everything I've seen so far I will probably err on the side of immediate action.

"This initiative doesn't provide unicorns and world peace and end cancer; it just combats climate change and makes our taxes less regressive" -you.

The stranger has been pretty insistent on voting against this measure. So far, the comments section have been far more enlightening on why voting 'Yes' is the right choice.

" It’s no wonder that the fossil fuel industry has not opposed I-732."

This isn't true. PSE and oil companies have put in nearly half a million against I-732 in the last week. Telling.

https://thinkprogress.org/washington-car…

zev423 @9: The stranger has been pretty insistent on voting against this measure.

Actually, The Stranger has endorsed I-732. It's just that a group of Stranger writers decided to issue a dissent, and one which was almost as full of identity-politics demagoguery as this piece.

Here's a decent rebuttal from the Carbon Tax Center to some of the common criticisms of I-732 and BC's revenue-neutral carbon tax. I do have one quibble with this rebuttal I've linked to. It suggests that Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is mandating that all provinces have a carbon tax in place by 2018. Actually, they have a choice between carbon tax and cap-and-trade.

I-732 encourages households & businesses to go after the cheapest & easiest "low hanging fruit" of wasteful & inefficient use of energy while stimulating investment in a more sustainable clean & renewable energy economy . BC shows how this "virtuous cycle" works.

Their carbon tax started July 1, 2008 @ the rate of C$ 10/ton, and increased C$ 5/ton annually until 2012, when it was capped @ C$ 30/ton. So what happened?

BC's per capita carbon emissions declined 12.9% while Canada's declined 3.7%.

BC's petroleum consumption declined even more dramatically, by 16%, while Canada's increased 3%.

Meanwhile, BC's per capita GDP grew faster than Canada's (1.75% vs. 1.28%).

BC, once the highest taxed province in Canada, lowered personal & corporate provincial taxes & also rebated significant carbon tax revenues to lower income families.

Washington state can do the same by following in BC's foot steps. As in Canada, which is finally moving forward with a national carbon pricing effort, passing I-732 will encourage other states & our national government to finally act. Vote YES on 732.

Once again the good is the enemy of the perfect.

Is I-732 perfect? No. Of course not. But it is a step in the right direction, and it is better than the alternative, which is to do nothing and hope for something better next year (or the year after that, or the year after that, etc).

The pragmatic politics of WA state is that we get the highest voter turn out once every 4 years during presidential elections, especially among younger voters. Big, ambitious, liberal initiatives have the best chance of being passed during these elections. Off year elections tend to skew much more to reliable older voters, and considerably less liberal. So if we vote this down, we will have to wait till 2020 for another realistic chance of passing an ambitious environmental initiative. Sure, you can put your ideal perfect initiative on the ballot next year, but it has a far lower chance of passing.

If there was a better initiative on the ballot this year, I would have happily voted for it. But there isn't. This year, on the ballot in front of me, I-732 is as good a choice as I am presented. I'm not willing to vote it down in the hopes that some day some one will come up with something better, maybe.

Finally, there is no reason that we can't pass I-732 AND also pass whatever brilliant initiative Jill eventually comes up with, if she ever manages to put anything on the ballot. It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be yes/yes. Everyone wins!

I also now stop reading any piece as soon as I hit the word "Manspained." Jill Mangaliman does not no know me. And she has no fucking clue how close I am to the front lines of climate change.

The sign in the photos accompanying this editorial says "Stronger Together" because they are trying to build a coalition among the leaders of the some social justice groups, some environmental groups, the Democratic Party, and some unions. The are all leftist groups (I am one and I am or have been a member of many of these groups.) The real 'Stronger Together' is the bi-partisan approach of I-732. Since 732 is a tax swap and not a tax increase, as these groups prefer, it has earned endorsements from many Republicans as well as liberals concerned about climate change. The Audubon has endorsed it as well as many leftist politicians. This is the 'Stronger Together' coalition we need to build to move forward on a achievable climate change policy, not just the mostly Seattle based, out-of-touch-with-the-state, lefties who want to use climate change as an issue to solve racism, income inequality, and overthrow capitalism. Their strategy is trying to do do much. Stay focused on climate change if you want to make progress on climate change. The mostly non-white people around the world who are being hurt the most by climate change will thank you. I voted Yes for I-732.

Tl;dr, but I'm going with Cliff Mass on this one. "Yes" on I-732.

The problem with these arguments is that they're based on the idea that you want to wait around for some perfect policy that is going to solve all the problems in Washington. That is NEVER going to happen. That 'ideal' policy you're thinking of was already attempted by Jay Inslee and it failed in the Washington legislature. Now is I-732 perfect? Absolutely not. This policy is not the end of the conversation, we're not going to pass this and then pat ourselves on the back for solving climate change. But what will happen is that if this is passed, it will reduce carbon emissions, relieve tax burdens on low-income families, and help keep businesses competitive so our economy doesn't crumble. We have to start somewhere, so why not start here? Putting a price on carbon provides market incentives to reduce carbon emissions, and that's coming from scientists, politicians, and economists alike. And as for your line about "swapping one regressive tax for another is not 'progressive tax reform.'", sure, but we're not just swapping taxes. You seem to be forgetting about the Working Families Rebate, which will provide over 400,000 families statewide up to $1,500 back each year.

Also if you want to talk about who's supporting I-732, please take a look at https://yeson732.org/endorsements/. You will see politicians from both sides of the aisle, legislative districts, and 30+ organizations.

Now who's opposing I-732? Kaiser Aluminum, Puget Sound Energy, Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, and many others in the fossil fuel and manufacturing industries -- the big polluters of Washington.

Instead of fighting over who gets the tax revenue money, let's focus on the real issue. Climate change is happening, and I-732 is a giant step in the right direction towards combatting it.

Good writeup on our state and I-732 in NY Times today: Is Coal’s Political Heft Plunging? One S….

Listen to the climate news. Listen to 50 scientists at UW, Obama, climatologists, and politicians who for years have all been advocating for a tax on carbon. Or listen to someone who reasons against a fair and excellent proposition because she doesn't like "mansplainers" and also because time is so short -- you better do nothing. We should nothing because that's what the island-dwelling Filipinos or Bangladeshis or Andaman islanders would want? And you're speaking for them? I don't think so. Because rather than giving all poor Washingtonians money via a 1% lower sales to spend on whatever they need to spend that money on, you want to give that money (about 1/4 of it, in the Alliance's vague 4 page proposal) to *somebody* for some energy projects? Who is that somebody? What are those projects? Who benefits? Is it your group? Or will it be people like investor Tom Steyer who gave the Alliance 80K to fight 732, or Paul Allen, who also funds 732 opposition. For these billionaires you're going to add your voice against the most progressive climate proposal (and tax decrease), Washington has ever had? These are white men by the way. But they're savvy enough to 'splain their message through groups like Sierra Club who take donations from them, do business with them, socialize with them, and in turn get millions of dollars and give up to their "cause" 2 million people who care about the environment but are willing to believe that this time they really will be given a seat at the table. Think smarter people, think for yourselves, vote for 732.

Your claim that BC carbon emissions went up is incorrect. They actually went down.
Here is my reference, published only a week ago. https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2016/10/2…
BC emissions have not gone down as much as we all would like but their carbon tax maxed out in 2012 whereas the I-732 carbon tax continues to rise over time. BC is discussing increasing their carbon tax again. Canadian PM Trudeau is telling all provinces that they must implement carbon pricing by 2018 or their federal government will.
"Trudeau said the proposed price on carbon dioxide pollution should start at a minimum of $10 a tonne in 2018, rising by $10 each year to $50 a tonne by 2022."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-t…

Just read your piece opposing I-732 on CommonDreams, and found several aspects of it disturbing / disingenuous.
The budget "hole" argument is nonsense, as you add up 6 years of estimated deficits to produce a "really big number" to scare people, as progressive economist Dean Baker always points out. With WA's projected annual budget in excess of $20 billion per year for this forecast period, this measure is revenue neutral within anyone's ability to forecast it. Also, fuel use per capita didn't decline markedly in any part of Canada but BC, when BC's carbon tax was put in place. The economy and population where growing in the meantime. When you ignore this argument for the measure's effectiveness you damage your credibility. When you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging; looks like they've done at least that.
Obviously, this issue will only gain urgency in the times ahead, but we need to get the ball rolling, and we need to do it now.
I look forward to joining your efforts to modify or replace this measure when a better, concrete, proposal is on the table, but for now I will now go out and work to pass, and vote for I-732.