Opinion

The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.

News / Opinion / Columns

Local View: Proposed fee threatens families

By Ann Donnelly

Published: September 2, 2018, 6:01am

Southwest Washington family budgets are under siege from higher gasoline prices, spiking property taxes, rents, and, soon, tolling in some form to the extent that buying shelter, food, water, energy, and transportation is no longer a given for many wage earners.

We are no longer shocked when we find workers living in their cars and sending homeless kids to school.

Now comes Initiative 1631, which if passed in November imposes a fee on carbon emissions, which is to say, on many essential human activities such as travel to work or family activities. Supporters — environmentalists, social justice campaigners and tribal leaders — met in Seattle last May. After dining on lemongrass tofu and regional fine wines, they formed the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy.

But will it actually promote jobs or clean energy?

Washington voters turned down a carbon tax in 2016 with 59 percent of the vote. I-1631 instead imposes a fee, its backers emphasize. The fee in 2020 would be $15 per metric ton of carbon, rising $2 each year until state-imposed goals — double-digit reductions compared to 1990 carbon levels — are met. If the program fails to meet the goals, the price rises after 2035.

Opponents of the measure (“No on I-1631”) object to what they view as rewarding failure.

The fees collected would be held in a “clean-up pollution fund” in the state treasury. After administrative costs, 70 percent would be spent on “clean air and clean energy,” 25 percent on “clean water and healthy forests,” and 5 percent on “healthy communities.” All three accounts would be directed by panels of activists and a Public Oversight Board appointed by the governor. Low-income and other favored populations would receive government help, assuming they navigated successfully through a complex application process.

From the outset, I-1631 doles out favors. Many of the state’s highest emitters of carbon — Chehalis Coal Plant, Boeing, Longview Fiber Paper, Alcoa and others — would be exempt from the fee, in an unstated admission that to include them would seriously hurt the economy. Activities of native tribes and fuel sales to Washington state and federal governments are inexplicably also exempt.

‘Uncertainties’

Additional exemptions may be added at any time, suggesting that some emitters may use political influence to gain future exemption.

Other important employers are not currently exempt, such as Agrium Kennewick Fertilizer, Air Liquide Hydrogen in Skagit County, and J.R. Simplot food production.

Businesses and families would bear the burden, raising their costs of paying workers, food and energy. The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimates the cost to consumers and businesses would be at least $2.2 billion in the first five years. Gasoline prices — Washington’s are already the nation’s third highest — would rise an estimated 14 cents per gallon in the first year, escalating annually.

Last March, advocacy group Carbon Washington (www.carbonwa.org) modelled the anticipated effectiveness of I-1631 to reduce carbon emissions. They admit that modeling so many uncertainties, including an uncertain number of exemptions, amounts to “a guess.”

They found that through 2030, I-1631, with its “uncertainties, and perverse incentives” would perform poorly in achieving its objectives compared to I-732, the carbon tax rejected by Washington voters in 2016.

High costs and “trust us” results do not justify a vote in favor of I-1631. Big, new clean-energy programs have a poor track record of accountability. In the past several weeks, Oregon provided a sobering case history, as detailed in “Good Money After Bad: Agency Kept Shoveling Money to SoloPower” (The Oregonian, Aug. 24).

A better approach is to let market forces and decisions of families improve our environment.

‘Uncertainties’

Related Stories