tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post4617064482641148194..comments2024-03-28T10:16:44.231-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: "The Nader Moment" for Washington State EnvironmentalistsCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-30168174206935371142016-09-28T14:47:24.511-07:002016-09-28T14:47:24.511-07:00I think you're correct in categorizing withdra...I think you're correct in categorizing withdrawn support from Sierra Club et al as a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" issue.<br /><br />I don't believe the Nader analogy is appropriate, accurate, or illustrative. Gore's campaign had <b>way</b> bigger problems than a spoiler effect from Nader. The effect might have been relevant in New Hampshire, but it is almost entirely irrelevant in Florida.<br /><br />It is true that Gore lost Florida by fewer than 600 votes.<br /><br />It is true that over 97,000 Floridians voted for Nader.<br /><br />It is probably not true that Gore would have taken the lead if Nader votes were redistributed among Gore, Bush, and abstain. CNN's exit polls showed Bush leading 49-47 assuming a hypothetical Naderless race. Around half of Nader voters would have stayed home; less than a quarter would have transferred their vote to Gore.<br /><br />Approximately 308,000 Floridian Democrats voted for Bush. Gore lost more than 3 times as many voters directly to the Bush camp as he could have <i>possibly</i> lost to Nader. A more realistic estimate is closer to 12 times, given the exit poll data.<br /><br />To bring it back around, is it possible that there are in fact bigger problems with this initiative than the spoiler effect can account for? I hope not, but let's not overlook the possibility just because we've already decided who should take the blame.Tim!https://www.blogger.com/profile/08020958201438047629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-21573983785713070312016-09-19T10:00:17.423-07:002016-09-19T10:00:17.423-07:00Though by no means a perfect climate change action...Though by no means a perfect climate change action policy, I-732 IS a potential start whereby: (1) the legislature is forced to pay more attention to WA emissions; (2) the public will become better educated on CO2/climate progress or lack thereof; (3) both the WA political left and right can agree on tax policy with their own self-preservation in mind in a rapidly warming world; (4) passing I-732 sets an electoral precedence for a possible wave of national climate state (by state) policy discourse and most importantly, (5) the environmental community can by example show our political leaders that climate action may involve (will require) ideological compromises NOW if we are ever going achieve our common climate action imperatives. <br /><br />In my opinion, I-732 should not be seen as the ultimate climate policy but a hopeful beginning for Washington State climate leadership.<br /><br />George ReynoldsonGeorge Reynoldsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09945286491822043629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-60147057016446078882016-09-16T09:02:45.778-07:002016-09-16T09:02:45.778-07:00Tom... the State numbers are not correct...and eve...Tom... the State numbers are not correct...and even if there were we are talking an issue at the rounding-off level that can easily be compensated for....cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66387819765190471122016-09-16T08:21:01.647-07:002016-09-16T08:21:01.647-07:00The primary opposition from the left is not that i...The primary opposition from the left is not that income inequality must be solved first, but that, according to the Dept. of Revenue analysis, the initiative is not revenue neutral, but actually siphons off about $200 million annually from our already strained state budget, taking yet further revenue from basic and drastically underfunded needs such as education, social services, and infrastructure.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05973073097207452113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-48762728266364561022016-09-12T20:59:52.971-07:002016-09-12T20:59:52.971-07:00i would claim that the carbon tax we have now clea...i would claim that the carbon tax we have now clearly increases fossil fuel consumption because, well, it clearly increases fossil fuel consumption. We use the revenue from our current, substantial carbon tax, that is, our gas tax, to build and maintain a network of roads, without which our cars would be pretty useless. <br /><br />Now not every tax that is meant to reduce the consumption of a good doesn't have the intended consequence. Take cigarette taxes. In this state they do in fact reduce smoking. But notice that in this case we don't use part of the revenue from the tax to advertise cigarette smoking to minors.<br /><br />If that sounds nuts, take a step back and remember that we do exactly that in the case of the lottery, another sin tax. Apparently we consider the sin of innumeracy, or if you prefer, sunny optimism, to be more reprehensible than smoking, and so we are more willing to inflict punishment on number-haulics than we are on smokers. <br /><br />The carbon tax, as proposed is a machine. Like any machine we intend to build, we hope that we understand how it will work. Predictions of future performance may not pan out in all cases. <br /><br />We're saying that industry will use less carbon. Presumably they will do this, not by picking up stakes and moving operations, but by being more efficient in their use of resources. Let's hope. As we are hoping, should we remind ourselves that many of the largest carbon emitters in the state use carbon as a building material, as much as a source of heat? I gather you don't make cement without adding some carbon. People have been making cement a long time. Do you suppose that they have given some thought to doing so efficiently? You might also know that one of the top ten carbon polluters in our state is REC Silicon in Moses Lake. <br /><br />Now our machine is going to take that revenue, and redistribute it to the needy. But what is the goal? to reduce the pernicious regressive tax structure in this state? I voted for the income tax. I would do so again. I advocate raising the B&O tax and using the money to fund k-12 and our underfunded state colleges (make community college free!) But if the goal is reducing carbon pollution, its hard to see how this has the intended consequence. if you are a liberal, and you read Paul Krugman, you will know that during an economic downturn, tax cuts should be given to the poorest because every dollar they get, they spend. So, as a way to generate economic activity in the state, this may work very well. But the goal is not generating economic activity. It is reducing carbon pollution. Unfortunately, these two things do not necessarily go hand in hand. What was the biggest GGE reduction program ever? The global recession of 2007, thank you W. Bush! We always knew you were an environmentalist. <br /><br />we have before us one of the two great economic conundrums of our time, how can we reduce carbon pollution, and not kill our economy? Because, while it is easy to imagine a world in which millions of SUV's get sent to the scrap heap of history where they belong, it is impossible to imagine a world in which we accept massive unemployment as a consequence of our attempts to reduce carbon pollution.FURhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11685841014713944150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-59315802881868559332016-09-12T00:23:02.505-07:002016-09-12T00:23:02.505-07:00The point of redistributing carbon tax revenues is...The point of redistributing carbon tax revenues is to make carbon taxes less regressive. The idea is that poorer people will still be able to afford the same amount of gas and food that they do now (not more), since it will be more expensive but other changes will balance it out, while rich people who do a lot of discretionary carbon-burning will be able to afford less of it.<br /><br />Neither WA nor the USA has a carbon tax presently, so I have no idea why someone would claim that the carbon tax we have now "clearly" increases fossil-fuel burning, which is opposite to what has been observed in countries that do have a carbon tax (Sweden, Denmark, the UK...).<br /><br />A carbon tax probably isn't enough to reduce emissions to the levels we need to get them to but it's certainly a reasonable start.60naranjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808196194030712299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-10256890407334292042016-09-11T21:10:40.305-07:002016-09-11T21:10:40.305-07:00It is strange to me that everyone seems to accept ...It is strange to me that everyone seems to accept as a given the question of efficacy. That is, by having a carbon tax, any tax, you will in some measure reduce consumption. It seems so simple. Unless you consider that the carbon tax we have now (which by all accounts dwarfs the tax we are discussing) clearly increases the amount of carbon we burn. So why are you so easily convinced that this tax will have the intended effect? <br /><br />The tax will not reduce carbon pollution if the revenue is used to promote carbon consumption. Is there any indication that this will happen? Yes. As a matter of course. If all the money we take for the sin of carbon consumption is given to people use use it to consume more carbon, then it will fail in its intended purpose. This will surely happen, because it is structured to go to low income people who will spend some of it on gas. Other parts of it they will spend on housing, and food. And the tax will not prevent the GHG emissions behind any of these products. <br /><br />Personally, I think this tax will not have its intended consequence.<br /><br />Do I have a better idea? Well, just off the cuff, sure. How about we take all the money from the gas tax and use it to decarbonize our economy. We would build 10GW of solar farms out in the dessert and ditto for wind. We could revise our nuclear plants. We could electrify personal transportation in the Puget Sound by doubling our electric train network, and building it in half or a quarter the time. And, near and dear to my own heart, we could build true bike super highways around the city, including electric elevators where needed to get people over major hills, or tunnel through them where needed. <br /><br />Just taxing something doesn't prevent it from happening. In some cases, it will actually increase it. FURhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11685841014713944150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-73617350540361114322016-09-11T18:56:07.746-07:002016-09-11T18:56:07.746-07:00Still waiting for that to happen with Obamacare. ...Still waiting for that to happen with Obamacare. Government is the least productive solution for about any problemPro2ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02949181549641504052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-91843809234673576282016-09-11T11:36:57.699-07:002016-09-11T11:36:57.699-07:00To be clear about what you're advocating, &quo...To be clear about what you're advocating, "nature solving this problem" via a "massive population decrease" means billions of people dying. But I guess trying to mitigate that outcome is less valuable than getting to say "I told you so" and feeling superior for not being "materialistic." Accelerationism and primitivism at their worst.60naranjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808196194030712299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-27829818618905592872016-09-10T20:08:40.860-07:002016-09-10T20:08:40.860-07:00Cliff,
The amount of blame you can assign to Ralp...Cliff,<br /><br />The amount of blame you can assign to Ralph Nader for Gore loosing the election to Bush in 2000 is about one percent. Gore couldn't even win his home state or Arkansas. Also, the Supreme Court halted the counting and handed the election to Bush.<br /><br />Worrying about climate change is a waste of time. We've already passed the thresh hold of any kind of meaningful action. You might as well just enjoy yourself and not worry about it. The only way the problem will be solved is by a massive population decrease. Most people don't care and are just interested in their materialistic lifestyles. Nature will solve this problem.<br /><br />BrianDanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04919135583311087704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-38268833951638287722016-09-09T17:09:06.172-07:002016-09-09T17:09:06.172-07:00Eric,
You have not considered the entire pack...Eric,<br /> You have not considered the entire package. Reducing sales tax preferentially helps poorer folks. And the working family rebate does the same. Considering the ENTIRE package you will see that it DOES NOT penalize low income folks...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-57398923584242343892016-09-09T15:23:34.054-07:002016-09-09T15:23:34.054-07:00You write, "A similar approach has worked wel...You write, "A similar approach has worked well in British Columbia: greatly reducing carbon usage with no negative impacts on the economy." But has it, really? <br /><br />"Like other provinces, BC saw had a recession-induced drop in emissions between 2008 and 2009, and a more modest drop in emissions in 2010. Another consideration is that when BC’s carbon tax was introduced in July 2008, fuel prices were peaking at around $1.50 per litre (in Vancouver, where I live), but the carbon tax was only 2.3 cents per litre out of that total. These factors – economic downturn and high fuel prices – better explain the drop in GHG emissions than the carbon tax, although arguably the carbon tax piled on," writes Mark Lee in Behind the Numbers.<br /><br />He continues, "If you take 2007 or 2008 as your base year, then you can construct a story that BC’s emissions have fallen, but the reality is that since 2010, BC’s GHG emissions have increased every year; as of 2013 they are up 4.3 per cent above 2010 levels. More than two-thirds of this increase is attributable to the growth of BC’s natural gas industry (up 1.8 million tonnes). BC also recently conceded it will not be able to meet its 2020 GHG target."<br /><br />http://behindthenumbers.ca/2016/03/03/dont-believe-the-hype-on-bcs-carbon-tax/. <br /><br />Graph here: http://www.policynote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-02-at-9.07.45-AM.pngPatrick Mazzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13265715717280522959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-55464547294534671482016-09-09T09:35:21.115-07:002016-09-09T09:35:21.115-07:00Gas taxes are fundamentally and irrevocably a tax ...Gas taxes are fundamentally and irrevocably a tax on the poorest of our citizens. They are the people who are most likely to live farthest away from their places of work, due to the high housing costs associated with more densely populated areas. Additionally, there is rarely any available public transportation nearby that's a possible alternative. There is nothing remotely "progressive" about this tax - it's regressive, in the extreme. Now we have calls to raise the federal gas taxes once again, due to the deterioration of our interstates. Why has this occurred, despite many more cars on the roads and more people driving than ever? Because the hybrids don't need nearly as much gas, so those drivers don't come close to paying their "fair share." Funny how the law of unintended consequences rears it's head once again. Eric Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376653214948517679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-12870142547047581632016-09-08T11:57:28.621-07:002016-09-08T11:57:28.621-07:00"So one could argue, if you want to reduce GG..."So one could argue, if you want to reduce GGE's in Washington from cars and trucks,the single biggest source of CO2 pollution in our state, we should end the gas tax."<br /><br />I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree. Businesses are always trading off cost versus profitability versus investment, etc. If you make carbon consumption more expensive, that will get included in financial analysis, and at some point those changes will drive different tradeoffs in the business world. <br /><br />Gas tax on cars behaves fundamentally differently. Fuel is a must for most people, at least those who don't live, work and play next to mass transit lines. Taxes make up about 63 cents of the cost of a gallon. If you suddenly dropped the price of fuel by 63 cents, you'd likely encourage some people to make personal choices in favor of less fuel efficient vehicles, especially if you stopped maintaining the roads. Perhaps 4WD pickups would suddenly make more sense than driving a Prius through massive potholes. Significant changes in taxation and services can drive behavior more effectively than steady state. <br /><br />The idea of slightly tilting the business analysis on carbon consumption costs, coupled with reducing the extremely regressive sales tax, without a net change in taxation or government spending, is likely to have positive results. <br /><br />Now, if it was up to me, I'd raise gasoline taxes by 20% per year, with those increases used to reduce sales tax and other regressive taxes, or to invest in a wider-ranging mass transit system. If we all had faith that the 20% per year compounded increase was going to continue ad infinitum, then that would drive some dramatic changes in government, business and personal investment decisions. In this case, it would be closer to the (effective) cigarette tax model that you reference. <br />John Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271037292493818827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-52357751723740190142016-09-08T09:59:17.908-07:002016-09-08T09:59:17.908-07:00Cliff! After looking at the latest SST Anomalies,...Cliff! After looking at the latest SST Anomalies, it appears the "Blob" is back with a vengeance! Would love to hear your thoughts on that and whether you think it will stick around and make for a warmer than normal winter.Weatherfreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01448044230017714312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-26298747800802251562016-09-08T06:44:53.879-07:002016-09-08T06:44:53.879-07:00"Deal with income inequality first!"
Th..."Deal with income inequality first!"<br /><br />There is always something else to fix first, isn't there? You're really saying "Do nothing until my pet project is done"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11927573459817733189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-46418698733133265412016-09-07T21:37:24.277-07:002016-09-07T21:37:24.277-07:00We have a carbon tax now. It's called the gas ...We have a carbon tax now. It's called the gas tax. Has is reduced GGE's? No. Quite the opposite. It has increased them, because the revenues from it go to building infrastructure that helps us to burn more gas. <br /><br />So one could argue, if you want to reduce GGE's in Washington from cars and trucks,the single biggest source of CO2 pollution in our state, we should end the gas tax. <br /><br />More generally, do not assume that because the government taxes something that it will wither. The GGE tax as formulated is a sin tax. Let's think about two other examples.<br /><br />Has the cigarette tax reduced smoking in Washington State? Yes. The gov't has chosen to set it at a level past the point where it would maximize revenue, and into the region where it will reduce consumption. But not by much. In fact, if you eliminated the tax on cigarettes, alcohol and the lotto, in our state, we would no longer have a regressive tax structure.<br /><br />So is is possible for the government to set a tax in such a way that it reduces consumption. But it must be willing to accept a *loss of revenue* to do this. Governments are not always willing to do this. They need to do stuff like keep the criminal justice system working, keep our schools working, etc. Important, admirable work.<br /><br />Before prohibition, the federal government was funded largely by a tax on alcohol (booze). At that time they showed no interest in reducing consumption. We Americans drank more then than at any time since. But shouldn't any tax reduce consumption of the good taxed? No, because the govenment can use some of the money to promote the revenue generating activity in other ways. For example, it can institute policy that keeps the price of grain low, so that there is plenty for brewing. It can give tax incentives to producers, often subtle ones. It can reduce regulations on consumption. There is a strong case that the pre-prohibition government did all those things. <br /><br />Or in the case of our current carbon tax, the gas tax, they can use the revenue to promote driving, by building bigger better roads. And, just like any business, if there is a new technology that threatens their revenue stream they may look unfavorably upon it and act accordingly. Is there evidence that this is happening with gas tax revenue? yes. State governments see hybrids and electric cars as a threat to revenue, so they are imposing taxes on them. And they are very clear about why they are doing it. <br /><br />So it is not a simple matter to go from a carbon tax, to reduce GGE's. It is possible that we will in fact end up increasing GGE's as a result of the tax. Careful thought needs to be given to this. I am not convinced that this is a good idea.<br />FURhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11685841014713944150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-70138198799571597122016-09-07T21:11:21.067-07:002016-09-07T21:11:21.067-07:00The common comment on the right is that, "I&#...The common comment on the right is that, "I'll believe climate change is a crisis when the left behaves like it's a crisis." This shows that too many look at it as an opportunity to advance a political agenda, not a crisis that needs attention on its own merits.Patrick Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039068200620743184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-68335854596966440252016-09-07T15:36:12.898-07:002016-09-07T15:36:12.898-07:00Organic Farmer,
Dr. Jill attacked The Hil
And car...Organic Farmer,<br /><br />Dr. Jill attacked The Hil<br />And carried Donnie's water.<br />Jill fell down and cost The Crown<br />And Greens were scorned thereafter. <br /><br />As an organic farmer you HAVE to be aware of the changing climate in Washington. Grant, it makes growing tomatoes and even melons pretty easy west of Cascades whereas forty years ago it was very much a sometime thing. But the other effects -- most critically the burning of the Cascades forests and acidification of Puget Sound -- are much more far-reaching and just plain bad. Get off your high horse and be practical. I know the kind of people who infest the Green Party: wanna be Trotskyites like the fools in SDS when I was in school. <br /><br />And just to set one thing straight. In the forty years I worked, paid taxes and contributed to the economy, I made it a consistent point to take public transit to work, even when it took longer as it usually does. <br />Anandakoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15397105362372268883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-45134742625575539192016-09-07T13:08:51.102-07:002016-09-07T13:08:51.102-07:00Well put.Well put.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02669870039212447032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-43275339686563548082016-09-07T12:20:53.620-07:002016-09-07T12:20:53.620-07:00Great blog. I'll be doing my part to tell peop...Great blog. I'll be doing my part to tell people to vote yes on I-732, it would really be a travesty if it failed because environmental groups were so vocal in opposing it.Charlie Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714553915658896340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-76180292378577807122016-09-07T11:47:11.835-07:002016-09-07T11:47:11.835-07:00I-732's proposal to use carbon tax revenues to...I-732's proposal to use carbon tax revenues to fund the state's Working Families Tax Credit (unfunded since 2008) is a very significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of low-income families of all races and ethnicities. Governor Inslee attempted to fund the program, and failed. This is a big progressive component of I-732 that should be shouted from the rooftops.<br /><br />For some context:<br /><br />http://www.taxcreditsforworkersandfamilies.org/state-tax-credits/washington/Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853016282304793773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-39493280575406255752016-09-07T10:42:54.496-07:002016-09-07T10:42:54.496-07:00Thought you were going to talk about Trump, Cliff....Thought you were going to talk about Trump, Cliff. What we need is Instant Runoff voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Votes for candidates that have been eliminated are given to the voter's next choice. That way, one can vote for third-party candidates without sacrificing votes for the "second best". This would eliminate the Nader Effect, but would require a constitutional amendment to establish, which is tough to do these days.Anselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13835758313287462921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-15058098727655041752016-09-06T19:18:21.513-07:002016-09-06T19:18:21.513-07:00A more pressing issue is for Donald Trump to be de...A more pressing issue is for Donald Trump to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump thinks global warming is a "hoax" after all. A Trump presidency would be a "disaster" according to Bernie Sanders.Bert Wymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885130931696024049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-56398694245724564342016-09-06T14:54:24.697-07:002016-09-06T14:54:24.697-07:00John McBride: "Not sure why issues get this c...John McBride: "Not sure why issues get this confused." <br /><br />Because Yoram Bauman is not very diplomatic and did not work with other groups to make sure the proposal wouldn't be seen as (or actually be) adverse to the interests of low income people, let alone key members of the environmental community.<br /><br />Also, the very first phrase of initiative 732 is: <i><b> The intent of this act is to encourage sustainable economic growth...</b></i>. I cannot imagine a more oxymoronic statement about natural resource management. It's like asking Republicans to help solve our problems. Oh, wait...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com