tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post7258617993861227113..comments2024-03-28T23:07:35.632-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: If You Worry About Climate Change and Care About the Environment, Vote No on I-1631Cliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66116280906618560222018-11-06T14:57:44.638-08:002018-11-06T14:57:44.638-08:00About the coal plant exemption for Centralia, that...About the coal plant exemption for Centralia, that was done due to a previous agreement to shut down the coal plant. State law requires half of it to shut down in 2020, then the other half in 2025. That was done to protect and reeducate the workers in Centralia. <br /><br />I-1631 would mean more clean energy. For context from labor and environmental leaders, read this:<br /><a href="https://medium.com/@jack_854/dont-be-fooled-i-1631-would-mean-cleaner-electricity-a92da54e0cc8" rel="nofollow">Don't be fooled - I-1631 would mean cleaner electricity</a><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182907778965762453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-27257490827650473082018-10-29T19:59:50.599-07:002018-10-29T19:59:50.599-07:00Cliff,
I'm still undecided. I just read the ...Cliff,<br /><br />I'm still undecided. I just read the entire initiative. I don't see anything about $50,000,000 for "labor advocates annually". Can you point me to that section of the initiative? I did see the health action areas, which just left me more confused. Do we have tribes that are struggling with rising sea levels?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01888131351513705893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-86875946495865359622018-10-23T10:48:42.146-07:002018-10-23T10:48:42.146-07:00Bella has raised some points that make me curious....Bella has raised some points that make me curious. As someone who believes that the invasive species obsession has been used to simply allow more pesticides into our environment, and in particular into our waters, and since most of these so called flora invasive species sequester carbon, I'm wondering how 1631 will interact with this issue,<br />particularly as Bella has pointed out TNC has expressed no concern over the spraying of these chemicals into our waters, or on riparian areas where they add more chemical pollution. And having just seen the BP installation near Cherry Point which appears to now also be co operated by the military, its hard for me to believe that exempting that<br />facility and others like it is ultimately in the best interest of reducing global warming.fritzi cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12010587327758759965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47636881652102096922018-10-21T00:18:01.450-07:002018-10-21T00:18:01.450-07:00Thank you for the recommendation, but I really don...Thank you for the recommendation, but I really don't have an interest in government. Although I do wish we had more control of it. Very frustrating to watch.. how pollution and education aren't higher priority is baffling to me.<br />Chris Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12385544614041904457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-50216014716762650022018-10-21T00:03:57.168-07:002018-10-21T00:03:57.168-07:00No loopholes? I'm sure it reads great in a bo...No loopholes? I'm sure it reads great in a book. Lobying, unchecked pay raises and bonuses. Happens all the time in the smaller governments. .<br /><br />Why else would they make a tax with no where to spend the money?<br /><br />If they just would have said we're taxing the fuel to fund the schools ,or to pay to buy everyone an electric car. At least that would be something..<br /><br />Chris Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12385544614041904457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-30862359247742630972018-10-20T21:14:56.329-07:002018-10-20T21:14:56.329-07:00After reading the Voters Guide, the Seattle Times,...After reading the Voters Guide, the Seattle Times, and this article by Cliff Mass, I don't know all the technical details, but I can tell you from 72 years of experience in watching enormous new government programs, I-1631 is a giant boondoggle waiting to happen. This is tremendously complicated and you think a board meeting twice a month can handle all the problems? Dream on. Does anyone remember WPPSS (see Wikipedia)? The second largest bond default in U.S. history ($2.25 billion in 1983 dollars). That was another enormous complicated public undertaking to build several nuclear power plants in Washington State with a mixed un-elected board of directors. Climate change is real and we must address it but this I-631 is folly.<br />Roger Hockett<br />Newcastle, WaAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421189549881331943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-39222451316352195692018-10-20T20:40:28.324-07:002018-10-20T20:40:28.324-07:00Cliff,
We are facing a literally existential clim...Cliff,<br /><br />We are facing a literally existential climate crisis; if anyone doubted it prior to the recent IPCC analysis, which says we have only 10 years to solve it, there should be no doubt now among rational people. To understate it substantially, this is urgent and the stakes are beyond high. <br /><br />So although I shared your feelings about the lack of support for I-732 (the failed revenue neutral fee initiative), they pale in the face of the impending disaster of climate change. We must act now. To fail our children by maintaining the status quo is unconscionable, immoral, irrational. We do not have time for a perfect solution to take shape.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077605221957397029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-1893115892709520482018-10-20T20:05:53.043-07:002018-10-20T20:05:53.043-07:00Yeah, Cliff is right, we should wait a few years a...Yeah, Cliff is right, we should wait a few years and write a new climate bill. Because if there's one thing that atmospheric scientists have been telling us, it is that there is plenty of time to stop climate change, no need to hurry. aprilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09791302203065900202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-23810391138159231702018-10-20T14:17:19.557-07:002018-10-20T14:17:19.557-07:00The October 2016 report to the Washington legislat...The October 2016 report to the Washington legislature regarding our state's greenhouse gas emissions breaks down which categories contribute the most emissions. The largest contributing sector is transportation, accounting for 42.8% of GHGs. The runner-up, contributing 22% of our GHGs, is the category comprised of residential/commercial/industrial. The third largest contributing sector is electricity at 19%.<br /><br />Initiative 1631 seeks to impose pollution fees on fossil fuels and electricity. The fees raised by this Initiative are supposed to reduce carbon pollution.<br /><br />We already have an example to use for verification of the efficacy of raising fees on carbon. Check out the impact of raising carbon fees in California, where transportation also tops the list for GHG emitters at 41%.<br /><br />When you take all gasoline taxes and fees together, Californians pay 58.3 cents per gallon (47.3 cents in primary and secondary excise taxes+2 cents on the underground storage tank fee+<br />9 cents on the sales tax.) In 2019 California's cap-and-trade system for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions adds another 12 cents, according to several estimates.<br /><br />But it doesn't end there. Add the federal tax of 18.4 cents a gallon and Californian are paying 40%+ more in taxes and fees than the national average. Has the increase in gasoline prices caused a slump in the state's traffic volume, measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)? <br /><br />Nope. In 2018, VMT increased 0.7%. The only slump in VMT occurred when the economy stagnated from 2008 to 2014. Since 2014, however, GHGs have increased to 170 million tons in that state. <br /><br />Industrial GHGs have remained flat for quite a few years in California.<br /><br />So the financial squeeze has NOT reduced greenhouse gases emitted by the largest emitting sectors there. Why would that squeeze work here?<br />Nulliparahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06115383520142557298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-2000099894688850432018-10-20T13:43:30.107-07:002018-10-20T13:43:30.107-07:00Cliff,
Genuinely curious, I read Yes on 1631 webs...Cliff,<br /><br />Genuinely curious, I read Yes on 1631 website's FAQ, "Why Does This Exempt Certain Industries?" and, wow what a bunch of BS:<br /><br />“1631 is truly built for Washington. Our plan ensures that when we need steel, aluminum, and concrete to build new clean energy in our state we are using our companies and our workers to do it. These companies are leaders in efficiency and give us the cleanest manufacturing in the world. That means we are allowing more people in Washington to share in the clean energy economy and aren’t just exporting our pollution somewhere else, while still covering the vast majority of polluters in our state.”<br /><br />The bill says it would exempt aviation, maritime, and other unspecified intensive energy sector businesses. So I pay at the pump, yet those who fly on planes won’t?<br /><br />No tax on maritime fuels. Does this mean all those big container ships importing cheap crap from China to fill Target, Walmart and Fred Meyer shelves with mostly unnecessary junk, fabricated out of diminishing natural resources using, likely, slave labor, won’t pay their fair share?<br /><br />Sounds like pulp and paper mills are exempt? Should we still be converting forests to mono-crop tree farms to feed these extremely polluting industries?<br /><br />I too am skeptical that this fortune won’t go to special interests who have clearly captured the state. Look no further than the epic state support of the shellfish industry conversion of our native tidelands into large mono-crop, mostly non-native, shellfish farms. On top of allowing these in-water “farms” to displace native species, the state supports the use of pesticides directly sprayed into marine waters to rid these non-native shellfish companies of mostly NATIVE species that they consider Pests.<br /><br />Corporations, especially pesticide manufacturers, have clearly captured more than state government. The Nature Conservancy is on record for supporting pesticide use in marine waters against both native and non-native species. See 2011 State Noxious Weed Control Board testimony for spraying beloved eelgrasses with herbicides—TNC’s Lisa Younger spoke in support, saying that this was an “elegant” solution. <br /><br />I like your alternatives for how money should be invested, and would rather see an initiative more comprehensive/equitable in scope and one that more accurately defines the problem. The problem is too many people, consuming too many resources, with little to no regard for the Earth or other creatures. I hear the Vatican is all concerned about Climate Change. Still promoting large families? That must be an awkward position.<br /><br />Jim Lazar made his point, which I appreciate. Perhaps I’m too cynical, or a “purist” waiting for the right proposal. Years ago I submitted a proposal to Governor Inslee that would have reduced upwards of 1 million tons of the worst GHG’s annually, saved so much water my calculator couldn’t compute, saved the state upwards of $30M/year, saved the conversion of rainforest lands, and animal’s lives, and DID NOT require legislative approval. There are 17k inmates in state prisons per day with 4 diets, one of which is vegan. Drop the other 3 and start a discussion of agriculture’s impacts on humans and the planet. Inslee wouldn’t even entertain going to Meatless Monday.<br /><br />So here we are, with shared concern over Climate Change but little ability to support one another in how to stop it (at this point, I doubt we can). I don't hear any ideas coming from conservatives. All they need do is watch us fight among ourselves. What a conundrum. <br />Bellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09323170731912396753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-7580999216978965782018-10-20T13:14:22.119-07:002018-10-20T13:14:22.119-07:00Why exactly is it so important to tax carbon? As ...Why exactly is it so important to tax carbon? As I understand it, CO2 has increased of late from .03% to .04% of the air, or thereabouts. Is it possible that an increase of CO2 to around .10% might result in a much better environment on our planet with much greater biodiversity?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17290683832238933466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-52817696295064128792018-10-19T17:17:58.343-07:002018-10-19T17:17:58.343-07:00Chris, I'm not sure how you think government w...Chris, I'm not sure how you think government works, but legislators don't "pocket" tax dollars like you imply.<br /><br />I would recommend you take a basic course in American Government to understand how this stuff works.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18198903211851145633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-75715559190726636992018-10-19T11:35:22.810-07:002018-10-19T11:35:22.810-07:00Cliff Mass,
You said something in 2016 that reall...Cliff Mass,<br /><br />You said something in 2016 that really resonated with me in regards to the Sierra Club's position AGAINST I-732:<br /><br />"They are willing to sacrifice the good for the perfect."<br /><br />(or something close to that quote)<br /><br />While I-1631 is indeed FAR from perfect, it is at minimum, a step towards some action on emissions. Even if this action isn't as meaningfully potent as we need, nor does it accomplish what we need in a revenue neutral & bipartisan manner, it still is "a step". <br /><br />"A step", is better than "No Step". Russmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793156892413087319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-35420419964336678672018-10-17T20:59:20.254-07:002018-10-17T20:59:20.254-07:00Republicans will support the initiatives required ...Republicans will support the initiatives required to combat climate change, if they think their local communities will benefit in terms of good-paying jobs. That's why I'm such a staunch advocate of solar farms in places like Eastern Oregon, where they have the climatological means of running a highly profitable solar industry.<br />Karl Bonnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10418986386619849310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-43964176320918574032018-10-17T12:46:16.074-07:002018-10-17T12:46:16.074-07:00I tried to read the Explanatory Statement and the ...I tried to read the Explanatory Statement and the Complete Text of the Initiative in the voter's pamphlet. I agree with the lack of specificity of projects. In addition, the initiative is much too complex. kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10870681491523497993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-17817147389299159902018-10-17T10:55:59.454-07:002018-10-17T10:55:59.454-07:00Unknown - agreed. And let's also tax everyone ...Unknown - agreed. And let's also tax everyone in Seattle and the surrounding suburbs, whose growth would never have occurred if not for the massive dam and resultant boom in cheap energy that was created, beginning in the 1930's.Eric Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376653214948517679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-50080004406190079122018-10-17T10:36:18.184-07:002018-10-17T10:36:18.184-07:00Professor,
I agree with a lot of what you write bu...Professor,<br />I agree with a lot of what you write but not all. You're right that I-1631 will probably not serve as a model policy for the rest of the country, but you're wrong to think this is a reason to vote against it. By wide margins, Americans of all political persuasions support renewable energy production and there are many places where pollution-funded renewable subsidies would pass the ballot box. But who cares anyway? If 1631 is a right fit for our state, then let's pass it!<br /><br />You fault 1631 for not explicitly committing to certain programs, a number of which you mention as important. Again, this is not a reason to vote against 1631, since all of these good ideas can still be funded by the board if they still look like the best uses of the money at the time. 1631 allows flexibility in how the funds are spent, which is something to be cheered, not jeered. Just because people are appointed doesn't mean they're not accountable. Everybody has a boss in this world.<br /><br />A lot of your other fault-finding with 1631 echos the far lefties' arguments against I-732 two years ago. They said "if you're for the environment you have to vote against 732 because 732 will make meaningful climate legislation harder to pass later." Hogwash! The undeniable message behind this argument is "the climate's really not all that important" and "fixing the climate can wait for something better." More hogwash! The truth is that we probably need both initiatives. And the longer we wait, the more expensive we'll have to make it for it to be effective. It's unfair for us now to drag our feet knowing that in doing so, we burden the future with our mistakes.<br /><br />Thanks for continuing to speak about the importance of climate action, and thanks again for your support two years ago of I-732. A lot of us are still getting over the defeat of that wise initiative, but we shouldn't self-inflict more damage to our climate out of spite for the far lefties who made such a bad mistake in doing exactly this two years ago. <br /><br /> Bob Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16356474666616734145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-5962579166719147982018-10-17T00:04:02.895-07:002018-10-17T00:04:02.895-07:00I applaud Cliff's defense of free markets when...I applaud Cliff's defense of free markets when it comes to oil companies. Let's apply the same logic to the $4 billion Yakima Basin project. Taxpayers should not subsidize farming. Farms are businesses like any other.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11828023081163029798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-33352758240768262262018-10-16T13:54:47.369-07:002018-10-16T13:54:47.369-07:00Wilson.... global warming is too serious to waste...Wilson.... global warming is too serious to waste billions of dollars and to pass something that makes folks think they are acting, when the are not. The legislature could have acted this year, but they did not. ..cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-8375453645940275062018-10-16T13:10:14.750-07:002018-10-16T13:10:14.750-07:00Between this and your pro-sun bias, you've los...Between this and your pro-sun bias, you've lost a fan. Will Viharohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05711726987304714653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-19630776067221258232018-10-16T11:49:31.015-07:002018-10-16T11:49:31.015-07:00On Sunday we learned that President Trump does not...On Sunday we learned that President Trump does not believe that man has caused climate change and thus there is nothing we should do about it. We also learned that Cliff Mass recommends a no vote on I-1631. Although Cliff Mass's position on I-1631 is not because he does not believe in the human causes of climate change or our need to take action, I am sure the President would (incorrectly) use Dr. Mass's position on I-1631 as justification for his own positions on climate change and for not taking action. This is an unfortunate reality of our current political situation.<br /><br />One argument in favor of voting yes on I-1631 is that it is the only climate change initiative we have in this election, and we need to act. We have been polluting the atmosphere with carbon for centuries without accounting for the cost of this pollution. We need to start paying a cost for carbon pollution. Although the initiative is not perfect and has many features we might not like, voting it down just extends our free use of the atmosphere as a waste dump for carbon. If we aren't willing to vote Yes now, when will we be willing to vote Yes? Can we get the legislature to act, or do we have to wait another two years for a different initiative? <br /><br />Thank you,<br />Wilson BingerWilson Bingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03321424563759292952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-40225953736741959132018-10-16T11:06:58.495-07:002018-10-16T11:06:58.495-07:00I'm still torn. Cliff brings up (as usual) a m...I'm still torn. Cliff brings up (as usual) a most excellent analysis, however I do still have hesitations about fully killing off I-1631. Jim Lazar's comment above is excellent. <br /><br />All I really have to say at this point, is SHAME on the far left for killing I-732!! You people that lobbied so hard against that initiative, but call yourselves environmentalists, well, you're just as bad as any extreme tribalist group. We keep putting political details in front of action on real solutions, particularly those solutions that gain bi-partisan support. <br /><br />The polarization of this political system may actually be the primary killer in the end. Russmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09793156892413087319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-5962187979383759732018-10-15T21:34:42.899-07:002018-10-15T21:34:42.899-07:00My compliments to Cliff Mass for writing the blog ...My compliments to Cliff Mass for writing the blog and for approaching the taboo subject of Indian tribes involvement in the writing of the initiative.<br />The word tribal is used about 27 times in the 38 pages and the word tribe is used 37 times. This is a group of people who do not have to pay a state gas tax.<br />Cliff gave a link to the initiative text, and I hope everyone takes the time to read all 38 pages, then ask themselves, "who gets to decide who the "vulnerable population" is, that the money will be dispersed to?"<br />A changing climate is happening, but I don't see how this initiative of collecting money, addresses a solution. Laurene Eldredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09403980729033193353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-70399589565814398112018-10-15T13:35:35.172-07:002018-10-15T13:35:35.172-07:00As serious as climate change is, it makes little s...As serious as climate change is, it makes little sense for a state to go-it-alone on a carbon tax, especially this late in the game. Even if Washington state were to eliminate all its carbon emissions (and this initiative most assuredly won't eliminate but a fraction of them), the march to a warmer world would not be slowed. And the idea that Washington will be setting an example for the rest of the country to follow is preposterously pretentious. This initiative is nothing more than a desperate "we have to do something" hail Mary pass led by a coalition of virtue signalers quite happy to raise taxes so they can feel good about themselves.Menckenistichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05721228890816147259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-24436372352887463762018-10-15T12:59:00.308-07:002018-10-15T12:59:00.308-07:00"I suspect that the vast majority of I-1631 s..."I suspect that the vast majority of I-1631 supporters have not read the 38 pages of the initiative. If they did, they would be aghast of what they found."<br /><br />I read it. This is what I found that changed my mind from 'yes' to 'no'. <br /><br />Any attempt at redefining a new term (e.g.; "coal closure facility")so that an exemption can be made smacks of BS. This is how we got to CLEAN COAL. Clearly, these polluters had a hand in drafting and lobbied for the appropriate concessions, for them.<br /><br /><br />On pp. 24: "(i) Pollution emissions from a coal closure facility. For the <br />purpose of this chapter, a "coal closure facility" is any facility <br />that generates electricity through the combustion of coal as of the <br />effective date of this section and: <br />(i) Is legally bound to comply with emissions performance <br />standards as set forth in RCW 80.80.040 by December 31, 2025; or <br />(ii) Is legally bound to cease operation by December 31, 2025. "The Class Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18334059427633081884noreply@blogger.com