Will the Naive Left and the Self-Interested Kill the Most Significant Environmental Advance in Years?

The Sierra Club should be embarrassed.
The Washington Environmental Council should be embarrassed.
Seattle's Climate Solutions should be embarrassed
Global warming warrior Bill McKibben should be embarrassed
The Alliance For Jobs and Clean Energy should be embarrassed
Fuse Washington  and Puget Sound Sage should be embarrassed
The Association of Washington Businesses should be embarrassed
Nucor Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, Northwest Pulp and Paper, and the Avista Corporation should be embarrassed.
The Washington State Labor Council should be embarrassed.

These groups are putting their political agendas and perceived financial interests ahead of the general good.

For self-interested reasons they are ready to kill one of the most important environmental advances in years.

For self-interested reasons they want to destroy the chance to greatly improve the most regressive state tax system in nation.

Specifically, they are working against I-732, the Washington State carbon tax swap that will be on the ballot this November.   And they have nothing to offer to replace it.

I-732 is one of those wise, revolutionary ideas that come along all too rarely.  It starts with the most effective approach to reducing the use of carbon and one that uses the power of the free market:  a carbon tax.

But it doesn't use the money to grow the size of government.  Rather it gives the money back to the people and industry through reducing the sales tax by 1%, removing the B&O tax on manufacturers, and providing a tax credit to working low income people.  A carbon tax swap.   And it makes Washington State tax system less regressive.  Let me shown you.

This graph shows you the percentage of income spent on taxes for a married family with two children for various income groups.   Without I-732 (blue), Washington State has a highly regressive tax system with low-income folks (below $21K) spending nearly 17% of their income on taxes.  For those earning $21,000-$ 40,000 about 12%.   But if I-732 becomes law, we move to the yellow bars--much better and far less regressive.  I-732 would be the biggest boon to low income Washington State families in decades.

The most important and far reaching environmental advances in the U.S. have always been bipartisan.  Laws like the the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, to name only a few.  In a country where no party is dominant for long, only bipartisan efforts have the staying power required to deal with environmental pollution and the protection of our State and planet.   I-732 has extraordinary bipartisan support with groups ranging from the Audubon Society and Democrats from many of our States' districts to Republican State legislators (such as Senators Steve Litzow, Joe Fein, among others), major business leaders such as Howard Behar of Starbucks, and hundreds of other organizations and groups (a partial list is here).

It quite probable that the vote is going to be close and the opponents noted above could make a critical difference.  So why are they opposing I-732?

First, there are those I call the naive-left.  These are folks that support the carbon tax, but don't like revenue neutrality--they want government to get the money and use it for climate justice and governmental energy programs.  They claim that I-732 is financially regressive and will still steal money from the state general fund.   They also claim that poor folks will be hit harder than rich folks form global warming and thus deserve special support.

Perhaps these folks mean well, but they are clearly mistaken on every count:

1.   A revenue positive carbon tax would lose support by moderates and many Republicans.   It would kill any chance of passage.
2.  I-732 will REDUCE the regressivity of the WA State tax structure.  In a revenue-positive plan, money will be taken away from poor folks (via a carbon tax) and not returned to them.  Thus, their plan would make the tax situation more regressive.
3.   I-732 is very, very close to being revenue neutral and estimates that found otherwise are in error.  The respected Sightline Institute set the record straight on this, as does the I-732 website.
4.  Government has proven itself inferior to the market in making energy decisions.  The 500 million Solyndra disaster is a good example of this.

5.  As shown in one of my previous blogs, the idea that poor people in our state will be hit harder by global warming is an easily disproven urban myth.

The Sierra Club, supposedly an organization that has environmental concerns front and center is not supporting I-732 because:

Communities of color and low-income people are almost always the ones most impacted by pollution and climate change, and as a result they need to be at the front and center of discussions for how to address the problem and mitigate the impacts of both climate change and environmental policy. That wasn't the approach taken by I-732

In truth, the Sierra Club's position is not only based on incorrect assumptions, but its actions directly harm the folks it claims to be most concerned about. I-732 will dramatically reduce taxes on low-income people and contribute to reducing carbon pollution. Several Sierra Club members have emailed me expressing their disgust with their organization's position...they plan to support I-732.  Perhaps they should support a different organization.

Bill McKibben and his 350.0rg group were strong supporters of I-732.  But then they changed their mind?  Why?  Here is what they said.

Our reason, above all, is that we want to support our allies in people-of-color-led climate justice groups that represent those on the frontlines of climate change. 

And "environmental organizations" like Climate Solutions might change their name to Climate Inaction.  "Climate Justice" has taken over some of the region's environmental action groups and they are willing to destroy any potential for progress for ideology, an ideology that has the most tenuous relationship with truth.  Perhaps the most destructive aspect of these groups is that they make dealing with climate change  a "we" versus "they" affair, with "we" being more seriously affected and deserving of public funds.  In truth, EVERYONE will be affected by climate change and EVERYONE must work on solutions.   They don't seem to understand this.

And then there are the self-interested.  Groups like the Association of Washington Businesses and major energy users (like Nucor Steel) are opposing I-732 because it will raise the price of carbon.   I-732 does displace some of the cost (by eliminating the B& O tax on manufactures and reducing sales tax).  The idea is that an increased cost of carbon will encourage these companies to reduce their carbon footprint by increasing efficiency, taking advantage of renewable energy, or other means.

But these companies don't want the hassle or to change the way they do business.  They want cheap energy.  And they clearly are not very concerned about the impacts of carbon pollution.  Some are even denying the global warming is a concern.

So in short, there is alliance between left-leaning, climate justice folks who want big government and funds directed to specific groups, and right-leaning energy-intensive industrialists who don't want to deal with global warming.  An unholy alliance if there every was one.  They even have a joint website.

The big question is whether the rational middle will be large enough to pass I-732.  Folks who want our state to deal with increasing greenhouse gases.  Folks that understand global warming is a threat that must be dealt with.  Folks who understand the importance of making our tax structure less regressive.  Folks who look beyond their own self interest and pocket book. And folks that understand that a bipartisan carbon tax swap could be an example that could stir the rest of the nation.

Want to help?  Check out the Yes on the I-732 website.  Help makes calls or doorbell. Contribute.  Or come to my talk on Sept 28th, a fundraiser for I-732 (see below).

________________________

My talk on Northwest Climate Surprises on September 28. 

During the evening of September 28, I will be giving a talk in Seattle at the Mountaineers in NE Seattle on Climate Surprises: Unexpected Impacts of Global Warming on the Pacific Northwest. 

You think global warming will simply bring warmer temperatures, drought, less snow, and more storms? 

Think again. The latest climate model simulations provide a far more nuanced prediction of what will happen here, with some of the predictions being quite surprising. This talk is sponsored by CarbonWa and the Audubon Society. To find out more or to secure tickets, please go here.