A Political Analysis of I-1631: The Carbon Fee Initiative

I have been disappointed in the lack of a detailed examination of the political dynamics of the I-1631 carbon initiative, with perhaps the best one being the Seattle Times analysis.   So let me try here.

I am doing this now  because I have been an active participant in the process, supporting the no side, and I don't want to seem to be gloating (if the initiative is defeated) or evincing sour grapes (if it is approved).  And in this blog I will examine whether I-1631 will pass.

The 1631 initiative race is an important one, with substantial implications regarding our ability to work together in a bipartisan way, to respect differing opinions and free speech, and in using facts, rather than ideology, to guide policy.

The Politics of I-732

Initiative 732 went before the voters in 2016, and provided a more aggressive carbon tax than 1631 but was revenue neutral, meaning that all the money was returned to WA citizens.  It was supported by a fact-driven, bi-partisan group (CarbonWa) led by economist Yoram Bauman.  I was deeply impressed by the CarbonWa folks and strongly supported this initiative.  732 had a lot going for it:  it was not regressive (its refunds made our State's  terrible tax system better) and used carbon pricing to discourage carbon use and to promote innovation.   This year, William Nordhaus received the Nobel Prize for showing the carbon taxes are the optimal way to move society to less carbon usage.

But rapidly it became clear that there were problems--not with oil companies or conservatives--but on the left side of the political spectrum.   The Alliance For Jobs and Clean Energy and its major members (such as some labor unions, Climate Solutions, and the Front and Centered group), which had a strong social action emphasis, were unhappy.   They wanted the funds from the carbon tax to be used for climate justice, green jobs, social action, and direct investments in renewable energy projects, among other things.

The Alliance tried to convince CarbonWa to drop I-732 (even though CarbonWa had all the signatures) and when CarbonWa decided to got ahead with 732, the Alliance and its left-leaning coalition members decided to either withhold support or to actively oppose I-732.  Some Alliance members also demonized the leadership of 732, saying they were insensitive to minority communities.

732 had some other issues as well.  The word tax was in its description, which was anathema to some.   And although its policy was attractive to some moderates and Republicans, it never got the support of enough voters on the right.  Although 732 was very good policy, it was perhaps difficult to understand by some (tax plus refund) and with the Democratic leadership not willing to help, it was a hard sell.

It is noteworthy how the Alliance turned away arguments of the perfect being the enemy of the good regarding 732.  And the Alliance (and the Governor) used a very phony argument to oppose 732:  that it wasn't perfectly revenue neutral (truth:  it was very close and any slight differences from neutral could have been easily adjusted by the legislature).

Without the support of some labor, most environmental groups, the Governor, and the "progressives", I-732 lost, and an extraordinary opportunity to initiate a bi-partisan effort to deal with climate change was lost.

The Legislature Takes A Swing and Strikes Out

If the legislature was doing its job, there would be no need for carbon initiatives, and last session there was an attempt to put together a package (SB 6203), pushed by State Senators Carlyle, Palumbo, and others.  It's carbon tax was lower than 732 (or 1631) and thus of limited effectiveness, had a lot (too many) exemptions, possessed advisory boards similar to 1631, and lacked a clear vision of what to do with the money.  6203 never even got out of committee, in a legislature controlled by one party.

The Return of the Coalition

As soon as 6203 failed, the group that helped defeat I-732 (the Alliance, some labor, Indian tribes and others) were ready--they unveiled I-1631, a carbon FEE initiative, in which the acquired funds (over 2 billion in the first five years) would be used for a variety of  unspecified climate justice, renewable energy, jobs, and adaptation programs.  The core of the I-1631 alliance approach, why they rejected 732, was their wish to access billions of dollars of carbon fee/tax dollars. And 1631, if passed, would give them that access.

But the 1631 group had a problem  There is substantial documentation that climate change is WAY down folks list of important issues, and that few are ready to make any kind of financial or personal sacrifice to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.   Even climate researchers are unwilling to reduce their carbon-emitting travel. I hate to admit it, but my climate research colleagues have the worst carbon emission profiles of anyone I know.

The I-1631 organizers knew that climate change would be a loser in an initiative, so they transformed the initiative into an effort for clean energy, clean water, clean air, healthy communities and jobs!  Who could be against that?  Global warming? Climate change?  Not much talk about that.

Climate change was something the 1631 crowd generally avoids talking about.  Because even if I-1631 met its goals (reducing carbon "pollution" by 20 millions tons annually by 2035), global temperatures would only be lowered by about a thousandth of a degree.

The 1631 leadership decided to spread around the carbon fee money to their coalition, first by creating a supervisory board in which they would have a lot of representation and control, and second, by hardwiring money to parts of their coalition (Indian tribes, labor, social action groups).

So 1631 was designed to be attractive:  a very low carbon tax, while spreading around a lot of goodies to the members of the supporting coalition.   And it even advertised that someone else would pay--the big, bad oil companies.

And an important issue was that this "largest coalition ever" had virtually no representation from Republican and conservative groups, and thus 1631 was highly partisan.  It would never serve as a model for the rest of the nation.

A Lucky Break for I-1631:  Wildfires and Hurricanes

And then the 1631 folks got lucky.   Wildfires return to British Columbia, eastern WA, Oregon, and California, with substantial smoke over Washington.  The fact that a century of wildfire suppression and poor forest management was key for generating the big fires, and the fact that fires are a natural part of the regional environment was ignored, as was the fact that a lot of smoke came from BC, where a carbon tax is in place.  Research showing that climate change is only a small contributor at most of our recent fires was ignored as well. 

The 1631 crowd realized that they could use the wildfires as a powerful marketing tool, making all kinds of claims that I-1631 would stop the fires and smoke (see below).  The truth is different, of

course.  Global warming is not a major contributor to our local fires and the initiative does not commit the huge sums of money needed to restore our east-side forecasts (thinning, removing debris, prescribe burns). As the saying goes: truth is the first casualty of war....that appears to be true of initiative as well.

However, the smoke had a huge psychological effect on the region and the 1631 crowd was ready to milk it for what they could.  And 1631 missives/tweets/message suggested that Hurricanes Florence and Michael resulted from global warming (not true, GW only increased them by a few percent) and made use of hurricanes in their imagery.   Truth again a casualty.

The Political Calculus:  The Elway Poll

In early October, the Elway polling organization took a sample of roughly 500 WA state registered voters, and a question about I-1631 was included.   This poll suggested that 50% were in favor, 36% were against, with 14% undecided.    A good sign for the initiative?  Maybe not.   Elway himself stated that the undecideds in initiatives tend to drift towards the no side.  More importantly, in his experience few initiatives pass that start out with 50% or lower early in the season.

But there is something else:   the question used was flawed.  The first line is "This measure would impose pollution fees on certain large emitters of greenhouse gas pollutants starting in 2020."
Notice it states that "large emitters" would pay.  It says nothing about folks themselves paying.  People tend to be happy if someone else pays for all the goodies.  Even with someone else paying, only 50% supported the initiative.

The implication of this wording is enormous. Folks don't want to spend real money on climate change or make any real sacrifices.  With only 50% answering yes above, and assuming the Elway poll was accurate, all the NO side had to do is to deliver the message that people would have to pay themselves and the initiative would lose.  And that is exactly the message the NO side is stressing.

The Trump Effect

Even with substantial flaws, I-1631 has a big positive going for it:  the intense anti-Trump/anti-Republican sentiments of the Democratic left.  The latter group is looking for ways to push back against Republicans, to prove their power to change the agenda.  Thus, many Democrats are willing to overlook the flaws and lack of bipartisanship of 1631 and push it through.  This viewpoint is particularly strong among young left-leaning voters, many of which are energetically working for 1631.

The Divide Between Segments of the Democratic Party

There is an interesting divide between "progressive" well-to-do elements and the working-class portion of the Democratic party.   The progressive folks, and some of their "climate justice" allies destined to benefit from 1631, strongly support 1631, but working folks, including much of labor, are uncomfortable with it and suspect (rightly I believe) that they will pay the bills.  I suspect that a lot of the working folks will vote against 1631, but we will know on Tuesday.  The combination of working class Democrats and Republicans, may be enough to stop the initiative.

Going Negative and Being Untruthful

The Yes on 1631 campaign is in a bind.  The initiative itself is poorly written, hyperpartisan, will do little to slow global warming (.0001 degrees C!) and most folks understand the oversight board will not use the money wisely.  So the Yes campaign has gone super negative in the public statements against the No campaign and its supporters.

Headlines and mailers proclaim that the oil companies are lying!  Virtually every one of their mailers talk about lying oil companies.  But the Yes folks never reveal what the oil companies are lying about.  The reason is that the oil companies are generally telling the truth in their messages. The Yes folks are lying about lying.

In contrast, the deceptions of the Yes side ares so extensive, it would take a blog just to list them all.  That people will not have to pay--oil companies will cover the tab!  That the wildfires are mainly the result of greenhouse gases and global warming, and 1631 will make the smoke go away.  That the initiative is about clean air and clean water, rather than dealing with greenhouse warming. 

Perhaps the most recent and toxic lies are the accusations that the No side is using fake endorsements for hispanic folks.  The truth is that there are signed endorsement sheets for everyone listed.  Is it possible that some storeowners or individuals signed stuff without a proper reading?  Of course.  But to accuse the No leadership of deliberate deception is contrary to the facts and it appears that the Yes group is putting enormous pressure on No supporters to change their endorsement.

The No Side Has Not Been Effective

I really think the No side has not done a very good job in making their case.   The oil companies accept the threat and reality of climate change.  They should make this better known.  Several oil companies would support a reasonable national carbon tax.  That should be advertised.   A more positive proactive stand on climate change would have quickly evaporated support for the initiative among many. And they are spending too much money, with too much advertising, that makes their funding an issue. 

Will the Initiative Pass?

In a normal year, the answer would be no.  People are not willing to sacrifice or spend money to stop climate change.  They certainly would not sacrifice without clear deliverables.  People are suspicious of an unelected board making billion-dollar decisions.  Working class Democrats are not favorably inclined.  All the no campaign had to do was to clarify that individuals would have a substantial cost and it would be over.  The Elway poll suggests to me that the initiative will fail.

But the "blue wave" and resentment against Trump among the Democratic 60% of the state might be enough to push through 1631, even with all its flaws.   And there is another question: might all the media coverage of climate change (much of it exaggerated and non-factual) have finally motivated people to vote for a measure that would require some sacrifice?  We will find out on Tuesday.

A Heavy Responsibility

If 1631 is defeated, the Yes on 1631/Alliance group will bear a very heavy responsibility.   They undermined I-732 two years ago, leading to its defeat.  Then they came up with the problematic 1631, excluding moderates and Republicans in the coalition and following an approach that was problematic for the working class part of the Democratic coalition.

Thus, they would be responsible for two failed attempts in dealing with climate change in Washington State.  A waste of nearly 50 millions dollars for the two campaigns.

 I suspect many 1631 leaders know that 1631 has a good chance of failing, and are setting up the excuse:  the big money from the oil companies, rather then their defective initiative.    If it fails, perhaps a message will finally be clearly delivered:  only a rational, bipartisan approach has a chance of moving forward.