This initiative would repeal the Washington State Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which was approved by the Washington State legislature in 2021. This act requires businesses with emissions exceeding 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year to purchase allowances, which increases the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and other energy sources dependent on fossil fuels.
According to the best estimates of its impacts, this act has raised the price of gasoline by approximately 50 cents per gallon. A few months after the CCA went into effect, Washington State had the most expensive prices at the pump in the nation, while today we are number two to California, which also has such a tax (price per gallon is shown below, yellows are the highest prices).
To illustrate, consider the price of natural gas used for heating in the Seattle Metro area, compared to the rest of the country. In 2020 and 2021, our gas prices were similar to the rest of the nation and in 2022 ours was less expensive, but after the CCA went into effect (January 1, 2023), our gas prices soared ahead of the rest of the nation.
Truth Should Matter
When Governor Inslee was pushing the CCA back in 2021 he stated:
His advisors had told him otherwise. To put it politely, our Governor was not being frank and honest with Washington State citizens. Good leadership including leveling with the public.
A Highly Regressive Energy Tax That Hurt Low-Income Folks the Most
There is a lot of talk about equity and fairness today. The CCA gas tax is highly regressive, with low-income folks experiencing a much higher percentage increase in their basic costs to survive and work.
Furthermore, wealthier folks can afford expensive electric cars and install charging stations in their homes. Charging is not so easy if you live in an apartment.
I got a real feeling for the opinions of working-class folks when I gave a talk to a group of grounds maintenance workers. When I mentioned my opposition to regressive gas taxes, the entire group started to applaud. Several of them came up to me afterward, telling me about their long commutes and the onerous costs of filling their gas tanks.
The CCA has collected enormous amounts of money during the last year and a half: over two billion dollars.
By the way, who do you think are the top two donors for the effort to stop I-2117? Two Microsoft billionaires: Steve Balmer and Bill Gates. I bet they don't worry about the cost of filling their gas tanks.
A History of Carbon-Tax Initiatives
I, like many others, am concerned about global warming. Back in 2016, I supported another carbon tax initiative (732) because it wasn't regressive, reducing the sales tax and returning substantial funds to low-income residents. The governor and climate activists were against it because they did not get any of the money.
Two years later, the Governor and the activists, pushed another carbon tax (I-1631), one in which special interests and pet projects got the cash. It was highly regressive and was soundly defeated (I was opposed to I-1631 because it was unfair to low-income folks).
The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) was passed in the state legislature in 2021.
A Very Ineffective Way to Fight Climate Change
Most of the cash from the CCA has been wasted on bureaucracy and inefficient pet projects, with little impact on carbon in the atmosphere. For example, the two biggest ticket items are:
• $429 million for public transit grants and projects,
including free transit for youth under 18
• $223 million for active transportation projects,
such as bike trails and safer sidewalks and
crosswalks
Free transit for youth is fine, as are safer sideways, but these efforts will do little to fight climate change. Very little funds were made available for fixing Washington State forests (e.g.,, thinning and prescribed burning). The carbon footprint of our state is still going up. Very little progress is being made.
Consider the greenhouse gas emissions in Washington State provided by the Federal government that also includes gases besides CO2 (below). Virtually no downward trend through 2021. Very disappointing performance. Huge increase in 2022 due to improved reporting requirements. So you can't compare that year with the others.
The Way Forward
The regressive CCA gas tax, which severely hurts low-income residents and has done little to reduce our carbon footprint, should be eliminated. We can do this by passing I-2117.
Then we need new state leadership and better approaches for dealing with climate change. Like a substantial increase in the use of nuclear energy. Like planning for additional dams and reservoirs. Like FINALLY getting serious about restoring our forests. And much more....
It's part of the Left's modus operandi.. I've decided that the pain I'm causing you is good for you. Of course, I've set things up so that I feel no pain whatsoever. Now pay up, rubes!
ReplyDeleteYet people keep voting to be treated this way, as though they like it. It's one of life's great mysteries..
"Public transit grants and projects, including free transit for youth under 18, bike trails and safer sidewalks and crosswalks." - These seem like perfectly reasonable measures that make it easier for us to leave our cars at home. I'll be voting no.
ReplyDeleteSo, poor farm workers or labors, saddled with long car commutes, should be paying for nice bike trails and wider sidewalks for well-off Seattle residents? Doesn't seem equitable or fair to me...cliff
DeleteCliff, poor people and laborers use transit more than anyone else. And there are busses, bike trails, and sidewalks in every city and town in the state. There are no provisions in CCA that confine the benefits to well-off neighborhoods in Seattle.
DeleteDo higher gas prices change how much people drive? Yes. Cherry picking (pun intended) "poor farm workers" to highlight your point instead misses it completely. No solution is ever going to be perfect and this one certainly isn't but it's far better than the nothing we were doing before.
DeleteHow does this initiative directly take from just the poor? Collectively you pay in to taxes, and some things go to projects you don't directly benefit from, and vice versa. It seems like the most sensible places to build bike trails and sidewalks are in the city where it is a viable alternative, and bike infrastructure is far cheaper than car infrastructure. We could even go into a deeper conversation about how these efforts reduce long car commutes for some by giving people transit alternatives. Your not convincing me this is bad policy, if we are pricing in the externalities/negativities of gas back in to the commodity so that the market can respond accordingly, that seems entirely reasonable and we will still have gas prices far less than Europe where they have gone far deeper into this. Yes there are some regressive aspects to it in the immediate term, but it might still be the right thing and there are other policies you can lean in to support the poor, and do so far more directly than trying to make their gas as cheap as possible.
DeleteIt takes directly from EVERYONE, but in terms of percent of income, the poor are hurt much, much more. Very unfair and very unequitable.
DeleteJerry.... I do not think your statement is true regarding poor people and labors and mass transit. Any proof of this? You think labors and farm workers use more transit than those working at Amazon and Microsoft? Think not...cliff
DeleteJHK's comment above is spot on. People voting to be treated poorly is indeed one of life's great mysteries.
ReplyDeleteCliff, why did the CO2 output spike in 2022? Are you sure that is accurate? With the increase in use of electric cars (and with mostly hydro power as the source), as well as the shift to working at home because of the pandemic, I thought that the carbon dioxide output went down locally.
ReplyDeleteAnsel, data center activity (e.g. cryptocurrency, web servers, etc) might have contributed. Regardless, the 2022 carbon footprint is irrelevant to the success or failure of the Climate Commitment Act, which didn't become law until May 2021. The key provision, cap and invest, has not begun yet.
DeleteJerry,
DeleteYes, cryptocurrency seems like just a very wasteful and totally artificial pyramid scheme. The investments benefit no entrepreneurs. Its funny money, pure and simple, and I think it should be banned.
There was a reporting change. Petroleum supplier data was added in 2022, resulting in the increase. Without that addition, CO2 emissions look to be basically flat from 2021 to 2022.
DeleteYes...basically flat is the point. We are making little progress. And when new numbers are available during the next years, the story will be similar....cliff
DeleteAnsel, you are absolutely right. Crypto is a non-sustainable joke of a currency that is backed up by nothing meaningful, and the laughable "crypto-mining" few that are making money are massively outpaced by the gigantic amounts of energy these idiots are wasting in the process. Yes, it needs to be banned, like last year.
DeleteWhat's your source for a $0.50/gal increase? Even your own chart seems to show more like 35¢ from 2022 to 2023, and that's without taking into account nation-wide inflation.
ReplyDeleteThat's a chart showing the increase for natural gas per therm, not gasoline per gallon. It's clear that this law passed in 2022 hurt poorest people the worst.
DeleteIsn't taxing big businesses considered progressive? It seems hard to demonstrate that all the increased costs large polluters pay get passed primarily to consumers through gas prices. There could easily be other changes to prices coming from this tax that would be more fairly distributed to the wealthy compared to gasoline (eg construction costs).
ReplyDeleteThank you for this very informative post, Cliff!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this very informative post, Cliff.
ReplyDeleteAre there sizable hydro power sources not already dammed in WA that would supplant GHG-emitting power sources?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't look like there was much of a price change on Jan 2023 when it went into effect to me, on gas prices in Seattle: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMRU_PTE_Y48SE_DPG&f=W There was a big jump in 2022 (everything got more expensive there), but where's the evidence of this 50 cent increase?
ReplyDeleteAlso your greenhouse gas emission chart ends before this went into effect?
chris.... here is some evidence
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/washingtons-gas-prices-have-increased-between-35-and-52-cents-per-gallon-since-co2-tax
The relevant part:
Delete> The difference went from about 3 cents per gallon at the end of the year to about 49 cents per gallon on April 17 – an increase of 46 cents per gallon. Comparing Washington to the average of Oregon and Idaho yields a similar result, an increase of about 52 cents per gallon in the difference since the beginning of the year.
You can do the comparison yourself at https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts. Extending the history back to before the Feb 2022 invasion of Ukraine shows that Washington has historically had higher prices than Oregon and Idaho, and the parity in 2022 is unusual. Maybe the difference has gotten a bit bigger since the CCA went into effect, but I think the effect size is smaller than 50 cents and it's hard to establish causality.
Achieving net zero carbon emissions for the US by 2050 requires, among other major changes to American lifestyles, that we reduce our total energy consumption to roughly half of what it is today in 2024.
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of significantly higher prices for all forms of energy, Americans have no incentive to reduce their energy consumption.
Behind the scenes, incoming governor Bob Ferguson now controls Washington State's government through political operatives assigned to Jay Inslee's staff and to the state legislature's senior staffs.
Once he officially becomes governor, as opposed being Jay Inlee's puppetmaster operating from behind the scenes, Bob Ferguson can demonstrate his firm commitment to Net Zero by taking the following actions:
(1) Instruct the legislature to quickly increase taxes on all carbon fuels in ways which double their retail price, thus quickly discouraging the consumption of all fossil fuels.
(2) Follow California's lead in shutting down the region's in-state petroleum refineries by imposing environmental compliance requirements which are technically and economically impossible to achieve.
(3) Issue an ultimatum to Boeing that unless that corporation commits to designing and manufacturing a hydrogen-fueled airliner by 2035, all tax and financial incentives for building jet airliners in Washington State will be withdrawn.
(4) Lobby incoming US president Kamala Harris to declare a climate emergency and to impose a program of carbon fuel rationing on the American economy, thus levelizing the Net Zero economic playing field among states.
(5) Guarantee a ten percent annual rate of return for all monies invested in wind and solar technology backed by batteries.
(6) Deregulate the price of electicity and allow it to float in direct response to supply vs. demand economic forces, either up or down, wherever those economic forces decide it should go.
(7) Remove any and all regulatory barriers to the siting and construction of wind farms, solar farms, and battery backup facilities.
(8) Impose sanctions on any local or state government which attempts to erect new regulatory barriers to the siting and construction of renewable energy facilities.
If incoming governor Bob Ferguson wants to prove that his commitment to greatly reducing our carbon emissions is genuine and sincere, then he must publicly state his willingness to take all the actions listed above, and more.
What if the state's voters don't like Bob Ferguson's Net Zero program after four years in office? Well, they can elect someone else in 2028.
Wish more progressives like you were on the campaigns of Ferguson and Harris, speaking the actual truth of the agenda. You would help keep the radical left in check when they realize they aren't truly the majority as they feel they are. Losing elections due to statements you just made.
DeleteHow in the world you feel people should suffer more price increases to change their ways. Why not just put shock collars on them? Or better yet just round them up and send people away that don't follow your path.
It is truly sickening.
Obviously don't vote Ferguson or Harris, if this is what they have in mind for us. To suffer to socially program us.
Sorry if I am mis reading this and you are doing it as a satire piece. But man it does sound a lot like some progressives I speak with and it is scary s%#&.
DeleteWhat is "pennies" to a wealthy, well-connected man like Inslee is not "pennies" to many in this State. This sort of lack of perspective and sympathy from political leaders drives populist reaction.
ReplyDeleteI'll vote for that. Unfortunately, I'm Canadian
ReplyDeleteThank you for making this post and making such a good case against carbon taxes. I don't stay on top of what is going on in the state of Washington but I have followed Californian closely since I was raised there. Poor farm workers driving old trucks to work in agriculture pay $1 more per gallon and a portion of this money goes to rich techies living on the coast so they can commute in EV's. An wealthy California homeowners get to sell rooftop solar electricity back to the grid at retail prices while renters pay some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. (California recently fixed this for new installations but millions of systems got grandfathered in.) But it even goes further than this. Remember when the US, including Washington and Oregon, made a lot of aluminum using hydroelectric power? It doesn't anymore because the power is now sent a thousand miles away to power California cities with renewable energy. The aluminum reduction now takes place in Asia, likely using a lot fossil energy. Shipping American blue collar manufacturing jobs to Asia won't reduce emissions either.
ReplyDeleteThis. Whatever we don't produce here using carbon energy sources, Asia will. How does that save the world? All it will do is impoverish the poor even more and make wealthy people feel very self-righteous driving around in their expensive electric vehicles.
DeleteIt's almost like a willful blindness to the reality of the world economy. If you don't see it happen here, then you don't have to worry about it, even if the world is just as poisoned as before.
Like we send our recycling to Asia and I don't know what's happening now, but for at least a decade we sent it to one particular country. . Now we have a plastic disaster in the ocean. Do you know why? Because all of the recycling we paid to have recycled in these Asian countries and in particular one, ended up in the ocean to recycle all of that. Nice huh?
I am not blaming the Asian countries for following the business practices that made sense to them. I blame us for pretending that we were fixing a problem when in reality we were just creating a new and possibly worse problem. Filling up more landfills was far less devastating for the environment than dumping everything in the ocean. Ask the whales.
I doubt anyone on this blog cares about anyone else's comment...but here's mine anyway: A rich person buying an electric car and installing a charging station in their home, is not bad for the environment. That argument is silly. Secondly, you can argue any of point anyone here is making, but there is a bottom line fact: When fuel prices go down, consumption goes up. When fuel prices go up, consumption goes down.
ReplyDeleteDan...it is not so simple. For many people...especially folks that need their car to get to work, their use is relatively inelastic...so they have pay the cost. Rich folks have more options.....they can get an electric car and or work from home..cliff
DeleteThank you for pointing this out. I for one couldn't afford a home anywhere near where I work. Nor could I afford to even rent in the town where I work. I had to find a home farther out in the county and I have to commute everyday. Now. If somebody would like to give me a lovely home that I can afford that I can walk to work everyday, I'd be happy to do it. . And if I had enough money to buy an electric vehicle and set up a charging station in my garage that you're going to build for me because I don't have one, I'd be that happy to use it. But I don't see anybody stepping up to solve my problems. And all these solutions would do is cost me a lot more money and push my retirement even farther down the road. And I'm not retiring early by any means.
DeleteHi Cliff, thank you for the blog post. Yes, the original Climate Commitment Act was a regressive tax, and something needs to be done.
DeleteOne way to make it less regressive is to take a portion of the auction revenue (a large portion, I hope---maybe all of it??) and simply give it back to the people. Since we don't have a state income tax, this is a bit tricky to do, but there are ways. For example, the legislature this year set aside some of the auction money to give $200 energy credits to low-and moderate-income families: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/washington-families-clean-energy-credits/
While the timing of this credit relative to election day is a bit suspect, I think the idea is good. If Initiative 2117 fails, we could instead lobby the legislature to set aside even more of the auction money next year for purposes like this. That way, we can maintain the pollution-reducing effect of a pollution tax, while making sure that it is only the state's highest polluters who are losing money.
One of the worst things about the CCA is how it takes $6 to $8 from all of us every time we fill up our gas tank, and gives it to the biggest wealthy companies in town to pay for what they were already doing themselves. Why in the world??
ReplyDeleteThe global lockdowns taught us many things. One thing was that the atmospheric CO2 curve did not even budge from its course, despite the steep drop in industrial CO2 output. This shows that most atmospheric CO2 comes from a different source, i.e. warming oceans. CO2 is not the issue. What is the 'issue' you may wonder?
ReplyDeleteThe "issue" is all about power and control by the elite!!! I have never been able to understand how large corporations (who can pass along their costs) can pay to pollute (Cap and Trade), and this is supposed to reduce CO2 emissions!!! It is just another form of tax that has been devised by government.
DeleteI live in a farming community in eastern Washington that has lots of fruit, and the laborers (not "labors") who work in the orchards all drive cars to work—there is no mass transit to the orchards!!! Therefore, the increase in gas prices disproportionately affects them much more than those who live in the cities, where mass transit is plentiful and cheap! Most of these laborers work for minimum wage which takes a much larger portion of their income than many people who work in the cities.
Forgot the link to the data: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/5ibtf74yq0
ReplyDeleteIt's hilarious how Democrats come up with all these oxymoronically named acts that they shove through legislative bodies on party-line votes and then wonder later about unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteClimate Commitment Act (our carbon emissions have gone down, right? RIGHT???)
"Affordable Care" Act (ask yourself if anything in healthcare is more affordable 15 years later)
"Inflation Reduction" Act (the Biden-Harris Administration is having to shovel $7.5 billion in subsidies into Medicare Part D plans to stop premiums from tripling due to the way the act is written. And that is only one example)
You had me at "regressive tax". You had me at "CCA is not doing nearly enough to reduce greenhouse gasses". You had me at "misappropriated funds", and you had me at "expanded use of nuclear energy". But you lost me at "planning for additional dams and reservoirs". How can additional dams possibly be a good thing for salmon habitat and Orca populations? 4-1 will have me voting for this initiative in the hopes we can float something better than the CCA in the near future, but it won't include more dams. We can do better than that, yes?
ReplyDelete