I-1631 should look familiar to Jefferson County voters.  It is the misleadingly labeled “carbon fee” plan that is actually exactly like the carbon tax scheme soundly rejected by voters just two years ago. Indeed, it imposes the very same tax on energy, but now attempts to misleads consumers by deceptively trying to persuade people it is nothing but a “fee on major polluters.”

Baloney.  It is primarily a tax on gasoline.  It will take $2.3 billion from consumers in just the first five years, according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management.

And it keeps going up.  Every year, with no end in sight.

Here’s where Jefferson County voters will see Prop 1 loom its ugly head:  All that money gets divvied up by a panel of unelected insiders, with no accountability for failing to produce results that make much of a difference.  It is similar to Prop 1’s scheme to pass around the money, giving that power to people from organizations that stood to benefit by making life more expensive for taxpayers.

And like Prop 1, I-1631 is coldly regressive.  It hits the most economically disadvantaged among us the hardest.  Sure, there are vague provisions in the initiative that include job retraining for workers who will lose their jobs and families that need financial help as I-1631 makes everything more expensive.  But it is a scheme of forced dependency: people who once were independent will be forced to rely on handouts from the friends of politicians.

Newspapers from every corner of the state are opposed to I-1631, including those who can reliably be counted as liberal and progressive in their editorial leanings.  Scores of union groups, whose workers know they will be the first casualties of the energy tax, stand in opposition.

And noted University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass has criticized I-1631 from its inception.  He is not a “climate denier.” He knows his stuff and wants action on carbon emissions.  But he knows I-1631 is a scam.

We can’t say it better than someone with the technical knowledge of Dr. Mass.  His blog is one of the most widely read sources of opinion and information on climate.  Here is his entire post from October 14:

Initiative 1631: Bad for the Environment and Washington State

I-1631 is poorly written, will do little to reduce greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, gives control of billions of dollars to an unelected board, is regressive, so it hurts low-income folks the most, has no concrete plan for spending vast sums of money, is highly partisan, and is odds with our basic democratic principles.  I have written three blogs describing its problems:

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/10/initiative-i-1631-at-odds-with.html

 https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/10/if-worry-about-climate-change-and-care.html

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-carbon-fee-initiative-1631-has.html

The pro-side has been highly deceptive, saying things that are demonstrably not true.  Their mailers are telling folks that big polluters and oil companies will pay:  this is a total falsehood.  Everyone will pay.

Avista Utilities, which covers the eastern third of Washington State, yesterday released the numbers of how utility costs would increase under 1631 (see below).  Roughly $ 400. per year in the fifteenth year.  Amazingly, the Yes campaign denies this.

If you want to find out how much 1631 will cost you, check out this handy app.  For most working adults, the 1631 fee will run between 150 and 300 dollars the first year (depending on your transportation choices, living arrangements, etc.).

The Yes side suggests that the initiative will have a significant impact on greenhouse warming.  Simply not true.   Let’s assume that the initiative produces the promised reductions in emissions (down by 20 million metric tons in 2035 and by at least 50 million metric tons by 2050).  If one plugs this into a climate model, one gets a global cooling of about .0001 degree C.   Washington represents a very, very small part of global emissions and we are already quite green.

Today, the Yes on 1631 side has gone even further in its false stories.   They accused the No folks of adding names to their endorsement list without permission.   This has gotten a lot of press….but is inconsistent with the facts. The No side has SIGNED endorsement sheets from everyone noted as endorsing (and these signed endorsement sheets were shared with the Seattle Times).

And with all the tall tales provided by the YES on 1631 side, their advertisements accuse the No side of lying.

Truth and ethics matter.  It is ironic that the Yes side is following the approaches of the President they despise,  with false stories, inaccurate information, wild claims, and name calling become stock and trade of the Yes on 1631 side.

There is a religious fervor by some 1631 supporters to do something RIGHT NOW or the world will end.   The truth is the best science does NOT suggest a sudden tipping point, and doing something of little value is both wasteful and prevents more effective actions.  American’s has rushed into “doing something” without a real plan and it has gotten us into trouble before (e.g., Iraq, Vietnam).  1631 would be a similar error, but for our state.

Global warming is too serious and the impact on our state too significant to throw away our ability to do something meaningful.   1631 is hyperpartisan, hardwired to a support a certain agenda, and will not work in a meaningful way to reduce our fires, prepare the region for climate change, or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.