Washington state voters are facing a full fall ballot, from House, Senate and congressional races to several initiatives. The costliest measure is Initiative 1631, which would create a new carbon “fee.” The Association of Washington Business is opposed to the initiative for three reasons: Washington employers care about the environment and are committed to reducing […]
Opinion
Ruralites would pay for I-1631 boondoggle
… like previous attempts to tax businesses on carbon emissions, rural residents and motorists in Washington state will likely end up paying the cost, should the measure pass. … Since the initiative is open-ended and the so-called “fee” will rise annually …, there’s no telling how much the measure will cost Washington’s rural families — […]
Jeff Ackerman | Ballot initiatives Mean what you vote and vote what you mean
Initiative 1631: This would basically create an extra fee for oil companies. … The oil companies will then pass those extra costs to consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices. And higher gasoline prices will also drive up the costs for everything that is transported by truck, which is practically everything we eat or […]
Editorial Endorsements: No on the carbon tax…
… [Washington voters] should reject new taxes that will hinder economic growth and every Washingtonian’s pocket book by voting no on a carbon tax … A poorly written carbon tax Initiative 1631 asks Washington voters to add billions of dollars to their utility and gasoline bills. Voters should decline. … [I-1631] would put Washington businesses […]
I-1631: Higher costs, no impact on emissions
As someone who works with a lot of businesses, especially small businesses, I am concerned about the impact of the costs associated with Initiative 1631, the energy tax measure. That’s why the [Moses Lake] chamber is opposed, and why I am voting NO on I-1631. … Here, transportation costs matter. Heating costs, in Eastern Washington, […]
Dori: Give a big NO to I-1631, the carbon tax
Initiative 1631 would tax you and me billions of dollars for zero planetary benefit. … That is the question that I wish more people would ask. Everyone says, “But we have to do something for the planet.” Then do something. I-1631 does nothing. It’s just a transfer of money from us to them. … We […]
‘No’ on Initiative 1631
… While there is no doubt that measures to combat climate change are needed, this particular attempt to curb greenhouse gas emitters is a flawed initiative with what we fear will be unintended consequences that will negatively impact the citizenry — namely, an estimated 14-cent per gallon increase that oil companies most assuredly would pass […]
Washington’s Carbon Tax: Take Two
[I-1631] would raise gas prices by 13 cents a gallon in 2020 and 59 cents a gallon by 2035. Washington currently has the third highest gas prices in the country after Hawaii and California, and Seattle commuters won’t relish paying a few extra bucks every time they fill up. … An analysis by National Economic […]
The Seattle Times recommends: No on Initiative 1631
Climate change is a crisis needing an aggressive, coordinated response, not expensive and unaccountable spending measures like Initiative 1631. Voters concerned about the environment, the cost of living and the sustainability of Washington’s economy should reject this dubious approach. … Now comes I-1631, repackaged as a carbon fee. In one key respect – accountability – […]
…Pass on [I-1631]…
We’re a firm no on Initiative 1631. This initiative is touted by supporters as a tax on big energy — a fee on our biggest sources of pollution to help combat climate change. The reality, however, is the carbon taxes won’t only affect powerful corporations — Washington residents will be saddled with an immediate 14-cent […]