Arguments for and against I-1631’s carbon fees

While the aim of [I-1631] is to “do something” for the environment, the research shows very little climate change in return for the investment. …

What do we really know about I-1631? Not very much, it turns out. The Yes side has spent an entire campaign avoiding talk of costs or what projects might get money. …

I urge you to spend the next few minutes looking into the facts of [I-1631]. Because the cost of those trips to soccer, to the grocery store and to work? They’re about to go up, indefinitely, if I-1631 is approved. …

… The state budget office did its own examination and found that 1631 would increase energy taxes by $2.3 billion in the first five years alone. In addition, I-1631 would add hundreds of millions of dollars to ratepayers’ energy bills for higher costs for utilities. And under I-1631, taxes would continue to automatically increase every year — indefinitely, with no set cap, and no further voter approval. That’s the government’s own analysis. …

According to NERA, I-1631 would raise $30 billion in taxes over the next 15 years. In 2020, the first year of the measure, researchers say I-1631 would result in an additional $440 for the average Washington household. It would jump to $990 per household 15 years later in 2035. …

So, we would all pay more – for trips to the soccer field, the grocery story, to work. For every item we order online, for every click of a thermostat, it would cost us all more. And Initiative 1631 will make no difference when it comes to significantly reducing greenhouse gases. But it would cost jobs, weaken the economy and increase costs to all consumers while leaving in place a tax set to continue indefinitely.

Read the Complete Article »