News

I-1631? Unfair, ineffective tax that costs too much, in return for too little

Climate policy is too important to be decided in an initiative written by the very people who end up controlling the purse strings. … That’s why a new study by NERA Economic Consulting — the only independent, private analysis of I-1631 by either side — is so compelling. … The NERA analysis says the total […]

Read More

Vote no on I-1631: People would pay, not ‘Big Oil’

Among the whoppers being told to Washington voters this election season, the biggest is the Yes on 1631 campaign’s assertion that “big polluters” will pay the carbon fee it’s proposing. This flimflam is even in the state voters’ guide, which says I-1631 imposes “a pollution fee on large emitters of greenhouse gases.” Don’t be fooled. […]

Read More

Carbon fee: spending money for nothin’

Initiative 1631, the “pollution fee” ballot measure, requires a $15 per metric ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions, and automatically escalates $2 every year until at least 2035. The “pollution fee,” which the state would treat as a tax, would be reflected in an immediate 14 cent increase in gasoline (none of the money could […]

Read More

Initiative 1631 carbon fee raises cost for families and employers

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 […]

Read More

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 — […]

Read More

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 […]

Read More

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 […]

Read More

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, […]

Read More

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 […]

Read More

‘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 […]

Read More