57 Replies to “Sunday Open Thread: Debate Over Taxing Carbon Pollution”
I’m not supporting this. Giving an unelected board billions of dollars to spend on whatever is just ripe for abuse. Handing a bag of money and the economic futures of so many to a group saying, “Trust Us” doesn’t work for me.
I would rather give a smaller pot of money to a larger WSDOT Transit Grants Office to give transit grants to all county-level transits & Everett Transit. In return, all transit boards would be run by county councils or city councils.
Or for the state to get out of the property tax business. I couldn’t vote no on THAT.
There you go.
Any decently sized carbon tax, no matter what the money is spent on (unless it’s spent on something that produces more carbon then it saves), is going to be worth it because it reduces carbon emissions by a lot. The projects it goes toward can be iffy, but better iffy pork in exchange for lots of carbon emissions being reduced instead of no carbon emissions being reduced. We don’t have the time to waste on getting the perfect law, this is good enough and can always be amended.
Joe, do you have any experience with elected versus appointed boards? And at what specific level of government? And best as possible, describe the electorate themselves.
Last most important. Because in my own experience, whatever the form of government, leaders are chosen by their electorate when they all agree action is necessary. Even if they don’t agree on what. And don’t say “Please” while they’re shaking the candidate by the lapels and yelling in their face.
Lincoln was last in his party’s 24 choices- with Secession approaching, all agreed he’d be a good last President of the United States. James Garfield whacked the table and refused the nomination- and the party chairman ruled him out of order. First order of business was get shot, and then treated by a doctor that thought germs were for French sissies.
Harry Truman’s wife said she’d go home to Missouri without him next new office he took- too bad Roosevelt died suddenly at win-or-lose minute of the war. So my take on “Lack of Leadership:” For next electoral motivation nationally, I’d wait ’til municipal sewage systems start blowing out in a nationwide barrage. Anybody want to bet on when it won’t happen. Hope Magnolia gets off.
For transit here, it’ll be a single. triple-bottom tanker full of fish waste jamming ST service area shoreline to mountains. For three days. I think our next move now is to get hold of as much transit-only lane space, including boats- even borrowed and rented. So trapped voters will already have a visual.
But meantime here’s your job, Joe. Of the whole field, who do you think will want the job least? I like Claudia Balducci too. So first thing, we’ll have to tell her that three hundred Kirkland residents are in her office to talk about Connectors.
Mark
You can only pass what you can get a majority of voters to vote for, and that means making a broad coalition. The last carbon initiative reduced other taxes but it failed because the enviornmental community was split on it. The largest chunk of votes is the liberals so the most reliable way to pass something is to make it attractive to them. So you have to compromise, and you only get a few chances. If this one fails it might be a long time before another try — or do you want to file another initiative and try to get that passed?
I’m not sure. I know I prefer a tax shift as part of this, the way British Columbia did it. I also want the list of projects to ultimately get a state legislative up or down.
Joe,
This board does not have spending authority. That still rests with the legislature. The board only makes a proposal.
Honestly, I liked the previous carbon tax proposal better. It cut existing regressive taxes with the revenue from this new one. Simple. No need to worry about whether the group tasked with spending the extra money is doing it “right” or whatever.
That said, we need to pollute less. Our kids and grandkids depend on that. Changing the incentive structure around pollution can get us a good portion of the way there. I’m not going to let even very valid concerns about whether the money collected will be spent optimally get in the way of the bigger picture, which is that we do need to charge money for pollution. Let’s get that in place now, and if the spending details need tweaking in the future we can certainly do that.
I’m sorry, but for ruinous taxation, this one is ‘way behind the devastation caused by making soda pop cost five cents more a bottle. Even worse that the tyrannical Shoreline Management Act forbids throwing a drop of Red Bull or Mountain Dew into Elliott Bay.
But two messages might unplug some earwax. One, you’re already paying a carbon tax for being stuck. Every second your cylinders are the only thing in your car that’s moving, extracts the fossil fuel industry’s own carbon tax on every particle it forces you to emit.
And two, whoever wrote these ads can bill their time, and you can’t. And meantime, a short subliminal thought bound to hit the world’s sorest chord for its intended audience: “For expense we taxpayers incur by your actions, this is not a tax. IT’s A BILL!”
Mark Dublin
Bottom line, it’s an increase in the gas tax. So, why not just increase the tax on gasoline. It’s not like we don’t have a huge hole in the budget for road maintenance. Not including diesel will bring the relative price down to where it’s an incentive to buy diesel cars & trucks which does reduce CO2 emissions. What a simple increase in the gas tax doesn’t do is “feed the beast”. Jay Inslee is looking for some signature legislation he can point to for his presidential bid in 2020. The new jobs are going to be an increase in bureaucrats and highly subsidized jobs that are short lived and can’t exist without government funding. The increased cost of gas will be noticeable; the impact on the environment won’t.
1) If the gas tax didn’t have to be spent on highway purposes, it could do much of what I-1631 is doing. I don’t think I-1631 revenue could end up being used for road purposes, unless the governor-appointed-and-legislature-approved committee was willing to somehow define roadwork as reducing carbon pollution, and/or the legislature was willing to override the recommendations of the committee and spend it on road work. The whole “accountability” argument over the appointed committee applies equally to pretty much every other board in the state that has a budget. The legislature has the power of the purse. The governor’s real power is limited mostly to line-item vetoes.
2) The legislature has historically thrown in token amount of maintenance work to pass new highway construction. The money to catch up with maintenance is there if the legislature would prioritize it over cutting ribbons on marginally-useful new highways (e.g. the extension of SR 509 all the way to I-5).
3) Not all of the carbon pollution in the state is in the transportation sector. Gas tax won’t push power plants etc. to clean up their exhaust, or convert to using other energy sources, like solar and wind power. I-1631, as mentioned, doesn’t tax some polluting facilities that have already agreed to shut down or convert by a deadline, but also exempts certain industries that produce the steel and other materials needed to build the green economy. We could argue over whether those industries should have been exempted, but that ought not cause anyone to change their vote for real, rather than just for concern trolling rhetorical purposes.
The legislature has historically thrown in token amount of maintenance work to pass new highway construction. The money to catch up with maintenance is there if the legislature would prioritize it over cutting ribbons on marginally-useful new highways
I agree there has been a lack of maintenance spending as a priority. As for wasteful spending, the Deep Debt Tunnel is the poster child. Hint, if people aren’t willing to pay a meaningful portion of the cost via tolls then it probably wasn’t all that necessary. All this speaks to not send more money to Olympia for them to hand out like candy to lobbyists. Which, BTW is why unions by and large are supporting this.
Oops, must have forgot a / or close bracket.
“not send more money to Olympia for them to hand out like candy to lobbyists”
What’s your better solution? Currently polluters are paying nothing for their externalities that impact others.
4) Not all carbon pollution is from burning fuels. Foam blowing agents and refrigerants have a significant impact as well.
>> The increased cost of gas will be noticeable; the impact on the environment won’t.
Huh? Isn’t that a contradiction. The whole idea is to increase the cost of things like gasoline, so that people will lose less. Furthermore, as Brent and Glenn said, this goes beyond just gasoline to other causes of climate change.
Also, I honestly don’t know what it means to “feed the beast” in this context (I looked up the phrase, and found information about a TV show and a music album.
“Feed the beast” means to make something bad even bigger. What I think Bernie is referring to is how the proposal gives a lot of money away to what are probably going to be pork barrel projects.
But it will still reduce carbon emissions probably by a lot in this state. This initiative isn’t the perfect one for me- far from it- but we really need a carbon tax now, so I’ll take it. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Yeah, OK. Maybe if folks like Bernie had supported the previous proposal (which basically was just a shift in taxes) then we wouldn’t have this proposal. Personally, I would have rather pushed these in the opposite order. That way, all the folks who are on record opposing this because of the new bureaucracy would then have to explain why they still oppose it.
In any event, I don’t think it matters too much. Government spending is fairly fungible. There is nothing stopping the government from passing tax cuts in a few years because some of the things they would otherwise have to fund with different taxes are paid for by this.
Oh, and I think it is ridiculous to think that this helps Inslee in a national race. It is the opposite. This is the sort of thing that pegs him as being a “tax and spend” liberal, even though he has been a moderate (as most governors are).
Huh? Isn’t that a contradiction. The whole idea is to increase the cost of things like gasoline, so that people will [use] less.
People immediately see an increase of 13 cents a gallon. Will that mean they’ll burn less? Marginally perhaps. It might make some people accelerate getting a new vehicle or look more closely at mileage when shopping. Will people notice a difference in the air they breath? No. For starters WA is only a tiny fraction of the carbon emissions. Will the “investment” in new green energy sources make measurable difference? Doubtful. You have to compare to a baseline where there are already incentives to wind and solar vs how much the additional pork will contribute. My bet, the additional bureaucrats will burn just as much carbon driving to their new fancy offices in Olympia.
Carbon taxes have worked in various places, all over the world. Sometimes it takes a while, certainly. But there is a reason why Detroit, until they were forced, didn’t make high mileage cars, while Japan did. Gas was just cheaper there. The regulations that lead to a lot of high quality, high mileage cars were easily skirted, and next thing you know, we had a boom in the SUV/mini-van/pickup truck market (because they weren’t regulated the same way). Because once gas prices got cheap, folks ignored fuel efficiency.
Yes, Washington is only a small player, but it can become another model for the rest of the country (as Bob said). This can easily snowball. We were the first state to vote to legalize the possession of Marijuana (with Colorado right behind us). After it passed here, I bet my bartender that it would be legal on the West Coast within ten years and I beat that number by a wide margin. My guess is ten years from now, weed will be legal in all fifty states. It will be tougher with a carbon tax, but as more and more states (and provinces, and countries) adopt it as a matter of policy, it is more likely to become national. Whether we choose a system that involves less government (e. g. replacing FICA with a carbon tax) or one that involves more government (we still have lots of unemployed and underplayed people, along with a tremendous backlog in work that should be done) or simply paying off debt (that we incurred while fighting stupid wars) is anyone’s guess. The whole point is that we should have a carbon tax, because the consumption of something that hurts everyone including those that are the most vulnerable (economically disadvantaged children) is a good idea.
It boggles my mind how people spend hundreds of dollars every month on their cars, without blinking an eyebrow, yet freak out about an extra 14 cents per gallon at the pump. There is something about gas prices that pushes people’s emotional buttons in a way that car prices at the dealerships don’t.
No kidding. Imagine what happens today if thee is another oil embargo or another war (that we actually want to win) happens and gas rationing has to be reinstated.
There is also the issue of trip reduction. One of the county planning documents here says they expect on average each new residence to generate 7 new car trips per day.
If you really want to “feed the beast”, hand more money to WSDOT via the gas tax (as it is currently set up). A lot of that money is used for freeway expansion, which is bad for the environment and the public realm and puts us in a deeper maintenance hole in the future.
How many new GP lane miles have actually been added in the last 20 years? Some would argue there’s been a net reduction on I-405 since the HOT lanes were implemented. There’s been the abortive, and expensive attempts at the cross base highway. There actually seems to be a plan to push 167 through to I-5 with the though that it’s important to freight mobility. But even that is essentially turning River Road into a limited access highway.
I do believe there needs to be a greater urgency on replacing bridges. That said, money spent on roads like Highway 9 and SR-522 have done a lot to address safety issues and have been decades in the making. The population growth has exceeded the increased highway capacity. The new 520 bridge is still just 2 GP lanes each direction and the extension of the HOV lane should help transit and decrease congestion. A good deal was also spent on creating a bike path. I’d also point out there was relatively little whining about the tolls.
The Puget Sound Gateway Proect alone is about $1.88 billion and most of that will be new highway lanes.
The marginal cost of the bike path, given that they were already building the bridge is negligible.
“The new 520 bridge is still just 2 GP lanes each direction” If you increased it, after crossing the bridge, where would all those extra cars go? Unless you widen I-5 (and the ramps to I-5), you don’t really get any more capacity with 3 GP lanes than two – you just shift the backup over. And, even if you did widen I-5, induced demand would immediately fill that space up. Nor is there even room to widen I-5 around downtown without demolishing large downtown buildings in the way.
Trying to build our way out of congestion is folly. The best we can do is provide options to bypass it, which the HOV lane does, and the bike path does also. You can make your argument that the bike path receives fewer users per square inch of pavement per day than the adjacent car lanes, but that same argument would mean that we shouldn’t fund sidewalks either, except on streets with more pedestrians than cars. At the end of the day, we need to decide whether we want a region that supports non-car-based mobility or not. Forcing a 10+ mile detour as a penalty for not being in a car, is *not* the way to go about that.
Bernie you know about supply and demand, one of the key maxims of capitalism? This fee is us (society) placing our thumb on the “scale” of supply and demand in order to change our collective purchasing choices. We have been doing this for years by-the-way, things like the interstate hi way system, damns on the Columbia, our navy all over the world, and my property tax paying for streets and roads have subsidized poor choices for our environment. Now is the time to tip the scales back to even. This is a user fee, the more you use the more the fee, so market forces will help change use to more responsible choices.
“This fee is us (society) placing our thumb on the “scale” of supply and demand in order to change our collective purchasing choices.”
You say that as if fossil fuels and low-density driving have no negative impacts on the people, animals, and plants that weren’t a party to the purchase contract. The carbon tax is an attempt to fix a blind spot in the system of supply and demand.
Nothing to get too excited about here. There is no HSR being invested in like California does with 25% of their Cap and Trade. The Farmers RFS continues to be whittled down by the Trump administration and yet I-1631 has nothing in support for it. The only coal plant in the state is already schedule for shut down. The states Wind and Hydro power sources are as clean as it gets.
I-1631 is simply a gas tax on the entire state so that urban and suburban districts can get more electric buses and rail stations. Rural communities which supply the electricity, food, timber and other resources to the west side will continue to suffer. Definitely no votes coming from east of the mountains.
Most tax revenue (which, IIRC, includes the gas tax) already comes from urban and suburban areas, especially in the Puget Sound area. So it’s basically the Puget Sound area voting to tax itself to fund itself. In fact, we can always amend it to send money to rural areas.
Any decently sized carbon tax, no matter what the money is spent on (unless it’s spent on something that produces more carbon then it saves), is going to be worth it because it reduces carbon emissions by a lot. The projects it goes toward can be iffy, but better iffy pork in exchange for lots of carbon emissions being reduced instead of no carbon emissions being reduced. We don’t have the time to waste on getting the perfect law, this is good enough and can always be amended.
Reducing global carbon emissions by 1/100th of 1% is not a lot. It’s statistically insignificant. And spending billions to get there is wasteful.
By itself, Washington state can’t do it alone. But if this passes here, it can snowball where other states and countries feel like they can impose carbon taxes as well. A little multiplied by a lot of places equals a lot.
Billions is a lot, but climate change could cost humanity $20 trillion:
And you can’t place a value on all the human deaths prevented…
“I-1631 is simply a gas tax on the entire state so that urban and suburban districts can get more electric buses and rail stations.”
What’s wrong with that? Sounds good to me.
“Rural communities which supply the electricity, food, timber and other resources to the west side will continue to suffer.”
Boo hoo. We need to support the rural areas that grow our food among other things, but how specifically are they suffering? The state is maintaining their highways, isn’t it? What else do they need?
Da hello. Not a lot of opportunity for public transit or charging infrastructure in rural towns. Long commutes with higher gas cost means a greater burden. Go figure.
Ever try to do a Costco run 50 miles away in a Leaf or move a bale of hay in a Tesla. There is a reason rural folk have a higher number of pickups.
I know, lets spend the money on Gondola rides for orchard workers so they can bypass driving through the 1000’s of acres of orchards and leave their gas guzzling rigs at home..
“The state is maintaining their highways, isn’t it? What else do they need?” No s*&^ sherlock!
It is the added cost for gas that is the problem without alternatives.
“Ever try to do a Costco run 50 miles away in a Leaf.”
That’s the problem, people go to rural towns and then act like they’re in suburbia. Why are they driving 50 miles to Costco? What did they do before Costco opened?
I personally wouldn’t mind giving rural folks an exemption. But it’s impossible to write a law that that gives an exemption to true rural folks without giving it to the more numerous exurban folks who could drive a Leaf but insist on driving an SUV. In any case, these rural folks get the benefit of living longer because of less air pollution and water pollution, and less violent climate change, and more intercounty connector buses which Joe A 12 will be happy to tell you about, and their exurban counterparts will have more non-car options.
At least some rural areas can set up and run fuel plants (both meanings). I thought Congress really liked ethanol too. Now that renewables from sunlight to wind are pulling ahead because they’re cheaper than coal and oil.
Like everything else about this Administration, it’s literally sickening to watch the party of business itself (or whatever you call its present impostors) yelling that national security demands fuel that’s not only filthy but needlessly expensive.
But for a long time, I’ve thought that pretty much the same will happen for both public transit and living patterns themselves. It won’t be fuel, taxes, or aesthetics that at puts automobiles in their place. Not meaning punished, any more than a screwdriver in its kit.
Cars used to provide freedom and fun along with important use like getting to work, all with literally the same vehicle. I can see transit taking care of the necessity, and cars for what’s just enjoyable.
But because the necessaries are better, including more enjoyably served by transit, as is customary, fun will cost extra without much complaining. I really do see a whole national highway network designed for driving that takes an extra amount of learning and skill.
Requiring intensive training and monitored by a highway patrol oriented to these roads only. I expect these roads will cost, and charge, a lot of money for personal use. But have also wondered if they could have uses that’d entitle them to public funding too.
“Flightless freight?” As the Zeppelins were getting superseded, thought was they could still be good for freight too small and light faster but more expensive planes. Know about drones. But could be a niche, having less temptation for ordinary people to shoot them down.
Could also train human reflexes…I don’t think we ever get close to full use of our eyes, muscles, and nerves. Make a better flier out of somebody? Or be able to operate a drone that homeowners can’t shoot down so easy.
Maybe also a place in bus transit. Anti-Greyhound rule in the Constitution. When I worked for Greyhound (they lied to me and told me it was still a bus company!) we often had to carry in-state distance air passengers when weather didn’t permit.
Something else- since my first hybrid, noticed that driving skill and understanding of the car made measurable difference in fuel consumption. Doubtless in other wear of the car. So rather than try to control results with electronics, design the car so good driving meaurably pays.
Because I think my highway system could earn a lot of private and public money in training the people who program driverless cars. Computer program only as good as the dumbest thing the most limited person to handle it last told it.
And eyes and finger-muscles leave out a lot of survival info. In certain weather, light, and traffic, we and everyone else on the road stay alive without ever knowing by how little we’re still alive.
“For the rich only?” Especially if other benefits are found, sliding scale based on income. With absolute decider being skill in handling the machine. OK, gotta check my crowd source for the movie. They keep demanding a dog. Only trouble is the smart ones always have to get in your lap. Well….millions of years before us, it worked for them.
Mark
“the party of business itself (or whatever you call its present impostors) yelling that national security demands fuel that’s not only filthy but needlessly expensive.”
The party of certain businesses, namely fossil fuel companies, big pharma, and stock traders. Plus anti-tax true believers, who overlap somewhat with these (but only somewhat). And now those who want to keep non-whites, immigrants, and non-men in second place or worse.
Rural folks who are low income will get some of the spending.
Rural communities don’t “supply electricity”. Of course it’s generated within a certain county’s borders, but that county had exactly zero to do with its generation, except for Chelan County with Rocky Reach and Grant County with Priest Rapids and Wanapum. The respective counties normally use all they can generated themselves and top-off with BPA-supplied power.
If the West Side had to wait for the “East Side” to build Grand Coulee we’d still be waiting.
My coworker is a farmer and has an electric pickup and a leaf. Rural folks can absolutely reduce emissions, and some of the money is specifically dedicated to rural communities to help with build the economy. And a lot of funding will go towards rural transit, clean energy in rural communities, etc.
Despite what Fox News says, climate change is going to be really hard on rural communities, and moving to lower cost clean energy will be a boon for those communities. I don’t expect a lot of rural people to vote for this, but it is in their own interest.
Could this happen to the Burke-Gilman Trail?
Only if we don’t build enough housing to house the homeless and stop people from falling into homelessness with actually good social services in the first place.
7.7% of apartments in this region are vacant.
But that housing isn’t affordable for the homeless- look at how high rents are still. We need more housing that low income people can afford.
The Howard Stern show once did a fake street interview of NYC pedestrians, asking them if they would consider having a homeless person over for dinner. When a person responded yes, absolutely they would, the interviewer would then asked for their contact information so that they could arrange to have a homeless person come over for dinner. The interviewee would then say that they had to go, and quickly walk away. These seemingly good-hearted people, when you scratched the surface, were no better than the people who responded oh hell no, there’s no way I would let a homeless person in my home. The only difference between the two types of people were one group were honest, and the other liars.
Seriously Sam, you would never have a homeless person in your home? What if one of your relatives lost their job? Or is everyone you know wealthy?
Perhaps you are confused by what the term “homeless” means. It simply means you can’t afford to pay rent. There are thousands of homeless kids, in Seattle, right now. You are telling me that none of them will ever set foot in your house. Well aren’t you special.
That doesn’t have to do anything with the fact that homeless people don’t have affordable homes they can go to, Sam.
It depends on why they are homeless. Homeless because of mental-illness, dependencies or just bad hygiene then no. Homeless because of hard-luck, ie, job loss, family health issues or other family loss then sure why not.
Back when I was in college and in this religious group we used to do a weekly “street dinner” where we’d make dinner and invite a few homeless people on the Ave to come eat. A couple of our guests were two Indian guys who made a line-art drawing for us. I didn’t realize people could make tribal art so quickly, but he just drew a few lines and there was the curving salmon and whale like on a totem pole. Later I was a skinhead and went to punk shows and there I met a few people who were on and off homeless. When you have longer-term friends who are homeless it’s easier to help them than strangers. The biggest number of homeless people aren’t even visible because they don’t stand out on the street, they’re families with children, and some of them have jobs, or they live in hotels that charge as much as rent, but they can’t scrape together first and last month and deposit or pass a credit check or criminal check so they can’t get into stable housing.
There are 323,000 housing units in Seattle. But the population of Seattle is 725,000. So why aren’t there 402,000 homeless people in the city? Because people live together. Then isn’t it arbitrary to say we need more housing to house about 6000 unsheltered homeless?
But guys like you refuse to share your home, Sam. That’s the problem.
Oh, why do I bother. Trolls really love trolling — no sense feeding them.
Cool! I’d feel a lot safer biking on that path than in most of our bike lanes.
Man, glad somebody finally fixed this mess! Finally, somebody realizes what a wheel is really for!
Because the local officials who seem to be most helpless in the face of mass impoverishment and displacement are all members of the party that found a solution. Could be like when somebody forty looks me in the face and asks who Frank Sinatra was. They just had the wrong former life.
Could also be that they’re afraid of being called a Centrist who is desperately afraid to be called a Progressive (actually, those guys were Republicans whose party got seized by Slavers and Secessionists, whose party was the Democrats) which could get them accused of being a Khmer Rouge which while not as bad as ISIS is a lot better than being a Liberal.
Could help with the driver shortage, as well as however many Great Depressions it’ll take to finish most possible ST-‘s.
Mark Dublin
Death in the Tunnel, by Miles Burton, (pseud. of Cecil Street), 1936., a railroad mystery. A gentleman is found dead in a first-class carriage; a gun bearing his initials lies nearby. He had bribed a guard to have the carriage alone so it’s assumed he shot himself while the train was in a tunnel and the shot could not be heard. While the train was in the tunnel the driver and fireman had seen a red light, presumably held by a line worker standing between the tracks. The driver stopped the train, but before it completely stopped the light changed to green and the driver sped up again. The signalmen at both ends of the tunnel say that nobody was working in it and that nobody could have snuck in without being seen.
I’m not supporting this. Giving an unelected board billions of dollars to spend on whatever is just ripe for abuse. Handing a bag of money and the economic futures of so many to a group saying, “Trust Us” doesn’t work for me.
I would rather give a smaller pot of money to a larger WSDOT Transit Grants Office to give transit grants to all county-level transits & Everett Transit. In return, all transit boards would be run by county councils or city councils.
Or for the state to get out of the property tax business. I couldn’t vote no on THAT.
There you go.
Any decently sized carbon tax, no matter what the money is spent on (unless it’s spent on something that produces more carbon then it saves), is going to be worth it because it reduces carbon emissions by a lot. The projects it goes toward can be iffy, but better iffy pork in exchange for lots of carbon emissions being reduced instead of no carbon emissions being reduced. We don’t have the time to waste on getting the perfect law, this is good enough and can always be amended.
Joe, do you have any experience with elected versus appointed boards? And at what specific level of government? And best as possible, describe the electorate themselves.
Last most important. Because in my own experience, whatever the form of government, leaders are chosen by their electorate when they all agree action is necessary. Even if they don’t agree on what. And don’t say “Please” while they’re shaking the candidate by the lapels and yelling in their face.
Lincoln was last in his party’s 24 choices- with Secession approaching, all agreed he’d be a good last President of the United States. James Garfield whacked the table and refused the nomination- and the party chairman ruled him out of order. First order of business was get shot, and then treated by a doctor that thought germs were for French sissies.
Harry Truman’s wife said she’d go home to Missouri without him next new office he took- too bad Roosevelt died suddenly at win-or-lose minute of the war. So my take on “Lack of Leadership:” For next electoral motivation nationally, I’d wait ’til municipal sewage systems start blowing out in a nationwide barrage. Anybody want to bet on when it won’t happen. Hope Magnolia gets off.
For transit here, it’ll be a single. triple-bottom tanker full of fish waste jamming ST service area shoreline to mountains. For three days. I think our next move now is to get hold of as much transit-only lane space, including boats- even borrowed and rented. So trapped voters will already have a visual.
But meantime here’s your job, Joe. Of the whole field, who do you think will want the job least? I like Claudia Balducci too. So first thing, we’ll have to tell her that three hundred Kirkland residents are in her office to talk about Connectors.
Mark
You can only pass what you can get a majority of voters to vote for, and that means making a broad coalition. The last carbon initiative reduced other taxes but it failed because the enviornmental community was split on it. The largest chunk of votes is the liberals so the most reliable way to pass something is to make it attractive to them. So you have to compromise, and you only get a few chances. If this one fails it might be a long time before another try — or do you want to file another initiative and try to get that passed?
I’m not sure. I know I prefer a tax shift as part of this, the way British Columbia did it. I also want the list of projects to ultimately get a state legislative up or down.
Joe,
This board does not have spending authority. That still rests with the legislature. The board only makes a proposal.
Honestly, I liked the previous carbon tax proposal better. It cut existing regressive taxes with the revenue from this new one. Simple. No need to worry about whether the group tasked with spending the extra money is doing it “right” or whatever.
That said, we need to pollute less. Our kids and grandkids depend on that. Changing the incentive structure around pollution can get us a good portion of the way there. I’m not going to let even very valid concerns about whether the money collected will be spent optimally get in the way of the bigger picture, which is that we do need to charge money for pollution. Let’s get that in place now, and if the spending details need tweaking in the future we can certainly do that.
I’m sorry, but for ruinous taxation, this one is ‘way behind the devastation caused by making soda pop cost five cents more a bottle. Even worse that the tyrannical Shoreline Management Act forbids throwing a drop of Red Bull or Mountain Dew into Elliott Bay.
But two messages might unplug some earwax. One, you’re already paying a carbon tax for being stuck. Every second your cylinders are the only thing in your car that’s moving, extracts the fossil fuel industry’s own carbon tax on every particle it forces you to emit.
And two, whoever wrote these ads can bill their time, and you can’t. And meantime, a short subliminal thought bound to hit the world’s sorest chord for its intended audience: “For expense we taxpayers incur by your actions, this is not a tax. IT’s A BILL!”
Mark Dublin
Bottom line, it’s an increase in the gas tax. So, why not just increase the tax on gasoline. It’s not like we don’t have a huge hole in the budget for road maintenance. Not including diesel will bring the relative price down to where it’s an incentive to buy diesel cars & trucks which does reduce CO2 emissions. What a simple increase in the gas tax doesn’t do is “feed the beast”. Jay Inslee is looking for some signature legislation he can point to for his presidential bid in 2020. The new jobs are going to be an increase in bureaucrats and highly subsidized jobs that are short lived and can’t exist without government funding. The increased cost of gas will be noticeable; the impact on the environment won’t.
1) If the gas tax didn’t have to be spent on highway purposes, it could do much of what I-1631 is doing. I don’t think I-1631 revenue could end up being used for road purposes, unless the governor-appointed-and-legislature-approved committee was willing to somehow define roadwork as reducing carbon pollution, and/or the legislature was willing to override the recommendations of the committee and spend it on road work. The whole “accountability” argument over the appointed committee applies equally to pretty much every other board in the state that has a budget. The legislature has the power of the purse. The governor’s real power is limited mostly to line-item vetoes.
2) The legislature has historically thrown in token amount of maintenance work to pass new highway construction. The money to catch up with maintenance is there if the legislature would prioritize it over cutting ribbons on marginally-useful new highways (e.g. the extension of SR 509 all the way to I-5).
3) Not all of the carbon pollution in the state is in the transportation sector. Gas tax won’t push power plants etc. to clean up their exhaust, or convert to using other energy sources, like solar and wind power. I-1631, as mentioned, doesn’t tax some polluting facilities that have already agreed to shut down or convert by a deadline, but also exempts certain industries that produce the steel and other materials needed to build the green economy. We could argue over whether those industries should have been exempted, but that ought not cause anyone to change their vote for real, rather than just for concern trolling rhetorical purposes.
I agree there has been a lack of maintenance spending as a priority. As for wasteful spending, the Deep Debt Tunnel is the poster child. Hint, if people aren’t willing to pay a meaningful portion of the cost via tolls then it probably wasn’t all that necessary. All this speaks to not send more money to Olympia for them to hand out like candy to lobbyists. Which, BTW is why unions by and large are supporting this.
Oops, must have forgot a / or close bracket.
“not send more money to Olympia for them to hand out like candy to lobbyists”
What’s your better solution? Currently polluters are paying nothing for their externalities that impact others.
4) Not all carbon pollution is from burning fuels. Foam blowing agents and refrigerants have a significant impact as well.
>> The increased cost of gas will be noticeable; the impact on the environment won’t.
Huh? Isn’t that a contradiction. The whole idea is to increase the cost of things like gasoline, so that people will lose less. Furthermore, as Brent and Glenn said, this goes beyond just gasoline to other causes of climate change.
Also, I honestly don’t know what it means to “feed the beast” in this context (I looked up the phrase, and found information about a TV show and a music album.
“Feed the beast” means to make something bad even bigger. What I think Bernie is referring to is how the proposal gives a lot of money away to what are probably going to be pork barrel projects.
But it will still reduce carbon emissions probably by a lot in this state. This initiative isn’t the perfect one for me- far from it- but we really need a carbon tax now, so I’ll take it. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Yeah, OK. Maybe if folks like Bernie had supported the previous proposal (which basically was just a shift in taxes) then we wouldn’t have this proposal. Personally, I would have rather pushed these in the opposite order. That way, all the folks who are on record opposing this because of the new bureaucracy would then have to explain why they still oppose it.
In any event, I don’t think it matters too much. Government spending is fairly fungible. There is nothing stopping the government from passing tax cuts in a few years because some of the things they would otherwise have to fund with different taxes are paid for by this.
Oh, and I think it is ridiculous to think that this helps Inslee in a national race. It is the opposite. This is the sort of thing that pegs him as being a “tax and spend” liberal, even though he has been a moderate (as most governors are).
People immediately see an increase of 13 cents a gallon. Will that mean they’ll burn less? Marginally perhaps. It might make some people accelerate getting a new vehicle or look more closely at mileage when shopping. Will people notice a difference in the air they breath? No. For starters WA is only a tiny fraction of the carbon emissions. Will the “investment” in new green energy sources make measurable difference? Doubtful. You have to compare to a baseline where there are already incentives to wind and solar vs how much the additional pork will contribute. My bet, the additional bureaucrats will burn just as much carbon driving to their new fancy offices in Olympia.
Carbon taxes have worked in various places, all over the world. Sometimes it takes a while, certainly. But there is a reason why Detroit, until they were forced, didn’t make high mileage cars, while Japan did. Gas was just cheaper there. The regulations that lead to a lot of high quality, high mileage cars were easily skirted, and next thing you know, we had a boom in the SUV/mini-van/pickup truck market (because they weren’t regulated the same way). Because once gas prices got cheap, folks ignored fuel efficiency.
Yes, Washington is only a small player, but it can become another model for the rest of the country (as Bob said). This can easily snowball. We were the first state to vote to legalize the possession of Marijuana (with Colorado right behind us). After it passed here, I bet my bartender that it would be legal on the West Coast within ten years and I beat that number by a wide margin. My guess is ten years from now, weed will be legal in all fifty states. It will be tougher with a carbon tax, but as more and more states (and provinces, and countries) adopt it as a matter of policy, it is more likely to become national. Whether we choose a system that involves less government (e. g. replacing FICA with a carbon tax) or one that involves more government (we still have lots of unemployed and underplayed people, along with a tremendous backlog in work that should be done) or simply paying off debt (that we incurred while fighting stupid wars) is anyone’s guess. The whole point is that we should have a carbon tax, because the consumption of something that hurts everyone including those that are the most vulnerable (economically disadvantaged children) is a good idea.
It boggles my mind how people spend hundreds of dollars every month on their cars, without blinking an eyebrow, yet freak out about an extra 14 cents per gallon at the pump. There is something about gas prices that pushes people’s emotional buttons in a way that car prices at the dealerships don’t.
No kidding. Imagine what happens today if thee is another oil embargo or another war (that we actually want to win) happens and gas rationing has to be reinstated.
There is also the issue of trip reduction. One of the county planning documents here says they expect on average each new residence to generate 7 new car trips per day.
If you really want to “feed the beast”, hand more money to WSDOT via the gas tax (as it is currently set up). A lot of that money is used for freeway expansion, which is bad for the environment and the public realm and puts us in a deeper maintenance hole in the future.
How many new GP lane miles have actually been added in the last 20 years? Some would argue there’s been a net reduction on I-405 since the HOT lanes were implemented. There’s been the abortive, and expensive attempts at the cross base highway. There actually seems to be a plan to push 167 through to I-5 with the though that it’s important to freight mobility. But even that is essentially turning River Road into a limited access highway.
I do believe there needs to be a greater urgency on replacing bridges. That said, money spent on roads like Highway 9 and SR-522 have done a lot to address safety issues and have been decades in the making. The population growth has exceeded the increased highway capacity. The new 520 bridge is still just 2 GP lanes each direction and the extension of the HOV lane should help transit and decrease congestion. A good deal was also spent on creating a bike path. I’d also point out there was relatively little whining about the tolls.
The Puget Sound Gateway Proect alone is about $1.88 billion and most of that will be new highway lanes.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm
The marginal cost of the bike path, given that they were already building the bridge is negligible.
“The new 520 bridge is still just 2 GP lanes each direction” If you increased it, after crossing the bridge, where would all those extra cars go? Unless you widen I-5 (and the ramps to I-5), you don’t really get any more capacity with 3 GP lanes than two – you just shift the backup over. And, even if you did widen I-5, induced demand would immediately fill that space up. Nor is there even room to widen I-5 around downtown without demolishing large downtown buildings in the way.
Trying to build our way out of congestion is folly. The best we can do is provide options to bypass it, which the HOV lane does, and the bike path does also. You can make your argument that the bike path receives fewer users per square inch of pavement per day than the adjacent car lanes, but that same argument would mean that we shouldn’t fund sidewalks either, except on streets with more pedestrians than cars. At the end of the day, we need to decide whether we want a region that supports non-car-based mobility or not. Forcing a 10+ mile detour as a penalty for not being in a car, is *not* the way to go about that.
Bernie you know about supply and demand, one of the key maxims of capitalism? This fee is us (society) placing our thumb on the “scale” of supply and demand in order to change our collective purchasing choices. We have been doing this for years by-the-way, things like the interstate hi way system, damns on the Columbia, our navy all over the world, and my property tax paying for streets and roads have subsidized poor choices for our environment. Now is the time to tip the scales back to even. This is a user fee, the more you use the more the fee, so market forces will help change use to more responsible choices.
“This fee is us (society) placing our thumb on the “scale” of supply and demand in order to change our collective purchasing choices.”
You say that as if fossil fuels and low-density driving have no negative impacts on the people, animals, and plants that weren’t a party to the purchase contract. The carbon tax is an attempt to fix a blind spot in the system of supply and demand.
Nothing to get too excited about here. There is no HSR being invested in like California does with 25% of their Cap and Trade. The Farmers RFS continues to be whittled down by the Trump administration and yet I-1631 has nothing in support for it. The only coal plant in the state is already schedule for shut down. The states Wind and Hydro power sources are as clean as it gets.
I-1631 is simply a gas tax on the entire state so that urban and suburban districts can get more electric buses and rail stations. Rural communities which supply the electricity, food, timber and other resources to the west side will continue to suffer. Definitely no votes coming from east of the mountains.
Most tax revenue (which, IIRC, includes the gas tax) already comes from urban and suburban areas, especially in the Puget Sound area. So it’s basically the Puget Sound area voting to tax itself to fund itself. In fact, we can always amend it to send money to rural areas.
Any decently sized carbon tax, no matter what the money is spent on (unless it’s spent on something that produces more carbon then it saves), is going to be worth it because it reduces carbon emissions by a lot. The projects it goes toward can be iffy, but better iffy pork in exchange for lots of carbon emissions being reduced instead of no carbon emissions being reduced. We don’t have the time to waste on getting the perfect law, this is good enough and can always be amended.
Reducing global carbon emissions by 1/100th of 1% is not a lot. It’s statistically insignificant. And spending billions to get there is wasteful.
By itself, Washington state can’t do it alone. But if this passes here, it can snowball where other states and countries feel like they can impose carbon taxes as well. A little multiplied by a lot of places equals a lot.
Billions is a lot, but climate change could cost humanity $20 trillion:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05219-5
And you can’t place a value on all the human deaths prevented…
“I-1631 is simply a gas tax on the entire state so that urban and suburban districts can get more electric buses and rail stations.”
What’s wrong with that? Sounds good to me.
“Rural communities which supply the electricity, food, timber and other resources to the west side will continue to suffer.”
Boo hoo. We need to support the rural areas that grow our food among other things, but how specifically are they suffering? The state is maintaining their highways, isn’t it? What else do they need?
Da hello. Not a lot of opportunity for public transit or charging infrastructure in rural towns. Long commutes with higher gas cost means a greater burden. Go figure.
Ever try to do a Costco run 50 miles away in a Leaf or move a bale of hay in a Tesla. There is a reason rural folk have a higher number of pickups.
I know, lets spend the money on Gondola rides for orchard workers so they can bypass driving through the 1000’s of acres of orchards and leave their gas guzzling rigs at home..
“The state is maintaining their highways, isn’t it? What else do they need?” No s*&^ sherlock!
It is the added cost for gas that is the problem without alternatives.
“Ever try to do a Costco run 50 miles away in a Leaf.”
That’s the problem, people go to rural towns and then act like they’re in suburbia. Why are they driving 50 miles to Costco? What did they do before Costco opened?
I personally wouldn’t mind giving rural folks an exemption. But it’s impossible to write a law that that gives an exemption to true rural folks without giving it to the more numerous exurban folks who could drive a Leaf but insist on driving an SUV. In any case, these rural folks get the benefit of living longer because of less air pollution and water pollution, and less violent climate change, and more intercounty connector buses which Joe A 12 will be happy to tell you about, and their exurban counterparts will have more non-car options.
At least some rural areas can set up and run fuel plants (both meanings). I thought Congress really liked ethanol too. Now that renewables from sunlight to wind are pulling ahead because they’re cheaper than coal and oil.
Like everything else about this Administration, it’s literally sickening to watch the party of business itself (or whatever you call its present impostors) yelling that national security demands fuel that’s not only filthy but needlessly expensive.
But for a long time, I’ve thought that pretty much the same will happen for both public transit and living patterns themselves. It won’t be fuel, taxes, or aesthetics that at puts automobiles in their place. Not meaning punished, any more than a screwdriver in its kit.
Cars used to provide freedom and fun along with important use like getting to work, all with literally the same vehicle. I can see transit taking care of the necessity, and cars for what’s just enjoyable.
But because the necessaries are better, including more enjoyably served by transit, as is customary, fun will cost extra without much complaining. I really do see a whole national highway network designed for driving that takes an extra amount of learning and skill.
Requiring intensive training and monitored by a highway patrol oriented to these roads only. I expect these roads will cost, and charge, a lot of money for personal use. But have also wondered if they could have uses that’d entitle them to public funding too.
“Flightless freight?” As the Zeppelins were getting superseded, thought was they could still be good for freight too small and light faster but more expensive planes. Know about drones. But could be a niche, having less temptation for ordinary people to shoot them down.
Could also train human reflexes…I don’t think we ever get close to full use of our eyes, muscles, and nerves. Make a better flier out of somebody? Or be able to operate a drone that homeowners can’t shoot down so easy.
Maybe also a place in bus transit. Anti-Greyhound rule in the Constitution. When I worked for Greyhound (they lied to me and told me it was still a bus company!) we often had to carry in-state distance air passengers when weather didn’t permit.
Something else- since my first hybrid, noticed that driving skill and understanding of the car made measurable difference in fuel consumption. Doubtless in other wear of the car. So rather than try to control results with electronics, design the car so good driving meaurably pays.
Because I think my highway system could earn a lot of private and public money in training the people who program driverless cars. Computer program only as good as the dumbest thing the most limited person to handle it last told it.
And eyes and finger-muscles leave out a lot of survival info. In certain weather, light, and traffic, we and everyone else on the road stay alive without ever knowing by how little we’re still alive.
“For the rich only?” Especially if other benefits are found, sliding scale based on income. With absolute decider being skill in handling the machine. OK, gotta check my crowd source for the movie. They keep demanding a dog. Only trouble is the smart ones always have to get in your lap. Well….millions of years before us, it worked for them.
Mark
“the party of business itself (or whatever you call its present impostors) yelling that national security demands fuel that’s not only filthy but needlessly expensive.”
The party of certain businesses, namely fossil fuel companies, big pharma, and stock traders. Plus anti-tax true believers, who overlap somewhat with these (but only somewhat). And now those who want to keep non-whites, immigrants, and non-men in second place or worse.
Rural folks who are low income will get some of the spending.
Rural communities don’t “supply electricity”. Of course it’s generated within a certain county’s borders, but that county had exactly zero to do with its generation, except for Chelan County with Rocky Reach and Grant County with Priest Rapids and Wanapum. The respective counties normally use all they can generated themselves and top-off with BPA-supplied power.
If the West Side had to wait for the “East Side” to build Grand Coulee we’d still be waiting.
My coworker is a farmer and has an electric pickup and a leaf. Rural folks can absolutely reduce emissions, and some of the money is specifically dedicated to rural communities to help with build the economy. And a lot of funding will go towards rural transit, clean energy in rural communities, etc.
Despite what Fox News says, climate change is going to be really hard on rural communities, and moving to lower cost clean energy will be a boon for those communities. I don’t expect a lot of rural people to vote for this, but it is in their own interest.
Could this happen to the Burke-Gilman Trail?
Only if we don’t build enough housing to house the homeless and stop people from falling into homelessness with actually good social services in the first place.
7.7% of apartments in this region are vacant.
But that housing isn’t affordable for the homeless- look at how high rents are still. We need more housing that low income people can afford.
The Howard Stern show once did a fake street interview of NYC pedestrians, asking them if they would consider having a homeless person over for dinner. When a person responded yes, absolutely they would, the interviewer would then asked for their contact information so that they could arrange to have a homeless person come over for dinner. The interviewee would then say that they had to go, and quickly walk away. These seemingly good-hearted people, when you scratched the surface, were no better than the people who responded oh hell no, there’s no way I would let a homeless person in my home. The only difference between the two types of people were one group were honest, and the other liars.
Seriously Sam, you would never have a homeless person in your home? What if one of your relatives lost their job? Or is everyone you know wealthy?
Perhaps you are confused by what the term “homeless” means. It simply means you can’t afford to pay rent. There are thousands of homeless kids, in Seattle, right now. You are telling me that none of them will ever set foot in your house. Well aren’t you special.
That doesn’t have to do anything with the fact that homeless people don’t have affordable homes they can go to, Sam.
It depends on why they are homeless. Homeless because of mental-illness, dependencies or just bad hygiene then no. Homeless because of hard-luck, ie, job loss, family health issues or other family loss then sure why not.
Back when I was in college and in this religious group we used to do a weekly “street dinner” where we’d make dinner and invite a few homeless people on the Ave to come eat. A couple of our guests were two Indian guys who made a line-art drawing for us. I didn’t realize people could make tribal art so quickly, but he just drew a few lines and there was the curving salmon and whale like on a totem pole. Later I was a skinhead and went to punk shows and there I met a few people who were on and off homeless. When you have longer-term friends who are homeless it’s easier to help them than strangers. The biggest number of homeless people aren’t even visible because they don’t stand out on the street, they’re families with children, and some of them have jobs, or they live in hotels that charge as much as rent, but they can’t scrape together first and last month and deposit or pass a credit check or criminal check so they can’t get into stable housing.
There are 323,000 housing units in Seattle. But the population of Seattle is 725,000. So why aren’t there 402,000 homeless people in the city? Because people live together. Then isn’t it arbitrary to say we need more housing to house about 6000 unsheltered homeless?
But guys like you refuse to share your home, Sam. That’s the problem.
Oh, why do I bother. Trolls really love trolling — no sense feeding them.
Cool! I’d feel a lot safer biking on that path than in most of our bike lanes.
Man, glad somebody finally fixed this mess! Finally, somebody realizes what a wheel is really for!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozEgTiLBJEQ
Also thanks for finding this for us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wCHtOTxQak
But This is depressing (or Depressing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVdlcuqiRSo
Because the local officials who seem to be most helpless in the face of mass impoverishment and displacement are all members of the party that found a solution. Could be like when somebody forty looks me in the face and asks who Frank Sinatra was. They just had the wrong former life.
Could also be that they’re afraid of being called a Centrist who is desperately afraid to be called a Progressive (actually, those guys were Republicans whose party got seized by Slavers and Secessionists, whose party was the Democrats) which could get them accused of being a Khmer Rouge which while not as bad as ISIS is a lot better than being a Liberal.
So everybody reading this, forward it to:
council@seattle.gov
council@kingcounty.gov
EmailTheBoard@soundtransit.org
Could help with the driver shortage, as well as however many Great Depressions it’ll take to finish most possible ST-‘s.
Mark Dublin
Death in the Tunnel, by Miles Burton, (pseud. of Cecil Street), 1936., a railroad mystery. A gentleman is found dead in a first-class carriage; a gun bearing his initials lies nearby. He had bribed a guard to have the carriage alone so it’s assumed he shot himself while the train was in a tunnel and the shot could not be heard. While the train was in the tunnel the driver and fireman had seen a red light, presumably held by a line worker standing between the tracks. The driver stopped the train, but before it completely stopped the light changed to green and the driver sped up again. The signalmen at both ends of the tunnel say that nobody was working in it and that nobody could have snuck in without being seen.