By Mark Riker
For The Herald
This fall, Washington voters will be asked to decide on a measure that has been described by some as “the nation’s strongest climate policy on the books.” But, in our race to be the “greenest,” will we also curtail our booming Northwest economy, costing good-paying, family-wage jobs along the way?
It’s a balancing act for sure, one voters across Washington should consider carefully in the months leading up to Election Day.
Initiative 1631 is the latest iteration of a measure aimed at reducing carbon emissions by placing a fee on carbon producers. If this sounds familiar, that’s because 2016 voters soundly defeated a similar measure, Initiative 732. The new effort, I-1631, would impose a “carbon fee” on about 100 industrial emitters across our state, including oil refineries and natural gas power plants. This would also increase the price at the pump by about 15 cents per gallon, spiking to 40 cents per gallon after 10 years. According to proponents, this would generate about $500 million for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, develop renewable energy and protect natural resources.
People on both sides of the issue will argue over the language of the initiative — is it a tax or is it a fee? — but when you get right down to it, it’s going to cost everyone more money. Increases will be felt at the gas pump, in heating bills, and at the cash register for goods and services. Regardless of what it’s called, the I-1631 is ill defined and takes money out of everyone’s pockets.
It will also likely jeopardize future investments in transportation projects. The revenue from I-1631 is not project-specific, a detail that could make it difficult to gain voter approval of future infrastructure proposals.
Passing Sound Transit 3 was difficult enough — and the voters knew how that money was going to be spent. That is not the case with I-1631. It has vague guidelines for the spending of the revenue generated by the initiative. Therefore, I-1631 will likely make it more difficult to adequately fund a transportation package as it will also require the same funding mechanism. In other words, gas prices will likely go up even more every time there is a transportation proposal in the state.
Ironically, an effort to pull more people out of their cars might actually mean we spend more time in traffic, since I-1631 could hinder future transportation projects by driving up costs even further.
An increase in the price of fuel has a significant financial impact on consumers. This is particularly concerning for the working poor. As a matter of responsible public policy, we need to be certain that if we raise the price of fuel that we are getting the most bang for our buck and minimizing the impact on the most vulnerable.
Make no mistake: We all must be committed to protecting clean air and clean water. But when crafting solutions, we must ensure that those considerations are carefully weighed against other important factors — namely jobs, critical infrastructure funding and the economy.
Mark Riker is the executive secretary for the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
