Can Washington State Finally Put a Price On Carbon? (wired.com) 147
jwhyche writes: Beth Brunton walks around Seattle with a magenta umbrella. At 75 degrees and there not being a cloud in the sky, it gets peoples attention. What she is attempting to do is get people to sign a petition supporting Initiative 1631, known as the "Protect Washington Act." If this was to pass, Washington state would become the first state to adopt anything like a carbon tax. "The initiative proposes a 'fee on pollution' that would put a $15 charge on each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted in Washington starting in 2020," reports Wired. "That charge would rise by $2 plus inflation every year until the state meets its climate goals, which include cutting its carbon footprint 36 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. The revenue raised would go toward investing in clean energy; protecting the air, water, and forests; and helping vulnerable communities prepare for wildfires and sea-level rise."
The report mentions Washington's previous attempt at a "carbon tax" initiative, which was ultimately rejected. It would have initially charged businesses $25 per metric ton of emissions before ramping up over time.
The report mentions Washington's previous attempt at a "carbon tax" initiative, which was ultimately rejected. It would have initially charged businesses $25 per metric ton of emissions before ramping up over time.
The solution to pollution? A tax (Score:3)
Of course. If Seattle gets to choose, it will pass for sure. If the rest of the state gets a vote, maybe it won't. Seattle has never meant a tax it didn't like.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny that you'd think any of this tax would go towards the stated purpose. Politicians are notorious liars and wasteful spendthrifts. The money will be gone before you know it and they'll be back at the trough.
"That charge would rise by $2 plus inflation every year until the state meets its climate goals,"
Surprise! We didn't reach our goal again. Time to raise your taxes! So sorry about that. Better luck next time.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny that you'd think any of this tax would go towards the stated purpose.
Who cares? Taxes targeted for specific spending purposes are stupid. They are usually just a ploy to get people to vote for dumb taxes. "You have to vote for the mustache tax because it will be used to feed crippled orphans!!!" Whatever.
Taxes and spending need to balance out (a requirement of Washington's constitution), but decisions on what to tax, and what to spend it on, should be made separately.
In this particular case, one of the targeted uses is for government spending on "clean energy", which is
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's how it was done in BC, income tax cuts along with the introduction of the carbon tax. The economy did very well.
Eventually the left wing NDP got into power, with support from the Greens (it was close to a tied election) and took out the revenue neutral part. So far the economy is still doing well and the budget is still balanced.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't British Columbia currently in a property bubble, financed by Chinese investors? What happens when the hot money in China dries up?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just back from Vancouver, and was shocked at the changes in the city that had occurred since I was last there in 2002. 1.5M people, high rises going up everywhere. It took us an hour to get from the airport to the port (for our cruise). Told my wife that I loved the beautiful views of the water and mountains, but these people are going to be living like they're in an ant farm...I won't be back.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to say if it is only Chinese investors, but yes there is a property bubble that the current government is trying to tax into slowing down. When it pops, it's hard to say what will happen but it could be bad. Things aren't good now, house prices are sky high, same with rentals, along with a very low vacancy rate. I live 50 miles out and it used to be cheap here, now the median price of a house is $950k cdn and all the good rentals have been torn down, it's amazing how many subdivisions have gone up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So are you ready to fork over your $15 for the CO2 that you exhaled this year? Oh wait, we see you have a gym membership so we're sure you exhaled at least 3 times that much. So just pay us $60 additional for every person living in your household. Your car? Whoa.. We're sure that contributed at least $10,000 worth of CO2. Pay up sucker.
Never let them do it. It'll never end. It's just a scam.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing is already moving jobs out of Washington and into South Carolina. Additional taxes would accelerate the transition.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The rich aren't affected (even though they claim they are).
This is weapons grade stupidity. The point of taxes isn't to make people feel something. It's to collect money to use to do things that make a society healthier and more productive.
Re: (Score:2)
You DO realize you're just reinforcing his point, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It's to collect money to use to do things that make a society healthier and more productive.
Not about what really happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The intent of the tax is to reduce carbon emissions. Whether or not that happens, the results will be tax money that is spent on society. Libertarians, who are the first to complain TINSTAAFL when free health care is mentioned, sure seem to think that having a first world society is free.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to increase income taxes to pay for roads and public transportation, be my guest. In the meantime, the poor and working class are still unquestionably better off [youtube.com] with those dollars being spent, no matter the source.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution is to make the carbon tax revenue neutral by cutting other taxes that are even more regressive, such as payroll taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, so they're creating a tax, but doing nothing to actually offset.
And don't BS me about "clean power".
Because all it is, at that point, is an endless money grab.
I'd rather see the money go into bringing carbon sequestration tech to scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see the money go into bringing carbon sequestration tech to scale.
Carbon sequestration makes no sense if the other guy is still digging new carbon out of the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much CO2 could we realistically store in a safe place (ruling out the ocean) ?
Re: (Score:2)
And how much CO2 could we realistically store in a safe place (ruling out the ocean) ?
Plenty. Any geological structure that once held oil or NG can hold CO2.
Since liquified CO2 is heavier than hydrocarbons, it will displace them upwards, and can be used for enhanced oil recovery by carbon dioxide flooding [wikipedia.org].
Here is a list [wikipedia.org] of current CO2-EOR projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
On its own, that doesn't even begin to make sense.
__Believing AGW is real does not make it real, and thus does not imply that "we need a solution."
__Even if AGW is real, that does not make it significant. If the amount of anthropogenic warming is insignificant, no necessary action is implied.
__To need a solution, AGW would have to be a bad thing. You have not made that claim, and in my opinion it's untrue.
Re: (Score:1)
It was 48 degrees this morning here in Seattle, so what global warming?
Re: (Score:2)
And what was May like?
Re: (Score:1)
You do know that taxing pollution as a solution is a Republican stance, and limiting the levels via regulations it is a Democratic one, right?
Fake news! (Score:1)
The article summary mentions no clouds in the sky.... but it describes events taking place in the Pacific Northwest, where such days just do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
May set records for dryness (something like 1.2 mm at VCR) and most days over the average high temps. June seems back to normal.
Washington State, paying guilt tax for China (Score:3, Informative)
Just what this state needs is more taxes, the new electric license plates cost 300 dollars and a monthly fee, sugar tax that includes soda water and diet soda but leaves the starbucks sugar sweet ass drinks sugar tax free...
The pot tax is one of the highest, the alcohol tax is crazy high, the gas tax is stupidly high, and when we get tabs affordable, switch to pay per mile and tax on car value.
Sorry, I don't know how much longer I can stay in this state, we have numerous bills to take our guns after they already gutted us to one of the harshed guns laws in the country. And Seattle is the fastest growing city in the USA, Yeah, read /r/seattle and see people complaining about 3k a month rents and light rail that wont be finished until I retire. (Kinda late). What does that 5k a year in property tax get you? Eating your retirement?
Stupidity...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh, reading the bill.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets... [wa.gov]
Protect Washington Act - Relating to reducing pollution by investing in clean air,
clean energy, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy communities
by imposing a fee on large emitters based on their pollution;
Its really, the CLEAN out your wallet act.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure is. Just like the one here in Ontario, and the one in California. It hurts everyone, and causes the most harm to the poorest people. It also helps kill economies. Ontario wasn't doing shit hot before the carbon tax(0.3% gdp/quarter) with? The 2018 numbers show that if it's not flat 0.0 gdp, it'll be negative and lining up for at least a technical recession.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what hurts poor people and economies even more than a carbon tax? A sales tax. If Washington used the carbon tax to offset and eliminate the sales tax, it would be a net win all around. Will they do it? Probably not. But it's a nice thought.
Re: (Score:2)
if we want to evict a tenant for non-payment we must give them a 30 notice before applying to the tenancy/landlord tribunal (cases not to be solved in a real court) which in practice take anywhere from a minimum of 2 months to evict to a maximum (at my properties at least) 8 months
In Ontario you cannot sue anyone for less then 5k, so collection is a non-issue, that is, you WILL NEVER COLLECT
I feel for you on that one. Was listening to a guy at my insurers office a few weeks back talk about the same problem. In his case, the tenants trashed the house(condemned) and stole or destroyed everything they could(wiring, pipes, drywall, structural supports, everything), after they were given notice, and it went to the tribunal, and they lied about sending payment, and back to the tribunal 4 times(this makes 4.7 years with no rental income), and he was at the point of getting the bailiff to come for e
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what hurts poor people and economies even more than a carbon tax? A sales tax. If Washington used the carbon tax to offset and eliminate the sales tax, it would be a net win all around. Will they do it? Probably not. But it's a nice thought.
Will never happen. Just like it didn't happen in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, or Quebec. It's taxes on taxes on taxes. Which is why the Liberal Party and NDP are getting slaughtered up here in Canada. The Liberal Party of Ontario no longer exists as an official party after last night. The Liberal Party in Quebec is looking at the same option. The NDP coalition in BC is likely going to collapse since people are now chomping to push to recall members of the MLA and demand new elections. The NDP i
Re: (Score:2)
Yet BC has mostly had the best economy in Canada while having a carbon tax. Originally revenue neutral with rebates for the lowest income brackets it wasn't too bad though exempting the natural gas industry was kind of weird but both the left and the right (Provincially, not Vancouver) love natural gas, which is way better bet then diluted bitumen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet BC has mostly had the best economy in Canada while having a carbon tax.
Um, google "what's driving British Columbia's economy", and every article points to the real estate boom. Correlation != causation, but you knew that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
As someone else mentioned, that "best economy" was fully driven by real estate prices. 20-25% no less. This is followed up by "construction" aka new houses/apt buildings/condos and so on at 9%. So call it 32% give or take a few points being driven by two sectors. But why don't you tell people how gas at $1.58/L($6/gal). Usful tip, those rebates didn't help at all. They also didn't help the people in Alberta, and those people are chomping at the bit to remove the NDP from power so hard that it looks li
Re: (Score:2)
Washington State incompetence (Score:2)
Whoever is involved with that does not seem competent.
A quote from the bill: "(a) A minimum of thirty-five percent of total investments authorized under this chapter must provide direct and meaningful benefits to pollution and health action areas."
To me, that sentence seems written by an incompetent person, because it is an easy requirement to manipulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have an income tax. The state needs to get money somehow. And taxing per-mile is a usage fee.
Re: (Score:2)
The pot tax is one of the highest, the alcohol tax is crazy high, the gas tax is stupidly high, and when we get tabs affordable, switch to pay per mile and tax on car value.
It's almost like the taxes are levied specifically to get you to change certain practices.
Sorry, I don't know how much longer I can stay in this state
Then go smoke pot, and drown yourself in alcohol in another state. But please don't keep buying petrol, the environment is fucked enough as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
[...]
Sorry, I don't know how much longer I can stay in this state, we have numerous bills to take our guns after they already gutted us to one of the harshed guns laws in the country.
[...]
Stupidity...
Stupidity is having lots of guns in the community, especially when it is so violent like the USA!
Compare the USA with Switzerland for percentage of guns.
Stupidity is electing a president that insists Global Warming isn't real.
Stupidity is insisting Evolution isn't real because it conflicts with your brand of superstition.
In general, stupidity is ignoring Reality (based on evidence & logic) in favour of Dogma.
Re: (Score:2)
If taxes are based on consumption of Government services, then they should be flat. EVERYONE should pay the exact same amount. The State of Washington budget is about $44 billion, there are 7.4 million people, so everyone - every man, woman and child - needs to pay up about $6,000. That would seem to be fair and equitable, if it's about paying for services.
Or is it, rather, about redistribution of wealth? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?
Exactly how long does it take to make a ton of CO2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly how long does it take to make a ton of CO2 for an exhaling human being?
A human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per day if they are sedentary, and up to 18.4 pounds if they are very active.
So on average, unless you are an athlete, every 2 years, you exhale a ton of CO2.
It will be fun to see them tax that... $7.50 a year from homeless people, or they are required to quit breathing.
Re: (Score:3)
Breathing is carbon neutral. While I pay a carbon tax on the gasoline I burn, I don't pay a carbon tax on the firewood I burn for heat., nor for the store bought charcoal I use for barbecuing.
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing is carbon neutral. While I pay a carbon tax on the gasoline I burn, I don't pay a carbon tax on the firewood I burn for heat., nor for the store bought charcoal I use for barbecuing.
Actually it's not. But depending on your food source the entire lifecycle may be carbon neutral. Breathing generates CO2 by inhaling O2, and your body then reacts O2 with glucose generating CO2 as a result, it doesn't just strip the other gasses out of the air. This is actually why if you hold your breath you feel the need to breath > buildup of CO2 in your blood (your body doesn't think it needs oxygen, it thinks it needs to expel CO2). We breath in 400ppm and breath out several percent CO2, the same pe
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is all relative, the firewood involves me running a chainsaw and perhaps burning a gallon of gasoline and if I cheap out, a litre of chain oil (there is vegetable based chain oils). And a few gallons of gas to move it sometimes.
Food is likewise dependent on sequestered carbon to one degree or another, tractors, delivery, perhaps fertilizer and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
By that measure, so is burning gasoline. Carbon isn't created or destroyed, it's merely attached/detached from various other elements.
Re: (Score:2)
By that measure, so is burning gasoline. Carbon isn't created or destroyed, it's merely attached/detached from various other elements.
No it's not. The definition of being carbon neutral is cycling through the atmosphere. Gasoline is digging up sequestered carbon. That wouldn't otherwise cycle back in through the atmosphere. Breathing on the other hand puts CO2 in the atmosphere which gets taken out through the plants we eat.
Re: (Score:1)
With that in mind then they would theoretically charge you tax on the gasoline ("new carbon") but not on firewood ("existing carbon").
Not that I think it's remotely a good idea anyway, but at least tha
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon Neutral isn't enough.
You should sequester the carbon internally instead of exhaling it, by converting your bones to diamond.
Sweden had a similar absurd claim about stopping all greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Which would, of course, have included farting humans, cows, and reindeer.
So I made up Swedish flag T-shirts that had printed across the yellow horizontal bar "Do Your Part: Don't Fart".
Re: (Score:2)
So on average, unless you are an athlete, every 2 years, you exhale a ton of CO2.
Which also means on average you consume a ton of CO2 sequested by whatever it is you ate. Now if only the production of what you ate didn't involve belching carbon to the air you would be CO2 neutral. But it's easier to get companies to stop wasting energy during food production than it is to get people to stop breathing.
It will be fun to see them tax that...
Taxes are a handle on the economy to enact policy. Did you elect a politician that promised they will stop people from breathing? More likely you enacted a mouthbreather.
Re: (Score:1)
Bill Nye the not to be confused with science guy is advocating a tax on cows. https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com] . Can't make this stuff up. They will try to tax us for exhaling if we let them.
Side from the fact a "consensus" is not science and everyone knows it. Yet people keep believing in the lie.
unsupportable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's introduction of the metric system by the back door. The use of metric units will not stand. Instead of $15 per tonne they should charge a proper rate: €14 per long ton.
Metric units are a lot easier to use than the old Imperial Units that I was taught at school.
What is the ratio of 6 lb 5 oz to 8 st 7 lb? In Kg it is a lot easier.
The problem with all these proposals (Score:2)
I always shake my head (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:1)
The reality is most of the money will be diverted right in to the politicians
This is so stupid a sentiment, it hurts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm starting to think that there is some slim hope of reforming gove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unintended Cosequences (Score:5, Informative)
Taxes have all kinds of repercussions to them. I remember the "luxury" tax on Yachts back in the 80s. "Rich people can afford to pay outrageous taxes on their expensive toys" they said. Yes, they can, but they didn't get rich by being stupid. They bought Yachts overseas and over 600,000 Americans lost their jobs. An entire industry was eradicated. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that industries that could pay this tax wont if they can find a way to avoid it. Ultimately ALL taxes are paid by the working people. Either directly or indirectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't someone think of the coal miners!
Re: (Score:2)
John Kerry Saves $500,000 [huffingtonpost.com]
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately ALL taxes are paid by the working people. Either directly or indirectly.
Ultimately all the costs of adapting to a warmer planet will be paid by the working people, either directly or indirectly. The goal of good government should be to minimize that total cost by figuring out how much to pay now in order to reduce the future cost. Carbon taxes are the most market-friendly way to internalize this particular externality. Though they really need to be applied globally and we have no mechanism to do that. Still, if everyone refuses to do it because others might not, no one will an
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly see no solution to the global warming problem except a world dictatorship. It would require universal effort. Given that the attempt at that would see possibly billions dead I think we'd better just get ready to deal with higher sea levels and temperatures. Technology is moving in the right direction, it's just not fast enough to avoid serious warming. Eventually though I feel the level of carbon usage will drop significantly. But that's at least 3 to 5 decades away.
New locations for power plants for Washington: (Score:2)
Oregon.
Idaho.
Perhaps Canada?
It'll be interesting to see how many plants in Washington are shut down to be replaced by plants just across the State Line....
Yeah, they're not going to do that sort of thing automagically, but they won't be putting any new plants in Washington, and as older plants need to be replaced, they'll be replaced in Oregon and Idaho to avoid that extra cost of doing business....
Oh, and is Washington one of those places that's terrified of nuclear power? Just curious....
And what about CO2 absorbed? (Score:2)
"$15 charge on each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted"
I own a farm and forest land. My forests and fields absorb about 1,400 tons of carbon dioxide a year from the air as well as cleaning the air of dust, filtering the water (I'm at the top of the water shed) and other benefits to society.
If they are going to charge $15/ton to emit carbon dioxide then then they should be sending me a check for $21,000 for my services of removing said carbon dioxide. Fair is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
"$15 charge on each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted"
I own a farm and forest land. My forests and fields absorb about 1,400 tons of carbon dioxide a year from the air as well as cleaning the air of dust, filtering the water (I'm at the top of the water shed) and other benefits to society.
If they are going to charge $15/ton to emit carbon dioxide then then they should be sending me a check for $21,000 for my services of removing said carbon dioxide. Fair is fair.
I agree with you, giving a Carbon Rebate to people to remove CO2 and other carbon gasses from the atmosphere is a good idea, as well as being fair. As it will encourage more people to do so.
SpaceX and other companies (like Blue Origin) will start using lots of methane as rocket fuel. Making methane from water and atmospheric CO2, is way better than burning petroleum, as it is far more carbon neutral. We could end with methane replacing natural gas, oil, and coal, for all heavy transport where electricity
Re: (Score:2)
None. I plant legumes in my pastures which suck nitrogen from the air. All the plants suck carbon dioxide. I don't have cattle. I don't feed corn/soy or other commercial animal feeds but rather use pasture plus 'waste' from a local dairy (whey).
We don't receive a tax break for not developing. Instead what is going on is we get taxed as the land is used, for forest and agriculture, rather than if it was developed into housing tracts. Your confusion is an unfortunate misunderstanding by the public about how t
A big fail - the politics (Score:1)
Keeping the tax to pick the winners is a sure fire way to create the political will to block it.
Citizens' Climate Lobby (Carbon fee and dividend [citizensclimatelobby.org]) and others (Climate Leadership Council [clcouncil.org]) propose a revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund - but such that the tax collected is fully refunded. This makes the tax progressive, revenue neutral and politically sustainable.
Australia's carbon tax scheme [wikipedia.org] i