Washington state could have ushered in the nation's first carbon fee if Initiative 1631 had passed. (Photo: Wil C. Fry/flickr/cc)
Big Oil Spends Tens of Millions to Successfully Kill Washington's Plan to Drastically Curb Planet-Killing Carbon Emissions
Despite the exptected loss of Initiative 1631, "the transition to a clean energy is no longer a question of if, but when"
This post may be updated.
A groundbreaking proposal in Washington state that would have ushered in the nation's first carbon fee is projected to fail after Big Oil spent record sums to defeat it.
As of Wednesday morning, the Secretary of State is reporting the proposal losing 56 percent to 44 percent.
Despite the expected loss, noted author and climate activist Bill McKibben gave props to the Yes campaign, tweeting, "Big Oil had to break every spending record in Washington to narrowly beat this carbon tax. All respect!"
Initiative 1631, backed by a broad range of supporters from the Nature Conservancy to Microsoft to the Suquamish Tribe, has been described as "a chance to tackle climate change head on" and "a possible harbinger of greater state and regional action to come."
If successful, the measure would have created a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon, with the amount increaing $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met. Those revenues would have funded a kind of Green New Deal, being used for renewable energy infrastructure, protecting water quality, and investing in local communities. The New York Times editorial board recently wrote that passage of 1631 could have provide "a template, or at least valuable lessons, for other states to follow; and (let's dream for a moment) it might even encourage Congress to take action on a national program."
So what's the takeaway from the expected defeat?
"The lesson of the loss is not that people oppose climate action," argue Alan Durning, Kristin Eberhard, Aven Frey, and Michael Andersen of Seattle-based think tank the Sightline Institute. "One of the lessons is that dirty fuel companies do not want to be held to account for their pollution, and they are willing to spend big to avoid responsibility. Unfortunately, corporate interests' money bought a crush of messages during a heated election and scared and misled enough voters."
Still, "Big Oil is losing its grip on the economy, bending to local community demands, and the transition to a clean energy is no longer a question of if, but when," they continue. "Nonetheless, it is becoming clear that voters' path to victory must include some democracy reforms that give the people a fighting chance even when Big Money wants something else."
Meteorologist Eric Holthaus added on Twitter: "This issue isn't going away. Neither will those working tirelessly to safeguard our planet and our civilization."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This post may be updated.
A groundbreaking proposal in Washington state that would have ushered in the nation's first carbon fee is projected to fail after Big Oil spent record sums to defeat it.
As of Wednesday morning, the Secretary of State is reporting the proposal losing 56 percent to 44 percent.
Despite the expected loss, noted author and climate activist Bill McKibben gave props to the Yes campaign, tweeting, "Big Oil had to break every spending record in Washington to narrowly beat this carbon tax. All respect!"
Initiative 1631, backed by a broad range of supporters from the Nature Conservancy to Microsoft to the Suquamish Tribe, has been described as "a chance to tackle climate change head on" and "a possible harbinger of greater state and regional action to come."
If successful, the measure would have created a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon, with the amount increaing $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met. Those revenues would have funded a kind of Green New Deal, being used for renewable energy infrastructure, protecting water quality, and investing in local communities. The New York Times editorial board recently wrote that passage of 1631 could have provide "a template, or at least valuable lessons, for other states to follow; and (let's dream for a moment) it might even encourage Congress to take action on a national program."
So what's the takeaway from the expected defeat?
"The lesson of the loss is not that people oppose climate action," argue Alan Durning, Kristin Eberhard, Aven Frey, and Michael Andersen of Seattle-based think tank the Sightline Institute. "One of the lessons is that dirty fuel companies do not want to be held to account for their pollution, and they are willing to spend big to avoid responsibility. Unfortunately, corporate interests' money bought a crush of messages during a heated election and scared and misled enough voters."
Still, "Big Oil is losing its grip on the economy, bending to local community demands, and the transition to a clean energy is no longer a question of if, but when," they continue. "Nonetheless, it is becoming clear that voters' path to victory must include some democracy reforms that give the people a fighting chance even when Big Money wants something else."
Meteorologist Eric Holthaus added on Twitter: "This issue isn't going away. Neither will those working tirelessly to safeguard our planet and our civilization."
This post may be updated.
A groundbreaking proposal in Washington state that would have ushered in the nation's first carbon fee is projected to fail after Big Oil spent record sums to defeat it.
As of Wednesday morning, the Secretary of State is reporting the proposal losing 56 percent to 44 percent.
Despite the expected loss, noted author and climate activist Bill McKibben gave props to the Yes campaign, tweeting, "Big Oil had to break every spending record in Washington to narrowly beat this carbon tax. All respect!"
Initiative 1631, backed by a broad range of supporters from the Nature Conservancy to Microsoft to the Suquamish Tribe, has been described as "a chance to tackle climate change head on" and "a possible harbinger of greater state and regional action to come."
If successful, the measure would have created a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon, with the amount increaing $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met. Those revenues would have funded a kind of Green New Deal, being used for renewable energy infrastructure, protecting water quality, and investing in local communities. The New York Times editorial board recently wrote that passage of 1631 could have provide "a template, or at least valuable lessons, for other states to follow; and (let's dream for a moment) it might even encourage Congress to take action on a national program."
So what's the takeaway from the expected defeat?
"The lesson of the loss is not that people oppose climate action," argue Alan Durning, Kristin Eberhard, Aven Frey, and Michael Andersen of Seattle-based think tank the Sightline Institute. "One of the lessons is that dirty fuel companies do not want to be held to account for their pollution, and they are willing to spend big to avoid responsibility. Unfortunately, corporate interests' money bought a crush of messages during a heated election and scared and misled enough voters."
Still, "Big Oil is losing its grip on the economy, bending to local community demands, and the transition to a clean energy is no longer a question of if, but when," they continue. "Nonetheless, it is becoming clear that voters' path to victory must include some democracy reforms that give the people a fighting chance even when Big Money wants something else."
Meteorologist Eric Holthaus added on Twitter: "This issue isn't going away. Neither will those working tirelessly to safeguard our planet and our civilization."