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."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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."