WRECA represents 15 utilities in rural Washington that serve roughly 75% of the state by land mass, but only 6% of the population. "I think their idea was right we need to do something to reduce carbon but this just isn't the way to do it," says Kent Lopez, executive director of the Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Association. "They got enough money that they just get out of it, or they go someplace else." "They don't ever hold the big people accountable," he said. Heating, electricity and natural gas prices would also rise.Īnd in eastern Washington, where winters are colder and people tend to drive more than in the Seattle area, Creveling believes it will put more rural people out of business-that the big corporations won't feel the pain. According to an independent estimate, the carbon fee would increase gasoline prices by up to 14 cents per gallon per year. And that's where the climate change ballot initiative gets him.įossil fuel companies are free to pass the costs of the carbon fee on to customers. His family may be land rich, but Creveling says everyone in the business is cash poor. It's just a way of life and that's the way it's always been," Creveling says. The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents several fossil fuel companies doing business in the state, has spent close to $30 million opposing the carbon fee.Īnd in the more rural and conservative parts of Washington it's not just the fossil fuel industry that opposes Initiative 1631.ĭave Creveling's family has raised cows in the Methow Valley on the eastern side of the Cascade mountains since just after the civil war. But so far, neither ballot initiatives nor legislation have passed. The fee will generate $2.3 billion during the first five years, which could be used for a broad range of environmental and climate-related projectsĮnvironmental groups, citizens and some state legislators have made repeated efforts to institute a tax on carbon or a cap and trade program in order to reduce emissions at the state level. Initiative 1631 places a fee on carbon emissions of $15 dollars per ton that would increase each year by $2 per ton until the state meets its greenhouse gas reduction goals. A large coalition of environmental groups, businesses, tribes and social justice organizations say it is the "necessary first step" in fighting climate that will set an example for other states across the nation. The initiative has garnered broad support in the more urban, liberal parts of the state. Unlike carbon reduction efforts before it This initiative is the first of its kind nationally because of the billions of dollars it would generate-and it's become one of the most expensive ballot initiative fights in Washington state history. Ballot Initiative 1631 is the latest in a string of failed legislative efforts in the state to charge polluters for the carbon they are emitting. The fossil fuel industry has spent more than $25 million opposing a ballot initiative in Washington state that would put a fee on carbon emissions. “This is going to have really substantial implications” for reducing carbon emissions across Washington, he added.Rancher Dave Creveling believes the cost of a new Washington state carbon fee would be passed along to rural people like him if voters approve it. In a statement, Fawn Sharp, president of the National Congress of American Indians and vice president of the Quinault Indian Nation, said lawmakers had “finally boldly confronted the existential threat of climate change.”Ī representative for the energy company BP on Saturday also applauded the bill’s success in a statement, calling it a “critical bill for lowering carbon emissions.”Ĭarlyle also pointed to a deal struck by Democratic lawmakers that could bring votes Sunday on a low-carbon transportation fuels standard, another longtime priority of many Democrats. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, during Saturday’s floor debate.Įnvironmental groups Saturday hailed the legislation’s passage. “What I feel in my heart right now is a very heavy weight, because I know that there are families in my district from across the racial demographic who will never be able to bear the weight of what this bill promises,” said Sen. Republicans have blasted the legislation as a burden on businesses that would also mean increased costs for Washingtonians. The measure also adds requirements that air quality be monitored in communities that suffer disproportionate environmental and health effects from pollution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |