NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Friday, October 7th, 2016

Poll Watch: Tina Podlodowski narrowly ahead of Kim Wyman; I‑732 well under fifty percent

With Novem­ber 8th only a month away, we’re start­ing to see new polling released on a near-dai­ly basis. Today, KOMO TV and Strate­gies 360 released a new set of results from a recent poll they col­lab­o­rat­ed on, while Tina Pod­lodowski’s cam­paign dis­trib­uted find­ings from a poll show­ing Pod­lodows­ki nar­row­ly ahead of incum­bent Repub­li­can Kim Wyman in the con­test for Wash­ing­ton Sec­re­tary of State.

With Gov­er­nor Jay Inslee and U.S. Sen­a­tor Pat­ty Mur­ray wide­ly expect­ed to cruise to new terms, and Attor­ney Gen­er­al Bob Fer­gu­son with­out a Repub­li­can oppo­nent this year, the mar­quee matchups are fur­ther downballot.

Per­haps no con­test is con­sid­ered to be as close as that for Sec­re­tary of State. Incum­bent Kim Wyman is the only Repub­li­can cur­rent­ly serv­ing in the exec­u­tive depart­ment, and faces an incred­i­bly strong Demo­c­ra­t­ic chal­lenger in for­mer Seat­tle City Coun­cilmem­ber and expe­ri­enced busi­ness leader Tina Podlodowski.

In the August Top Two elec­tion, Wyman gar­nered 47.9%. Pod­lodows­ki fin­ished only 23,882 votes behind, cap­tur­ing 46.13% of the vote.

Democ­rats are fired up about Pod­lodowski’s chances, while Repub­li­cans are increas­ing­ly ner­vous about Wyman’s.

Pod­lodowski’s cam­paign has just giv­en them anoth­er rea­son to be con­cerned by releas­ing fresh polling that shows Pod­lodows­ki ahead.

Norm­ing­ton Petts — which also counts Hillary Clin­ton, Jason Kan­der, and Tam­my Duck­worth as clients — reports that in a sur­vey con­duct­ed from Sep­tem­ber 27th-29th of six hun­dred like­ly Novem­ber vot­ers, 35% of respon­dents said they planned to vote for Pod­lodows­ki, while only 31% planned to vote for Wyman.

“Pod­lodows­ki leads despite the fact that near­ly twice as many vot­ers know Wyman,” not­ed NP’s Jill Norm­ing­ton in a memo pre­pared for pub­lic distribution.

“Not only is Pod­lodows­ki already ahead of Wyman, the major­i­ty of unde­cid­ed vot­ers are Democ­rats. Of the 34% who are cur­rent­ly unde­cid­ed, 53% are Democ­rats, while 25% are Inde­pen­dents and 22% are Repub­li­cans. More­over, the unde­cid­ed vot­ers at the Sec­re­tary of State lev­el are vot­ing for Gov­er­nor Jay Inslee for reelec­tion 51%-21%. If Pod­lodows­ki has the nec­es­sary resources to per­suade these unde­cid­ed vot­ers, she will be in a strong posi­tion to win in November.”

The Norm­ing­ton Petts sur­vey has a mar­gin of error of ±4.0%

Mean­while, Strate­gies 360 and KOMO TV have released results that show U.S. Sen­a­tor Pat­ty Mur­ray with a com­fy lead over Repub­li­can chal­lenger Chris Vance.

“In this poll of 500 like­ly vot­ers inter­viewed statewide, 57% said they would vote for Mur­ray, as opposed to 36% for Vance,” report­ed KOMO’s Robert Mak. “Mur­ray, first elect­ed to the Sen­ate in 1992, main­tains a high approval rat­ing with 57% view­ing her favor­ably, and 30% hav­ing an unfa­vor­able impression.”

KOMO/Strategies 360 also released results for three of the six ini­tia­tives that are appear­ing on Wash­ing­ton’s bal­lot. They found:

  • 62% sup­port for Ini­tia­tive 1433 (min­i­mum wage and paid leave);
  • 79% sup­port for Ini­tia­tive 1491 (extreme risk pro­tec­tion orders);
  • 42% sup­port for Ini­tia­tive 732 (Car­bon­WA’s tax swap scheme).

Back in June, NPI and Pub­lic Pol­i­cy Polling asked a sam­ple of like­ly vot­ers about these same ini­tia­tives, and found the following:

  • 58% sup­port for Ini­tia­tive 1433 (min­i­mum wage and paid leave);
  • 73% sup­port for Ini­tia­tive 1491 (extreme risk pro­tec­tion orders);
  • 52% sup­port for Ini­tia­tive 732 (Car­bon­WA’s tax swap scheme).

I‑1433 and I‑1491 polled 4% and 6% high­er, respec­tive­ly, in the KOMO/Strategies 360 poll than in our poll, which sug­gests that vot­ers are actu­al­ly becom­ing more enthused about these pro­gres­sive ideas, not less. That’s encouraging.

The same can­not be said about Car­bon­WA’s I‑732, a pro­pos­al to levy a tax on pol­lu­tants and use the rev­enue to can­cel out sales and B&O tax­es — includ­ing much of what’s left of Boe­ing’s already-reduced tax obligations.

With a month left to go, I‑732 is under water. Only 42% of respon­dents sur­veyed by KOMO/Strategies 360 indi­cat­ed sup­port for I‑732. 37% indi­cat­ed oppo­si­tion, and 21% report­ed that they are undecided.

Unde­cid­ed vot­ers can swing yes or no, as Car­bon­WA point­ed out sev­er­al weeks ago after Stu­art Elway pub­lished research show­ing lack­lus­ter sup­port for I‑732 and a high num­ber of unde­cid­ed vot­ers. How­ev­er, it is more com­mon for unde­cid­ed vot­ers to break no than yes when a strong oppo­si­tion cam­paign is in place to effec­tive­ly make the argu­ments against. When in doubt, peo­ple tend to vote no.

I‑732 arguably faces stronger oppo­si­tion than any of the oth­er ini­tia­tives on the bal­lot this year. Though NPI would very much like to put a price on pol­lu­tion, we oppose I‑732 because we believe it is fatal­ly flawed. So does the labor com­mu­ni­ty and pro­gres­sive orga­ni­za­tions like OneAmerica.

KOMO/Strategies 360 appear not to have polled on I‑1501, I‑1464, or I‑735, which are also on Wash­ing­ton’s Novem­ber 2016 statewide ballot.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation


  1. You folks need to reeval­u­ate your mis­tak­en oppo­si­tion to 732. Much of what you say is demon­stra­bly inaccurate.

    Polling is increas­ing­ly favor­able for I 732

    In August it was 34% for, 37% against, 30% undecided
    The last poll is 42% for, 37% no, 21% undecided

    I 732 is now ahead and unde­cid­eds are mov­ing towards it as they learn more about it.

    I 732 is the most pro­gres­sive, pro-envi­ron­ment mea­sure in decades and it is stun­ning you folks are not sup­port­ing it.

    A car­bon tax is sup­port­ed wide­ly as the most effec­tive way to reduce car­bon usage. The funds are used to make our state tax sys­tem less regres­sive, some­thing all pro­gres­sives support.
    The rev­enue-neg­a­tive esti­mates have been proven to be in error (check Sight­line) and I732 is very, very close to neu­tral­i­ty. You can’t do any better.

    Do you folks want to end up like the Nad­er sup­port­ers who helped elect Bush? Do you want to have the respon­si­bil­i­ty of defeat­ing the most pro­gres­sive, effec­tive means of reduc­ing car­bon usage avail­able? You are work­ing against facts and your own inter­ests. Can you reconsider?…cliff mass

    # by Cliff Mass :: October 8th, 2016 at 10:57 AM
  2. Cliff, it’s Octo­ber. Bal­lots are about to drop. An ini­tia­tive that’s well under fifty per­cent is in bad shape — peri­od. Below fifty per­cent is a place that a Yes cam­paign does not want to be.

    Are the num­bers for I‑732 in the Strate­gies 360 poll bet­ter than the August Elway poll? Sure… but they’re also worse than NPI’s own poll back in June, which I ref­er­enced above and which you omit­ted in your comment. 

    Add in our research, and you can’t say “polling is increas­ing­ly favor­able for I‑732”. We found I‑732 with 52% sup­port statewide in June. Best show­ing we’ve seen for it. KOMO/Strategies 360’s research puts I‑732 at 42% sup­port. And keep in mind that on the oth­er ini­tia­tives they test­ed (I‑1433, I‑1491), they found high­er sup­port than we did. Those cam­paigns are clear­ly in a posi­tion to win.

    How the unde­cid­ed vot­ers break will cer­tain­ly mat­ter. But as I said above, when in doubt, peo­ple tend to vote no. 

    We dis­agree with your char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of I‑732. There is very lit­tle about it we find progressive. 

    Yoram Bau­man has admit­ted that Car­bon­WA craft­ed I‑732 in order to go chas­ing after Repub­li­can vot­ers, who polling con­sis­tent­ly shows are sim­ply not inter­est­ed in putting a price on pol­lu­tion. As he said:

    I am increas­ing­ly con­vinced that the path to cli­mate action is through the Repub­li­can Par­ty. Yes, there are chal­lenges on the right — skep­ti­cism about cli­mate sci­ence and about tax reform — but those are sur­mount­able with time and effort. The same can­not be said of the chal­lenges on the left: an unyield­ing desire to tie every­thing to big­ger gov­ern­ment, and a will­ing­ness to use race and class as polit­i­cal weapons in order to pur­sue that desire.

    We can do so much bet­ter than I‑732.

    I‑732 ded­i­cates no mon­ey to tack­le our mas­sive infra­struc­ture deficit and ease our tran­si­tion to a clean ener­gy econ­o­my. Instead, rev­enue would be used to can­cel out oth­er tax­es, includ­ing much of what is left of Boe­ing’s tax oblig­a­tions.

    I advise you to stop try­ing to shame peo­ple into sup­port­ing I‑732 by telling them that if they don’t vote for I‑732, they will be akin to Nad­er supporters/Bush enablers. You’ve been say­ing this a lot, Cliff, and it’s not help­ing your cause. 

    We’ve been dis­cussing I‑732’s flaws here on the Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate peri­od­i­cal­ly for over a year. Our assess­ment is that I‑732 is bad pol­i­cy. NPI there­fore rec­om­mends a NO vote on I‑732.

    The real cli­mate action plan on the bal­lot this year is Sound Tran­sit 3, which we strong­ly sup­port. In the words of Michael Brune:

    Sound Tran­sit esti­mates that if Propo­si­tion 1 pass­es, the entire Sound Tran­sit sys­tem by 2040 would reduce an esti­mat­ed 793,000 tons of green­house-gas emis­sions annu­al­ly and cut vehi­cle miles trav­eled by near­ly 300 mil­lion to 400 mil­lion miles as peo­ple switch from sit­ting in traf­fic to rid­ing on tran­sit. If Wash­ing­ton state is going to do its part to reduce green­house-gas emis­sions to the lev­els called for in the recent­ly rat­i­fied Paris cli­mate agree­ment, it needs an ambi­tious invest­ment in rapid-tran­sit like Sound Tran­sit 3.

    We agree and we urge a yes vote on Region­al Propo­si­tion 1. 

    # by Andrew :: October 8th, 2016 at 12:38 PM
  3. Andrew writes that Sound Tran­sit Propo­si­tion 1 would reduce an esti­mat­ed 793,000 tonnes of GHG annually.

    I‑732, if approved, is expect­ed to lead to a 10% reduc­tion in WA’s annu­al emis­sions of 83 mil­lion tonnes of GHG. Do the math… that’s 8.3 mil­lion tonnes annu­al­ly, or more than 10X what Propo­si­tion 1 hopes for.

    While I think that Propo­si­tion 1 is wor­thy to vote for, it’s no sub­sti­tute for a car­bon tax.

    While I would also vote for a car­bon tax that pro­vides lots of rev­enues for crum­bling infra­struc­ture and green jobs, the fact is that a) tax increas­es are a tough sell in our state; and a) no such alter­na­tive ini­tia­tive exists on the bal­lot — nobody but Car­bon­WA i732 man­aged to get off their butts to write one. We can’t afford to wait anoth­er 4 years. I urge a “yes” vote on i732.

    # by Christopher E Greacen :: October 15th, 2016 at 5:29 PM
  4. I have to agree with Cliff on your oppo­si­tion to I‑732. It does­n’t make sense. I recent­ly just reg­is­tered in Clark Coun­ty after liv­ing in Clacka­mas Coun­ty, OR specif­i­cal­ly to vote ‘YES’ on this propo­si­tion. As a for­mer Ore­gon­ian (no sales tax) and some­one who is cur­rent­ly unem­ployed, I can tell you how shame­ful it is for orga­ni­za­tions pur­port­ing to be con­cerned about cli­mate change AND low-income/mi­nor­i­ty com­mu­ni­ties to be active­ly telling Wash­ing­to­ni­ans to vote against this mea­sure in the hopes that, some­day in the future, we will have a ‘divine’ car­bon tax scheme that exac­er­bates this state’s already hor­ri­bly regres­sive tax sys­tem. It’s a sleight of hand and naked­ly polit­i­cal agenda.

    British Colum­bia passed a rev­enue neu­tral car­bon tax in 2008 or 2009 and it has been suc­cess­ful. The entire coun­try of Cana­da will now have car­bon tax as well. Wash­ing­ton State now has that oppor­tu­ni­ty and you’re telling us ‘NO’ because it would cost the state of Wash­ing­ton $800 mil­lion over 3 bienniums? 

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers what Wash­ing­ton’s annu­al rev­enue gen­er­a­tion is and what per­cent that new short­fall would be? 

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that fix­ing the bud­get short­fall pri­or to putting it on the bal­lot was not polit­i­cal­ly fea­si­ble and that any changes to the tax sys­tem, includ­ing what Boe­ing pays, can be made after it passes?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that if it was­n’t rev­enue neu­tral or close to rev­enue neu­tral, as you have pro­posed, than you would be adding an addi­tion­al sales tax to a state that has no income tax, there­by hurt­ing low income com­mu­ni­ties not help­ing them?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that Wash­ing­ton’s true bud­get short­fall is the result of rely­ing pre­dom­i­nant­ly on a sales tax in the age of the Inter­net and that this new tax shift was nev­er designed to fix that problem?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that Wash­ing­ton’s ini­tia­tive process is gov­erned by the sin­gle-sub­ject rule and any alter­na­tive pro­pos­al includ­ing spend­ing col­lect­ed tax from a car­bon tax on a host of envi­ron­men­tal group’s wish list items could be open to legal challenge?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that Repub­li­cans and con­ser­v­a­tives are also peo­ple, that their voic­es mat­ter, that they vote, and that your Yoram Bau­man quote is iron­i­cal­ly apt?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that if they pass this mea­sure now, it becomes more polit­i­cal­ly fea­si­ble for oth­er states includ­ing Ore­gon and Cal­i­for­nia, should its cap and trade sys­tem be deemed a tax and scrapped, to imple­ment their own car­bon tax schemes thus snow­balling the move­ment to mit­i­gate increas­ing glob­al tem­per­a­tures in a coun­try with the tech­nol­o­gy and GDP to do it?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers what the cur­rent costs and trends are for the price of renew­able ener­gy and that fur­ther sub­si­diz­ing those indus­tries runs the risk of entrench­ing cor­po­rate inter­ests and idio­syn­crat­ic lob­by­ing efforts for decades to come as was the case for fos­sil fuels?

    Did you for­get to tell vot­ers that Washington’s ener­gy pro­duc­tion port­fo­lio is already major­i­ty renew­able when includ­ing hydro­elec­tric­i­ty and that a car­bon tax in this state is designed to mit­i­gate trans­porta­tion sec­tor car­bon emis­sions not ener­gy pro­duc­tion unless you think EV’s and vehi­cle automa­tion are already mature and ful­ly adopt­ed technologies?

    …And who in their right mind (out of all the things writ­ten in this post) thinks that Sound Tran­sit 3 is the ‘REAL’ cli­mate action plan com­pared to I‑732? Every trans­porta­tion engi­neer would find that claim laugh­able. You want to wait until 2040 with all the known issues and uncer­tain­ties sur­round­ing large trans­porta­tion projects pro­ject­ed decades in advance to see which one reduced CO2 emis­sions more up to that point in time? Bye bye coastal Flori­da. For the record, Seat­tle is not the entire state of Wash­ing­ton. Just, you know, FYI. 

    You aren’t telling vot­ers these things because, like the lob­by­ing groups, you have a nar­row focus and mind­set on what is right and what isn’t. Frankly, I’m glad econ­o­mists at UW and not envi­ron­men­tal and labor groups wrote this propo­si­tion because they’re not up to the task. They miss the for­est for the trees on issues of the gravest importance.

    If you’re going to wait around to mit­i­gate fos­sil fuel use by not com­pro­mis­ing when the oppor­tu­ni­ty presents itself, your shoot­ing your­self (and every­one else includ­ing Earth) in the foot (read: face). Get your act togeth­er. This is edi­to­ri­al­ized nonsense!

    # by Drew Mahedy :: October 17th, 2016 at 12:51 PM
  5. Dear Andrew and all

    My per­son­al and pro­fes­sion­al opin­ion is that some pro­gres­sive groups like NPI who are opposed to I‑732 are clear­ly mak­ing per­fect the ene­my of good.

    Andrew, I respect your opin­ion about I‑732 not putting the tax­es towards infra­struc­ture and oth­er cli­mate mit­i­ga­tion (or cli­mate reduc­tion) strate­gies, but I respect­ful­ly dis­agree that it is “fatal­ly lawed”.. Just look at what you said about ST3 (which I also support):

    “…the entire Sound Tran­sit sys­tem by 2040 would reduce an esti­mat­ed 793,000 tons of green­house-gas emis­sions annually…”

    The oper­a­tive part of that sen­tence is 2040! That’s 25 years from now, a time when sci­en­tists tell us that we will have already blown past the abil­i­ty to keep warm­ing to 2°C and ocean acid­i­fi­ca­tion will by some esti­mates have already doomed most of the world’s coral reefs. 

    That is unless we dras­ti­cal­ly reduce car­bon pol­lu­tion now, some­thing which many econ­o­mists and sci­en­tists alike agree that a car­bon tax has the best chance of accomplishing.

    Just as many of us in WA state vot­ed for I‑502 despite its flaws, I would like­wise sug­gest a vote on I‑732 even if you think it does­n’t go far enough.

    You all know full well that tax­es are VERY dif­fi­cult to pass in this state, hence the rev­enue neu­tral­i­ty of this ini­tia­tive. This is the same approach cur­rent­ly work­ing well in British Colum­bia for the past sev­en years, and it is the strat­e­gy advo­cat­ed by one of the lead­ing (and orig­i­nal) voic­es in the USA argu­ing for urgent action on cli­mate change: Dr. James Hansen.

    As for the B&O tax cred­it, this is a drop in the buck­et com­pared to the tax breaks that Boe­ing already gets, so I think this is a dis­trac­tion from the real issue at hand. The big­ger issue is this tax cred­it address­es a very valid con­cern with rais­ing a statewide car­bon tax: man­u­fac­tur­ers may decide to relocate.

    The key is this: pol­luters will pay more, thus incen­tiviz­ing low­er car­bon man­u­fac­tur­ing and oth­er lifestyle choic­es through­out the state. 

    On such an urgent issue like cli­mate change, we do not have the lux­u­ry to wait when we are so clear­ly long over­due address­ing it. We need to act now and act bold­ly. Any slight vari­a­tions from rev­enue neu­tral­i­ty in I‑732 can be fixed leg­isla­tive­ly, but extinct ani­mals and flood­ed islands can’t.

    Please vote YES on I‑732.

    Jason Hodin, Ph.D.

    Senior Research Scientist
    UW Fri­day Har­bor Marine Laboratory
    Fri­day Har­bor, WA

    # by Jason Hodin :: October 17th, 2016 at 7:17 PM
    • Drew, Jason, thanks for stop­ping by and shar­ing your thoughts.

      I’m dis­ap­point­ed to hear pro­po­nents of Car­bon­WA’s I‑732 con­tin­ue to hold up British Columbi­a’s expe­ri­ence as some kind of a suc­cess sto­ry, when it’s noth­ing of the sort. Drew, you wrote:

      British Colum­bia passed a rev­enue neu­tral car­bon tax in 2008 or 2009 and it has been suc­cess­ful. The entire coun­try of Cana­da will now have car­bon tax as well. 

      And Jason, you wrote:

      You all know full well that tax­es are VERY dif­fi­cult to pass in this state, hence the rev­enue neu­tral­i­ty of this ini­tia­tive. This is the same approach cur­rent­ly work­ing well in British Colum­bia for the past sev­en years, and it is the strat­e­gy advo­cat­ed by one of the lead­ing (and orig­i­nal) voic­es in the USA argu­ing for urgent action on cli­mate change: Dr. James Hansen.

      Your com­ments lead me to won­der just how famil­iar you both are with the pol­i­tics of British Colum­bia. I have been up there to cov­er their elec­tions for NPI. I’ve met with activists and can­di­dates; I’ve attend­ed cam­paign events held by both of the main polit­i­cal par­ties (the BCNDP and the B.C. Liberals). 

      The real­i­ty is that B.C.‘s emis­sions have been going up, not down. The province is sim­ply not the cli­mate action leader it claims to be, as the B.C. Sier­ra Club will tell you. The car­bon tax they have is not keep­ing emis­sions in check. 

      On Mon­day of this week, Food & Water Watch released a report exam­in­ing B.C.‘s car­bon tax, con­clud­ing it has been a fail­ure. They note:

      The Cana­di­an province of British Colum­bia imple­ment­ed a car­bon tax on cer­tain fos­sil fuels in July of 2008. Some experts and pric­ing pro­po­nents are using the British Colum­bia car­bon tax exam­ple to pro­mote car­bon tax­es and oth­er mar­ket mech­a­nisms as a way to pur­port­ed­ly reduce green­house gas emis­sions and address our cli­mate prob­lem. Unfor­tu­nate­ly for these free-mar­ket pro­po­nents, the real-world record fails to demon­strate that British Columbia’s car­bon tax reduced car­bon emis­sions, fos­sil fuel con­sump­tion or vehi­cle trav­el. Most of the mod­est and short-term reduc­tions in emis­sions seem to be relat­ed pri­mar­i­ly to the 2008 glob­al reces­sion, not to the car­bon tax. More recent­ly, British Columbia’s emis­sions have resumed their rise.

      This report exam­ines the British Colum­bia pro­gram and finds that this type of pric­ing approach is not going to save the plan­et or safe­guard our com­mu­ni­ties. A more straight­for­ward approach of reg­u­lat­ing emis­sions would be sig­nif­i­cant­ly more effec­tive at curb­ing cli­mate change.

      The full report is here.

      When I was up in B.C. in 2013 for the provin­cial elec­tion, Christy Clark (who’s still in charge of the province) was boast­ing about how liq­ue­fied nat­ur­al gas (LNG) was the future — and the key to financ­ing B.C.‘s schools. I was hor­ri­fied. She and her par­ty pay lip ser­vice to the idea of cli­mate action, but they seem­ing­ly haven’t met a pipeline or export ter­mi­nal project they don’t like. The B.C. Lib­er­als are gophers for the fos­sil fuels indus­try north of the bor­der. In NPI’s view, they are one of the biggest groups of green­wash­ers in history. 

      To slow down our plan­et’s fever, we MUST aban­don fos­sil fuels. We have to ban frack­ing (a posi­tion Bernie Sanders spoke to dur­ing his cam­paign and thank­ful­ly pressed Hillary Clin­ton to adopt), we need a mora­to­ri­um on oil/coal trains, we need to put the kibosh on all pro­posed coal/oil/LNG export ter­mi­nals — we need to take aggres­sive action to stop per­pet­u­at­ing our depen­dence on fos­sil fuels. We can’t wait to do this.

      Under Christy Clark and the not-lib­er­al B.C. Lib­er­als, British Colum­bia is going in the WRONG DIRECTION. (Cana­da as a whole is hav­ing prob­lems end­ing its fos­sil fuel depen­den­cy too.)

      Yet, mere­ly because B.C. has a car­bon tax it imposed years ago under a dif­fer­ent gov­ern­ment, it’s mis­lead­ing­ly being held up as this shin­ing role mod­el, again and again, by Car­bon­WA rep­re­sen­ta­tives in pre­sen­ta­tions they’ve giv­en across this state, as a val­i­da­tion of the approach they’ve cho­sen. The Yes on 732 camp is not telling peo­ple the whole sto­ry about what’s going in British Colum­bia. That upsets me. The team at NPI stands in sol­i­dar­i­ty with the tribes and pro­gres­sive activists in B.C. who are fight­ing every day to stop bad projects like the Kinder Mor­gan pipeline. 

      We do not want to fol­low B.C.‘s lead on ener­gy and pol­lu­tion pric­ing — they are the poster child for what NOT to do!

      If we’re going to imple­ment a pol­lu­tion tax here in Wash­ing­ton State, then let’s do it thought­ful­ly and let’s raise some rev­enue to address our infra­struc­ture deficit. Instead of I‑732, NPI would like to see us come togeth­er as a state to craft a pol­i­cy that has near unan­i­mous sup­port from pro­gres­sives and also earns the sup­port of bicon­cep­tu­als and rea­son­able, envi­ron­men­tal­ly-con­scious con­ser­v­a­tives. We reject as total­ly false the con­tention that it’s 732 or nothing.

      # by Andrew :: October 28th, 2016 at 9:29 PM
  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: