Start writing a post


Why Washington voters should vote 'No'


On the ballot this November is a very important initiative, I-732, that seeks to cut carbon emissions through a tax that will increase over time. It seeks to curb carbon pollution, and will set an example for the rest of the country to follow. There are, however, significant weaknesses in the initiative that impede its ability to truly enact meaningful change. Washington voters should vote “No” on Initiative 732 in order to give environmental groups the opportunity to modify and strengthen the plan to impose a carbon tax.

There are a few concerns that critics have about this initiative that I would like to address before I argue my own criticisms. Answering these will help clear the ground to get to the root of the issue. For one, many critics are worried about the loss of jobs, but I argue this is not a likely result. In British Columbia, whose carbon tax I-732 is modeled after, jobs and the economy actually increased and was healthy and growing after the implementation of the tax. The World Bank called it “a world-leading example of how to tackle one of the greatest global challenges of our time: building an economy that will prosper in a carbon constrained world.” But just because it may not negatively affect jobs does not mean that it is the right course of action for our state.

A second criticism of I-732 is that it will increase the cost of consumption for the average consumer. By raising taxes on carbon emissions, the raise in spending might get passed on to the consumer. I-732, however, will not increase taxes overall, nor will it increase the cost of consumption, because sales taxes in Washington will be decreased as the carbon tax is increased. This will balance out the cost for the consumer.

The carbon tax will attempt to pressure energy companies to shift away from coal and oil to more sustainable and clean energy sources. But there are many negatives to this initiative that make me question its usefulness and effectiveness. Though I have showed how some of the common criticisms are not well-founded, I believe that overall this initiative has a lot of weaknesses that make it a feeble attempt at change.

First, I believe that I-732 does not go nearly far enough to fight climate change, and might lull Washington into complacency, thinking that we have actually done something to combat this growing concern. It will give us all a false sense of hope, when in reality, the Initiative will make little difference. The initiative places a $100 a ton cap on the tax. In reality, this is not a very steep figure, and will do little to discourage multi-billion dollar companies from burning carbon.

Second, I-732 is revenue neutral, and many claim that this neutrality is needless and unjust. It will not increase revenue in a state that badly needs it to improve education and other public services, let alone green infrastructure—like public transportation—that would make living sustainably more affordable. Thus, it cannot help low-income families live sustainably through an increase of green infrastructure. By not increasing funding for new, clean infrastructure, carbon based systems already in place will be allowed to continue their dominance.

One counter-proposal that has been suggested is a cap-and-trade program inspired by California’s success. This program gives incentives for decreasing pollution and building greener infrastructure. Many experts say this a program such as this will be a better option for fighting climate change and building a cleaner, more sustainable world.

These powerful drawbacks of I-732 are enough to make me skeptical of the benefits. I do agree that climate change needs to be fought with better legislation, but I-732 does not go far enough in its tax, nor will in increase revenue at all, and so it will do little to fight climate change. The only positive that I can really argue for is that it will hopefully set a precedent for other states to follow suit in passing legislation to increase carbon taxes, but Washington’s proposed tax is a weak attempt at change.

Vote “No” on I-732 and continue to push for stronger, more radical legislation that fights climate change, and support local groups pushing for divestment from fossil fuels. Climate change is a ubiquitous problem that affects us all, and it will take a holistic strategy to fight back, one that includes legislation, but most importantly, lifestyle changes.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Student Life

Social Media Or Soul Media

To the generation that cares way too much about affirmation.

Emma Smith
  • This semester I am taking the ever so famous class, Writing 101. Walking into it, I had heard the horror stories about each major assignment. I have to admit, it’s not a class that I am fond of. But, major assignment #2 got me thinking, we had to create a research question based off of a topic that we are interested in.

Two weeks prior, I watched a very interesting documentary on Netflix. Miss Representation was recommended to me by one of my friends and I have to say the topic is absolutely mind blowing. Social Media and Female Body Image. How Social Media makes girls see this unnatural perfection of ‘beauty’ that really doesn’t exist. But female body image isn’t the only thing affected by social media.

Keep Reading... Show less

Sex And The Church

A letter to fellow believers.

Amanda Hayes
  • I know many of you just read that title and thought it was scandalous to see something so “risque” in the same setting as something holy. Well guess what – sex is part of that. Everyone seems to think they are separate, which makes since because most people treat them as though they are complete polar opposites. Shall we think this through?

Who created the Church body? God. Who created the body? Also God. If we know God to be the creator of all things, we cannot leave sex out of that equation. God created sex, people! Praise Him! Like all great things, the world has twisted and perverted it. The world has stained it so badly that even many church congregations see it only as stained and keep quiet about that part of God’s word. Many people know that God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), but a lot of people overlook the entirety of Song of Solomon. The entire book is dedicated to telling of the love and sex between man and wife. God blessed us with the gift of intimacy, one to be shared between husband and wife. Church if we teach of sex as the blessing that it is, more people will start treating it as such. If we stop viewing sex as this unspeakable act, the temptation would be lessened. With the fall of man, humans naturally desire things they should not have. So if more people speak of it with gladness and praise, and do not hide it in the darkness as if it were vile, fewer people would be drawn to it for the wrong reasons. More people would appreciate it for what it is: a gift from God.

Keep Reading... Show less

Chick-fil-A, I love you.

Keep Reading... Show less

An open letter to my father

What you did sounds dumb to me

An open letter to my father
The Truth About My Parents' Divorce

Considering im 18 now & you're one of the best men i've ever met since you have a child; me. I want you to know that I love you, more than anyone, I love you. I don't forgive you for the way you hurt my mother. I'm hurt because you broke our family. Thing went down hill the day you found Laquita. You we're distant & shortly after my mother turned into the coldest, saddest women to walk past me. She's my best friend & so are you. Not one day goes by where I don't wonder what she did wrong. How on earth could you trade your family & the women who loved you unconditionally for a home wrecker? Sounds dumb to me.

Keep Reading... Show less

Is God Reckless?

Exploring the controversy behind the popular worship song "Reckless Love"

Is God Reckless?

First things first I do not agree with people getting so caught up in the specific theology of a song that they forget who they are singing the song to. I normally don't pay attention to negative things that people say about worship music, but the things that people were saying caught my attention. For example, that the song was not biblical and should not be sung in churches. Worship was created to glorify God, and not to argue over what kind of theology the artist used to write the song. I was not made aware of the controversy surrounding the popular song "Reckless Love" by Cory Asbury until about a week ago, but now that I am aware this is what I have concluded.The controversy surrounding the song is how the term reckless is used to describe God's love. This is the statement that Cory Asbury released after many people questioned his theology regarding his lyrics. I think that by trying to clarify what the song was saying he added to the confusion behind the controversy.This is what he had to say,
"Many have asked me for clarity on the phrase, "reckless love". Many have wondered why I'd use a "negative" word to describe God. I've taken some time to write out my thoughts here. I hope it brings answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope it brings you into an encounter with the wildness of His love.When I use the phrase, "the reckless love of God", I'm not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn't crafty or slick. It's not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it's quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn't consider Himself first. His love isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what He'll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time."
Some people are arguing that song is biblical because it makes reference to the scripture from Matthew 28:12-14 and Luke 15. Both of these scriptures talk about the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd symbolizes God and the lost sheep are people that do not have a relationship with God. On the other hand some people are arguing that using the term reckless, referring to God's character is heretical and not biblical. I found two articles that discuss the controversy about the song.The first article is called, "Reckless Love" By Cory Asbury - "Song Meaning, Review, and Worship Leading Tips." The writer of the article, Jake Gosselin argues that people are "Making a mountain out of a molehill" and that the argument is foolish. The second article, "God's Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing" by author Andrew Gabriel argues that using the term reckless is irresponsible and that you cannot separate Gods character traits from God himself. For example, saying that God's love is reckless could also be argued that God himself is reckless. Reckless is typically not a word that someone would use to describe God and his love for us. The term reckless is defined as (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action. However, Cory Asbury is not talking about a person, he is talking about God's passionate and relentless pursuit of the lost. While I would not have chosen the word reckless, I understand what he was trying to communicate through the song. Down below I have linked two articles that might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about the controversy.

Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments