Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

2016 Washington Initiative 732

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Failed carbon tax initiative

Washington Initiative 732 (2016)

Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction
Results
Choice
Votes%
Yes1,265,12340.75%
No1,839,41459.25%

County results
Congressional district results
Precinct results

Yes

  90–100%
  80–90%
  70–80%
  60–70%
  50–60%

No

  90–100%
  80–90%
  70–80%
  60–70%
  50–60%

Other

  Tie
  No data

Secretary of State of Washington
Elections in Washington (state)
Presidential elections
Presidential primaries
Democratic
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Republican
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
U.S. Senate elections
U.S. House of Representatives elections
General elections
Gubernatorial elections
Lieutenant gubernatorial elections
Secretary of State elections
State Treasurer elections
State Auditor elections
Attorney General elections
Superintendent of Public Instruction elections
Commissioner of Public Lands elections
Insurance Commissioner elections
State Senate elections
House of Representatives elections
Supreme Court elections

Washington Initiative 732 (I-732) was a ballot initiative in 2016 to levy acarbon tax in theState of Washington, and simultaneously reduce the state sales tax. It was rejected 59.2% to 40.8%.[1] The measure appeared on theNovember 2016 ballot.[2] The backers of I-732 submitted roughly 350,000 signatures in December 2015 to certify the initiative.[3]

The initiative was spearheaded byenvironmental economistYoram Bauman, a strong advocate ofcarbon pricing. It was modeled after theBritish Columbia carbon tax, which was considered "popular across the political spectrum".[4] The carbon tax inBritish Columbia caused the province's fuel consumption to decrease by 16% and itsgreenhouse gas emissions to decrease 3.5 times faster than the emissions ofCanada as a whole, while maintaining steady economic growth.[5]

Ballot measure summary

[edit]

The ballot measure summary as written by theSecretary of State of Washington:

"This measure would impose a carbon emission tax on the sale or use of certain fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity, at $15 per metric ton ofcarbon dioxide in 2017, and increasing gradually to $100 per metric ton (2016 dollars adjusted for inflation), with more gradual phase-in for some users. It would reduce the sales tax rate by one percentage point over two years, increase a low-income sales tax exemption, and reduce certain manufacturing taxes.[6]"

Provisions

[edit]

Initiative 732 contained four provisions:[7]

  • Creates a new tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels initially set at $15 per ton, rising to $25 per ton after 6 months, and increasing annually to a cap of $100 per ton.
  • Reduces the Washington State Sales Tax 1% from 6.5% to 5.5%
  • Reduces the Business and Occupation Tax on Manufacturing Businesses in Washington State to .001%
  • Funds theWorking Families Tax rebate program, a 25% match on the state's version of theearned income tax credit for 460,000 Washington households.

Supporting organizations

[edit]

The primary sponsor of Initiative 732 wasCarbonWA, a group founded byenvironmental economistYoram Bauman to promotecarbon pricing.The Audubon Society was also a major proponent of Initiative 732, "Audubon Washington believes Initiative 732 provides swift and effective action to reduce carbon pollution".[8] Other organizations that supported Initiative 732 included the Sightline Institute,[9] and theCitizens' Climate Lobby. Other supporters include Washington State legislatorJoe Fitzgibbon (D), Washington State SenatorSteve Litzow (R), Washington State SenatorJoe Fain (R), Washington State SenatorCyrus Habib (D),[10] and the editorial board ofThe Olympian.[11] Climate scientistJames Hansen, who has been involved with the Citizens' Climate Lobby for many years, strongly supported the proposal.[12]

The backers of initiative 732 claimed that I-732 "taxes carbon to fight climate change, boost clean energy, & save the environment for future generations".[13]

Non-supporting organizations

[edit]

Several environmental organizations chose to make a recommendation to "not support" the measure, as opposed to "support" or "oppose", including theSierra Club,[14]350.org Seattle (who originally supported the measure, and later rescinded their support),[15] andClimate Solutions.[16]

Common points made in their statements included concerns that the initiative would result in a budget shortfall, and concerns over how the initiative would spend carbon fee receipts, e.g., Climate Solutions stated:[16]

I-732 does not address the needs of communities hit hardest by pollution and the workers, energy-intensive businesses and others that will be most affected by the transition off of fossil fuels. These communities and sectors need investment in both infrastructure and services to address the health and environmental impacts of fossil fuel pollution and to enable them to benefit equitably from the transition to clean energy.

Opposing organizations

[edit]

Opponents to Initiative 732 included theWashington State Labor Council, stating: "I-732 would send Washington in the wrong direction and create more damaging austerity choices",[17] the Association of Washington Businesses,[18] and Longview Daily News.[19]

Several organizations opposed the measure from an "environmental justice" perspective, or with a reference to the necessary breadth of the supporting coalition, including Front and Centered (formerly: Communities of Color for Climate Justice),[20] and the Washington Environmental Council, stating:[21]

We have learned from past attempts in state and around the world, that in order to pass transformational carbon pollution policy and then defend against the oil industry’s attempts to repeal the law we must work with a broad, politically-powerful coalition. Washington Conservation Voters and Washington Environmental Council are part of a statewide coalition of leaders and grassroots activists representing communities of color, health organizations, labor groups, businesses, the faith community and others who are working together to develop, pass and defend a policy that will stand for the long haul in Washington and serve as an example for other states to follow.

Results

[edit]

Initiative 732 failed with 59% voting against.[22]

By county

[edit]
County results
County[23]NoYesMarginTotal votes
#%#%#%
Adams3,25072.58%1,22827.42%2,02245.15%4,478
Asotin6,53569.31%2,89330.69%3,64238.63%9,428
Benton56,59971.06%23,04728.94%33,55242.13%79,646
Chelan21,67566.99%10,68033.01%10,99533.98%32,355
Clallam24,04363.42%13,86836.58%10,17526.84%37,911
Clark125,77564.72%68,57135.28%57,20429.43%194,346
Columbia1,64276.76%49723.24%1,14553.53%2,139
Cowlitz31,03269.77%13,44330.23%17,58939.55%44,475
Douglas10,75871.34%4,32228.66%6,43642.68%15,080
Ferry2,64675.51%85824.49%1,78851.03%3,504
Franklin16,53370.70%6,85129.30%9,68241.40%23,384
Garfield92677.04%27622.96%65054.08%1,202
Grant20,57274.28%7,12325.72%13,44948.56%27,695
Grays Harbor18,83967.52%9,06232.48%9,77735.04%27,901
Island25,15760.35%16,52539.65%8,63220.71%41,682
Jefferson10,41753.52%9,04546.48%1,3727.05%19,462
King462,18648.59%489,02851.41%-26,842-2.82%951,214
Kitsap72,14759.40%49,31740.60%22,83018.80%121,464
Kittitas12,26167.09%6,01532.91%6,24634.18%18,276
Klickitat7,13868.54%3,27631.46%3,86237.08%10,414
Lewis25,27575.25%8,31124.75%16,96450.51%33,586
Lincoln4,48280.51%1,08519.49%3,39761.02%5,567
Mason18,36566.97%9,05633.03%9,30933.95%27,421
Okanogan11,86171.51%4,72528.49%7,13643.02%16,586
Pacific6,80766.27%3,46533.73%3,34232.54%10,272
Pend Oreille5,04775.29%1,65624.71%3,39150.59%6,703
Pierce210,29062.94%123,80737.06%86,48325.89%334,097
San Juan4,59443.82%5,88956.18%-1,295-12.35%10,483
Skagit34,46263.51%19,80236.49%14,66027.02%54,264
Skamania3,73968.74%1,70031.26%2,03937.49%5,439
Snohomish196,92759.47%134,20640.53%62,72118.94%331,133
Spokane152,61867.43%73,70432.57%78,91434.87%226,322
Stevens17,47277.90%4,95722.10%12,51555.80%22,429
Thurston77,42760.71%50,11139.29%27,31621.42%127,538
Wahkiakum1,62372.33%62127.67%1,00244.65%2,244
Walla Walla16,66567.46%8,04032.54%8,62534.91%24,705
Whatcom60,01156.08%47,00543.92%13,00612.15%107,016
Whitman10,68162.33%6,45537.67%4,22624.66%17,136
Yakima50,93767.43%24,60332.57%26,33434.86%75,540
Totals1,839,41459.25%1,265,12340.75%574,29118.50%3,104,537

Aftermath

[edit]

Although I-732 failed to pass, Carbon Washington continued to work to put aprice on carbon emissions in theState of Washington. They worked with others to supportWashington Initiative 1631, a carbon tax measure that appeared on the ballots in 2018[24][25] but was also rejected.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^"Washington Initiative 732 — Create Carbon Emission Tax — Results: Rejected".The New York Times. August 2017.
  2. ^"Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction, Initiative 732 (2016)".Ballotpedia.Lucy Burns Institute. RetrievedJuly 30, 2018.
  3. ^"I-732, I-735 sponsors turn in signatures".blogs.sos.wa.gov. RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  4. ^Roberts, David (October 18, 2016)."The left vs. a carbon tax".Vox.com. Vox. RetrievedOctober 25, 2016.
  5. ^Fragroso, Alejandro Davila (March 31, 2016)."British Columbia's Carbon Tax Has Been So Successful That Businesses Want To Increase It".ThinkProgress.Center for American Progress. RetrievedOctober 25, 2016.
  6. ^"Initiatives & Referendums - Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State".www.sos.wa.gov. RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  7. ^"Carbon Washington | Our Policy". RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  8. ^"Why We Support I-732". June 29, 2016. RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  9. ^"Weighing CarbonWA's Tax Swap Ballot Initiative".Sightline Institute. August 2016. RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  10. ^"Carbon Washington | Endorsements". RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  11. ^"Carbon tax proposal can move climate needle". RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  12. ^Hansen, James."Washington can lead on climate change by passing I-732".Seattle Times. RetrievedOctober 25, 2016.
  13. ^"Yes On Initiative 732".Carbon Washington. RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  14. ^"Sierra Club Position on Carbon Washington Ballot Initiative 732". April 26, 2016. RetrievedNovember 2, 2018.
  15. ^"Rescinding our endorsement of I-732". Archived fromthe original on November 11, 2018. RetrievedNovember 2, 2018.
  16. ^ab"Why we cannot support Initiative 732, but will not actively oppose it". RetrievedNovember 2, 2018.
  17. ^"WSLC opposes Initiative 732 carbon tax | The Stand".www.thestand.org. RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  18. ^"Employers can't afford to sit out election". RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  19. ^"No on Initiative 732". RetrievedAugust 7, 2016.
  20. ^"I-732 Blocks Progress on Climate Justice". December 30, 2015. RetrievedNovember 2, 2018.
  21. ^"WEC Statement on I-732". Archived fromthe original on March 6, 2017. RetrievedNovember 2, 2018.
  22. ^"2016 General Data".sos.wa.gov.Archived from the original on March 15, 2025.
  23. ^Wyman, Kim (November 8, 2016)."Initiative Measure No. 732 concerns taxes. - County Results".Secretary of State of Washington.Archived from the original on June 8, 2024. RetrievedNovember 21, 2025.
  24. ^"We support the carbon fee initiative I-1631 + news".Carbon Washington. Archived fromthe original on April 21, 2018. RetrievedJuly 30, 2018.
  25. ^"Washington Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative (2018)".Ballotpedia. RetrievedJuly 30, 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Washington_Initiative_732&oldid=1323445356"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp