GWPF Newsletter: Washington Voters Reject Carbon Tax For A Second Time

A Bad Day For Green Republicans

In this newsletter:

1) Washington Voters Reject Carbon Tax For A Second Time
The Daily Caller, 7 November 2018 
 
2) The Ballot Question That Could Transform U.S. Climate Politics
The Atlantic, 5 November 2018 

 
3) Carlos Curbelo, Republican Leader On Climate, Loses Tight Florida Race
Axios, 7 November 2018
 
4) A Bad Day For Green Republicans: Climate Caucus Republicans Suffer A String Of Election Defeats
The Daily Caller, 7 November 2018 
 
5) Climate Change Has Slipped From Voters' Minds
The Washington Examiner, 6 November 2018
 
6) Tom Steyer’s Renewable Energy Initiative Fails In Arizona
The Daily Caller, 7 November 2018
 
7) Editorial: State AGs for Rent
The Wall Street Journal, 7 November 2018

Full details:

1) Washington Voters Reject Carbon Tax For A Second Time
The Daily Caller, 7 November 2018 
Michael Bastasch

Washington voters rejected a ballot measure backed by a vast coalition of liberal groups to tax carbon dioxide emissions from in-state fossil fuel combustion.

The measure, called Initiative 1631, is the third attempt to impose a carbon tax in Washington state. Voters rejected a similar ballot measure in 2016, and carbon tax legislation failed earlier in 2018.

Had the measure passed, Washington would have become the first state to tax carbon dioxide emissions. The political battle over the tax became the most expensive in state history for a ballot measure — drawing $45 million in spending.

Initiative 1631 was put forward by the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, a coalition of environmentalists, businesses and other liberal groups. The measure called for taxing emissions at $15 a ton in 2020, which will increase at $2 a year above the rate of inflation until the state meets its emissions goals.

Most of the projected tax revenue raised would have gone toward green energy projects, with smaller amounts going toward protecting forests and blunting the effects of higher energy prices on poor families. Backers said the tax would create jobs and cut pollution.

“[W]hen it comes to children’s health, it has made something very clear, and that is the state of Washington needs to pass this clean air initiative, so these children can breathe clean air,” Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who backed Initiative 1631, said in August.

“They deserve that. The significance of this is profound,” Inslee said

Carbon tax supporters pumped over $15 million into their campaign, including $1 million each from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The Nature Conservancy and League of Conservation Voters were the two largest donors backing Initiative 1631, spending more than $3.3 million and $1.4 million, respectively, according to Ballotpedia.

However, carbon tax opponents spent over $30 million opposing Initiative 1631. The largest donors against the initiative were BP and Phillips 66, spending more than $20 million collectively, Ballotpedia reported.

Full post

2) The Ballot Question That Could Transform U.S. Climate Politics
The Atlantic, 5 November 2018 
Robinson Meyer

On Tuesday, residents of Washington State will vote on whether to adopt a carbon fee, an ambitious policy that aims to combat climate change by charging oil companies and other polluters for the right to emit greenhouse-gas pollution.

If the measure passes, Washington would immediately have one of the most aggressive climate policies in the country. The proposal—known as Ballot Initiative 1631—takes something of a “Green New Deal” approach, using the money raised by the new fee to build new infrastructure to prepare the state for climate change. It would generate millions to fund new public transit, solar and wind farms, and forest-conservation projects in the state; it would also direct money to a working-class coal community and a coastal indigenous tribe.

Despite its local focus, Initiative 1631 stands to reshape climate politics in places far from Seattle or Spokane. If it passes, Washington would become the first state in the country—and, in fact, the first large government anywhere in the world—to impose a price on carbon by ballot question. Victory might help convince national politicians—both Democrats and Republicans—who systematically underrate enthusiasm for climate policy, that Americans actually are willing to pay to fight climate change.
 

If Initiative 1631 fails, on the other hand, it would suggest that ambitious climate policy cannot find a winning coalition, even in one of the most outdoorsy states in the union. Its defeat would provide yet another example of how—even as the list of President Donald Trump’s unpopular environmental rollbacks grows by the month—blue states cannot actually convert their confessed concern for the natural world into the muscular work of government.
 

Full post

 3) Carlos Curbelo, Republican Leader On Climate, Loses Tight Florida Race
Axios, 7 November 2018
Amy Harder

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida lost re-election Tuesday to his Democrat challenger, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

Why it matters: Curbelo, a two-term Republican, was a top target for the Democrats from the get-go and considered a bellwether of a blue wave. The outcome also represents a loss for the Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan House caucus Curbelo founded in 2016.

Climate change is a top priority for Curbelo, who has regularly criticized President Trump on several issues.

Curbelo introduced legislation in July that taxes carbon emissions, the first substantive climate legislation by a Republican in a decade.

What’s next: The prospect of bipartisan climate policy, something many independent experts say is necessary to make substantive progress on the issue, drops significantly with Curbelo exiting Congress.

Full post

4) A Bad Day For Green Republicans: Climate Caucus Republicans Suffer A String Of Election Defeats
The Daily Caller, 7 November 2018 
Michael Bastasch

Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who supports a carbon tax, was among defeated House Republicans who are part of a caucus set up to push global warming policies.

Curbelo conceded to Democratic candidate Debbie Mucarsel-Powell on Tuesday night. Conservatives say the defeat of Curbelo, who’s called a GOP “leader” on global warming, shows how carbon taxes are still “politically toxic.”

“Curbelo could and should have been re-elected but he was talked into pushing an energy tax on all Americans — the so-called carbon tax — and as a result voters kicked him out of office,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), said in a statement.

Curbelo’s concession was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to defeats for Republicans in the Climate Solutions Caucus (CSC), a bipartisan group meant to put forward policies aimed at addressing global warming.

Caucus members defeated by their Democratic opponents included Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Scott Taylor of Virginia, Daniel Donovan of New York and Peter Roskam of Illinois.

ATR joined other conservative groups in opposing Curbelo’s carbon tax legislation. ATR called Curbelo’s defeat “yet another sign that carbon taxes are politically toxic.”

Full post 

5) Climate Change Has Slipped From Voters' Minds
The Washington Examiner, 6 November 2018
John Siciliano

Climate change is getting crowded out by other issues among voters' priorities in Tuesday’s midterm elections, with a sizable majority saying the issue won't influence their vote, according to year-long polling data.

At best, climate change is just one of many issues that voters are aware of, and will consider, as they vote.
At worst, it won’t have anything to do with how citizens vote on Tuesday, according to ongoing polling results from Reuters.

In answering whether climate change, or the environment, will motivate one's vote in an election, 84 percent said “no,” while 16 percent said "yes," according to the poll that began a year ago and continues through the election. Over 18,000 voters have responded to the poll so far.

"It always polls very low and people tend to care much more about higher profile issues like the economy, taxes, healthcare, and immigration,” said Frank Maisano, a principal at the law firm Bracewell, who represents clients in the energy and environment space.

“I am sure It may have some residual impact in some areas, but for the most part, it will be insignificant,” Maisano added.

Full story

6) Tom Steyer’s Renewable Energy Initiative Fails In Arizona
The Daily Caller, 7 November 2018
Jason Hopkins

A renewable energy initiative was rejected by Arizona voters Tuesday, dealing a major blow to environmental activists who hoped to increase the state’s development of wind and solar resources.

Proposition 127, a renewable energy initiative in Arizona, lost handily Tuesday, according to ABC Arizona, citing The Associated Press. The proposal was widely expected to go down in flames heading into Election Day.

Despite millions of dollars in backing from liberal activist Tom Steyer, Proposition 127 lost at the ballot box on Election Day. The ballot proposal called for the state’s utility companies to acquire 50 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, by 2030. If the proposal had been successful, it would have dramatically increased Arizona’s renewable energy mandate, which currently stands at 15 percent by 2025.

The battle over Proposition 127 pitted two main forces against each other: NextGen Climate Action and Pinnacle West. NextGen, an environmental organization funded by Steyer, dumped well over $20 million in an effort to convince Arizonans the mandate would be a good thing for the state. Pinnacle West — the parent company of Arizona Public Service, the biggest electric utility in the state — spent even more to convince voters otherwise.

The battle became Arizona’s costliest ballot initiative in history.

Very similar to a Steyer-led effort in Nevada, backers of Prop 127 argued it would help fight climate change and work well in the very sunny state of Arizona. However, Arizonans for Affordable Electricity — the initiative’s main opposition group — argued it would drastically raise utility rates on Arizonans.

“Arizona voters have spoken loud and clear, overwhelmingly rejecting Proposition 127. Much will be written and said in the coming days about why Prop 127 was defeated, but it’s really pretty simple,” Matthew Benson, a spokesman for Arizonans for Affordable Electricity, said in Tuesday night statement. “Arizonans support clean energy, but not costly, politically driven mandates. Arizonans support solar power and renewable technology, but not at the expense of an affordable, reliable energy supply. Arizonans prefer to choose our own energy future rather than have it dictated to us by out-of-state special interests.”

Full post

7) Editorial: State AGs for Rent
The Wall Street Journal, 7 November 2018

Privately funded litigators wield state police power.

With the courts and Trump Administration rolling back federal climate regulation, green activists have turned to the states. But there’s a troubling ethical twist: Instead of merely lobbying, activists are placing employees in Attorneys General offices in dubious private-public condominiums.

Consider a remarkable arrangement brokered by the NYU Law School’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center to fund legal services for state AGs. The group was launched in August 2017 to advance a liberal climate and energy agenda, courtesy of a $6 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which also financed the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

In August 2017 the NYU outfit emailed then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office, offering to cover the salary and benefits of “special assistant attorneys general,” pending an application from the office that demonstrated how the new attorneys would be used. These privately funded staffers would work out of an AG’s office for two years and deliver quarterly progress reports to the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center.

Those progress reports would explain “the contribution that the legal fellow has made to the clean energy, climate change, and environmental initiatives” within the attorney general’s office, according to a December 2017 draft of an agreement between the Center and the New York AG obtained by Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Attorneys General do sometimes bring on legal fellows or outside help to handle unique cases. But subject-matter experts aren’t in-house or chosen with specific intent to promote specific policies, according to Randy Pepple, who was chief of staff for former Washington Republican AG Rob McKenna. In the New York case, a special interest is funding staffers who could wield state law-enforcement power to punish opponents.

The State Energy and Environmental Impact Center made clear that state AG offices would only qualify for special assistant AGs if they “demonstrate a need and commitment to defending environmental values and advancing progressive clean energy, climate change, and environmental legal positions,” according to the August 2017 email to numerous AGs. Mr. Schneiderman’s office suggested in its application for the fellows that it “needs additional attorney resources to assist” in extracting compensation from fossil-fuel emitters.

That’s exactly what’s happening. The New York AG currently has two NYU fellows on staff, according to the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center.

One of the fellows, Gavin McCabe, signed off as “special assistant attorney general” on an amicus brief in June in support of New York City’s suit for damages against BP, Chevron , ConocoPhillips , Exxon Mobil , and Royal Dutch Shell for alleged climate sins. That case was thrown out in July by federal Judge John Kennan on grounds that problems arising from climate change “are not for the judiciary to ameliorate.”

The other, Matthew Eisenson, signed New York state’s suit filed last month against Exxon for allegedly misleading investors about the risks that climate-change regulations pose to its business. The free help will also make for welcome reinforcements in New York-led litigation against the Trump Administration, including a suit against the EPA for its methane regulation.

A lack of government transparency makes this arrangement especially troubling. The New York AG’s office, now run by Acting AG Barbara Underwood, declined to comment. Mr. McCabe and Mr. Eisenson could not be reached for comment by our deadline.

The State Energy and Environmental Impact Center said in a statement that the state offices it works with “has the authority consistent with applicable law and regulations to accept a Legal Fellow whose salary and benefits are provided by an outside funding source.” It added that it places workers with AGs who already have a long history of advancing the center’s energy priorities. “The work that NYU law fellows perform is directed by those AGs and not by the Center,” the Center said.

At least six state AG offices have already brought on board a special assistant attorney general, according to an August report by Mr. Horner. Besides New York, the jurisdictions include Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia. In September, Mr. Horner learned that Illinois and New Mexico have brought on special assistant AGs as well, which was confirmed by the NYU outfit.

The ethical problems here should be obvious. Private interests are leveraging the police powers of the state to pursue their political agenda, while a government official is letting private interests appear to influence enforcement decisions. None of this is reassuring about the fair administration of justice.

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.