I-1631: Climate expert’s opposition is persuasive

Re: “In a desperate time, I-1631 pollution fee gets a “Yes, but ...” (TNT endorsement, 10/17).

University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass has reached a strong opinion concerning Initiative 1631, contrary to that of the TNT.

Mass’ opinion piece was published Oct. 14 at cliffmass.blogspot.com. I found it much more persuasive than your lukewarm endorsement .

His piece supports these arguments:

(1) The initiative doesn’t say how to spend the billions the proposed new tax would generate, thus creating a political feeding frenzy.

(2) It would create a clumsy bureaucracy with only one elected official to direct tax investments.

(3) Special interests get big bucks, such as directing 10 percent of tax dollars to Indian tribes, while exempting tribes from paying the tax.

(4) The tax would not reduce carbon. Gas at the pump would increase about 14 cents per gallon in the first year, within normal market price fluctuations and not enough to change people’s behavior, which is the whole point of the tax.

(5) In sharp contrast to recently failed Initiative 732, I-1631 taxes would not be revenue-neutral and giant petroleum corporations would pass price increases directly to consumers.

Carbon pollution deserves our most serious efforts. I-1631 would create serious problems while solving none.