RSN Fundraising Banner
Big Oil Pours Record $30 Million to Sway Voters Against Nation's First Carbon Tax
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48373"><span class="small">Nichola Groom, Reuters</span></a>   
Wednesday, 31 October 2018 13:19

Groom writes: "The U.S. oil industry has spent a record $30 million to fight a ballot measure in Washington state that would create the nation's first carbon tax, double what an alliance of green groups and billionaire activists has spent to support it, according to state data reviewed by Reuters."

Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), on the north end of March Point southeast of Anacortes, Washington. (photo: Walter Seigmund/CC)
Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), on the north end of March Point southeast of Anacortes, Washington. (photo: Walter Seigmund/CC)


Big Oil Pours Record $30 Million to Sway Voters Against Nation's First Carbon Tax

By Nichola Groom, Reuters

31 October 18

 

he U.S. oil industry has spent a record $30 million to fight a ballot measure in Washington state that would create the nation’s first carbon tax, double what an alliance of green groups and billionaire activists has spent to support it, according to state data reviewed by Reuters.

The big-ticket battle reflects the stakes of climate regulation. The oil industry is worried that new curbs on carbon emissions will hobble business, while environmental advocates are concerned that a failure to act soon to halt global warming will spell devastating consequences for the planet.

Washington is the nation’s fifth biggest fuel-producing state, with five refineries, according to the Energy Information Administration. It is also among several Democrat-led states that have vowed to pursue climate action in defiance of President Donald Trump’s agenda to ease regulation on fossil fuel companies.

The state’s Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative, known as Initiative 1631, would impose a $15 fee on each metric ton of carbon released to the atmosphere, rising $2 a year until the state’s 2035 emissions target is met. It would generate $2.3 billion over five years for clean energy and air programs if it is passed by voters in next week’s election, according to a state analysis.

The measure is on the ballot for the Nov. 6 elections.

A Crosscut/Elway poll this month showed half of voters approve of the initiative, with 36 percent against and 14 percent undecided.

If the measure passes, the oil industry is likely to feel the most pain since transportation is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington at 43 percent, according to a state report from 2016.

The Western States Petroleum Association raised $31.2 million from oil companies and business groups to oppose the measure, the most ever spent in the state to defeat a ballot initiative, according to state campaign finance data. The previous record was set in 2013, when agriculture and food companies spent $24 million to defeat a measure to require labeling of genetically engineered foods.

The anti-carbon tax money has fueled a months-long public relations blitz involving television and digital ads, flyers and mailers that argued the fee would drive up energy costs for consumers, small businesses and farms, and which criticized proposed exemptions for industries like aluminum, pulp and paper, and soon-to-retire coal-fired power plants.

“The state’s largest polluters would be exempt from 1631’s new costs, so many big corporations would pay nothing. But families, small businesses and farms would pay billions in higher energy costs,” farmer Rosella Mosby says in one ad while standing in a field on her family’s vegetable farm.

Many of the TV ads aired during this month’s Major League Baseball’s World Series, one of the most widely viewed events on television.

Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for the “No on 1631” campaign, said the high spending was justified. “We’re up against a very misleading campaign and we think it’s important that voters have the facts,” she said in an interview.

Top donors to the “No on 1631” campaign include BP America (BP.L), which contributed more than $11.5 million, followed by Phillips 66 (PSX.N) with $7.2 million and Andeavor with $4.4 million. All three own refineries in the state.

BP spokesman Jason Ryan said his company supports action to combat climate change, but strongly opposes the Washington ballot initiative because it believes it would disrupt the state’s economy without significantly reducing carbon emissions. “It is a poorly designed policy,” he said.

Out-of-state refining companies like Valero Energy Corp (VLO.N) and HollyFrontier Corp (HFC.N) also contributed, as did the national refining industry lobby group, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers - a sign the industry is concerned the measure could inspire other states to follow suit.

By contrast, environmental groups and climate activist billionaires including Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, put together $15.2 million to support the initiative, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Top supporters included The Nature Conservancy, which donated $3.05 million, the League of Conservation Voters, which contributed $1.4 million, and Gates and Bloomberg, who each contributed $1 million. The campaign spent $1.8 million of the money on television advertising emphasizing the clean air benefits of a carbon tax, along with spending on mass-mailings, canvassing and voter research.

“With Big Oil spending $30 million, that makes it a real fight,” said Bill Holland, state policy director for the League of Conservation Voters. “It has been a frightening amount of money.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+1 # PaineRad 2018-11-01 02:24
Technically, legally, it's not a tax. The proceeds do not go into general revenue. It is a fee which is directed to specific purposes.
 
 
+2 # swimdoc 2018-11-01 16:09
I'm a Washington State voter and I have already voted "YES!" on this initiative. By the way, Washington has all-mail voting, meaning that my ballot arrived over a week ago in the mail, along with the State and County Voter's Guides that present statements from both sides of issues as well as lists of supporters of each side. All I had to do was sit down at my dining room table and work my way through the ballot, stick it in the envelope provided, and either drop it in a mailbox or take it to a ballot drop box 5 minutes' drive from my house. The rest of the states should copy us! (but not our hopelessly regressive tax structure!)