Thread by @AshleyA_RC

@RealChangeNews is holding a pro/con panel on initiatives 1631 and 1634. Opening statements are done, but in short, 1631 is the proposed carbon tax and 1634 is the proposed tax on groceries.

1631 is up. The pro side said that this is not a tax that oil and gas companies can fully pass onto consumers, so maybe they'll take a hit. Also acknowledges that the environmental side has not considered marginalized groups in the past (732 in 2016). This time is different.

The con side is up. He says that 1631 will hit consumers in the pocket.

Q: if a carbon tax isn't the answer to our climate change problems, what is the preferred policy?

A from con: Washington already has low greenhouse gas initiatives. For WA to pass this tax onto its citizens is not the way to go. If we're going to do something, it should be on the national level.

"Don't put farmers like me and my family at a disadvantage"

A con't: The UN needs to act, can't just be Washington.

Asks people to check out the "no" endorsement from the @seatimesopinion.
(Current federal government has not exactly been sweet on the UN nor collective international action)

A from pro: Are poor people in Seattle the folks that the oil and gas industry cares about? No.

"I am really fed up with those international corporations determining my daughter's future. I'm scared."

the IPCC report from the UN suggested that we will have to vastly refigure the global economy away from greenhouse gas emissions or face dire consequences.

Q for 1634: The commercials we're seeing are talking about putting a tax on food. Currently we don't have a sales tax on food. This ad has been called misleading. How do you respond?

A for pro 1634: We can't have a sales tax, but we can tax distributors like the soda tax did in Seattle.

(He has now said that Seattle will raise more than double from the soda tax. While Seattle has raised more than it originally estimated - $14.8 million - it isn't double)

Response by anti 1634: look at what they're doing with it. They're closing the food security gap. Getting healthy foods for struggling families. They're funding education programs. They're funding job training for those affected by the tax.

Q for anti 1634: We know it hurts poor people and still exempts sugary drinks like Frappuccinos? (I have no idea if that is spelled right)

A: It was part of the plan to tax milk-based drinks. Got Green stepped in because we knew that poor people would be hit the hardest because sugary drinks are less expensive than healthy drinks.

If we put it back into their pockets in a healthy way, we're doing them a service

Got Green is a local, community-based POC led group that advocates for food justice among other causes.

Pro 1634 responds: Asks if it a calculated move to expand programs on the backs of marginalized groups. Also says that Seattle may have brought in Got Green, but that isn't assured in other cities.

"Who are they really trying to benefit?"

Got Green rep Tanika responds: The city put the tax on distributors. They did not force distributors to pass those costs through.

Response: Yes that's what happened in Seattle. What I'm trying to do is stop that from happening in other cities in the state

Audience q for Anti 1631 - would you support a similar carbon tax on the federal level?

A: Oh absolutely. ... If this wasn't just a single state trying to do a patchwork method of trying to reduce GHG emissions, we would be all in favor.

Again references the UN getting every member state on board.

Q for Pro 1631: Why did you include a 15-member oversight board?

A: Only the legislature has the power of the purse. This measure can't undo that. Purpose is to add a layer of public oversight.

Lobbyists have been effective at stopping progress.

A con't: It's a way of getting the public more involved and making sure the fossil fuel industry can't put their thumb on the scale.

anti 1631 responds, referencing the 1634 speakers: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

If 1631 passes, it will be passed onto the consumers at the pump (like the sugary beverage tax was)

Anti 1631: I am not a climate denier. This is a super important issue and we have to get it right.

Why didn't 1631 supporters go for 732? bc it was revenue neutral initiative. It didn't create a fund of money that the 15-member panel could use.

Anti 1631 con't: Legislature would be given a list of X many projects that 15-member panel create. They then have one vote to approve all of the projects. Not a line-item vote.

Pro 1631: My opponent didn't answer the Q. Haven't heard what oil interests want to do about climate change and he's being paid by them.

Once it becomes law, the leg can change it. It's a law. I don't think it's perfect. I'm excited to take a step forward.

Pro 1631: Re: 732. It was written by folks in an ivory tower. Low income people and communities of color said they'd rather the money go to things that I need that I can't buy for myself (access to buses, other public goods). They wanted a better solution.

Pro 1631: We have everyone from Bill Gates to the Tenants Union to the Teamsters. That doesn't happen often.

Anti 1631: I would support anything that doesn't have exemptions for pulp and paper mills, concrete manufacturers some of the largest polluters.

(The previous argument against 1631 was that it only applied to Washington)

Pro 1631: This covers 80 percent of pollution

Pro 1631: Companies in manufacturing sector - take a lot of energy to make their product. They trade on global market, subject to international competition. Important to exempt those folks.

Steel plant here is 6x cleaner than steel plant in China.

Back to 1634.
Q: surely you aren't concerned about soda companies paying this tax?
A: No. References students who come to him and say that they are hungry. Just bc money pouring into this initiative doesn't mean it's any less right. It protects families that need it most.

A: If the City Councils won't do it and Coke and Pepsi will, fine.

Anti 1634: It's all about corporate greed, corporate exploitation. They're sending POC into POC coms telling them they care about them.

These corporations won't pay for food for your students. Programs like Fresh Bucks will.

Pro 1634 responds: The money from the soda tax is going to really good programs. I just don't think the people who are benefiting from these programs are the ones should be paying for these programs.

Con't: I would argue that by the simple virtue that says soda and sin taxes don't work, that the council doesn't care about students and families being impacted by the tax.

(Existing research does suggest that consumption hasn't gone down much)

This is not about soda, this is about groceries. I'm having the convo about soda but to me, it's about protecting the families in this state from an even more regressive tax structure

(WA has arguably the most regressive tax structure in the country)

Anti 1634 notes that diabetes hurts communities of color more than White communities, and sugary sodas play a role in those outcomes.

Pro 1634: the spirit of this law was to make Seattle more money. If they care, why include kombucha and almond milk which are healthy?

there are better ways to address these issues than taxing people who supposedly benefit from the tax?

(I am curious about the almond milk one - does that include unsweetened almond milk?)

Anti 1634: they have the audacity to call this yes for affordable groceries. that's what I am fighting for. Affordable healthy groceries.

Q: What are the alternatives?
Pro 1634: Not a tax expert but coming from one of the poorest states in the country (Mississippi, he mentioned earlier) to one of the richest, we can find this somewhere else.

(Advocates of all stripes want to find alternative, non-regressive sources of tax revenue)

Audience q for 1631: What percentage of polluters will be exempt from the tax and what percentage of pollution?

A: 20 percent exempt. That includes coal plant shutting down, companies facing international competition, aviation taxes that we can't regulate.

Pro 1631: It is extraordinary what $18 million can do - cause a room of people to ask who is exempt.

Who's paying today? 0 percent.
We could take that to 80 percent.

Anti 1631: it takes a lot to rattle my cage, but to repeat half a dozen times what I'm being reimbursed for and being paid to get the facts out about isn't part of 1631.

It's 1631 you need to be concerned about.

Anti 1631: the fact that she has referenced oil companies should make you worried. 'We should stop the oil companies!' There's no other argument.

Proceeds to talk about the people who are exempted. Now holding up the initiative which is 38 pages long.

Audience q for anti 1631: Oregon, CA and BC are all trying to reduce carbon emissions. How is avoiding this work anything but climate change denial?

A: I'm not a climate change denier. Fact is we can do something about it. Midterm elections in 2.5 weeks.

A con't: It's going to be a whole different makeup of the legislature in January. If we have to do something on Nov. 6, this isn't it. Let's have input, let's talk to our legislators.

Talks about going to Olympia - again, not what they said before re: federal measure.

Pro 1631: every other [nation] part of the Paris Climate Accords. Only ones who don't want to deal with it.

Says that the same biz fighting this measure have fought past measures.

(Trying to imagine a world in which the US Congress passes a comprehensive carbon tax under current circumstances, or even if the composition of the House flipped)

Q: I need drinks with sugar in them for my health and to get through school, my food benefits have been cut, I can't get any of the benefits this tax is paying for.

A from pro 1634: We're trying to prevent things like that from happening across the state.

Audience Q: (Missed this, but I think it was about a fund in Alaska)

A: What's good about this proposal is that it's a pollution fee. As long as we have pollution, the revenue is coming in. Eventually it goes away.

This is about building the alternatives as quickly as possible.

Audience Q: You are a farmer impacted by climate change. How do you square that with your work with oil companies?

A: I think about that a lot. Any farmer you talk to say they consider themselves the best stewards of the land. The part we are far apart on is 1631.

A con't: It's poorly written. I can't emphasize that enough. 38 pages, it's a lot of stuff.

Opposite sides get to ask each other questions now.

Pro 1634: To you this campaign is about soda. To me it is about affordability.

Is it fair to get money from people who may not benefit from these programs to fund them?

A: Not into regressive taxes.
The reason I care about this tax and believe it's about sugary benefits is that I worked so far to take what was a regressive tax and put it back into the pocket of the community it comes from. I'm up close and personal

Pro 1634: Can you guarantee that no other pro-tax advocacy groups can push forward taxes on what they deem unhealthy foods?

A: Ofc I can't. Should there ever be a proposal or threat to tax groceries, I'll be on your side. Since there is not threat, proposal, all about the bevs.

Anti 1634: Other cities have a right to make their own decisions and fill their needs.

It's about sugary beverages it's not about food.

Anti 1634 Q: Are you getting paid?
Pro 1634: Oh god no.

Anti 1634: Children are coming to you hungry, struggling from homelessness. Would you change your mind if this helped put a roof over their head, food in their stomachs?

Pro 1634: I am not for taxing an item that predominately POC use. The intent was clear when Starbucks was taken off the table.

We have a responsibility to think more creatively and have a better conversation.

Q from pro 1631: What detailed policy would Western Cities Petroleum Assoc. and Farm Bureau support?

A: I'm not here representing them. I'm here representing me and over 200,000 people in our coalition.

Q from anti 1631: Would it be advantageous to have an elected board to include all kinds of people? Include farmers, include someone from the oil industry, include folks left out of the panel?

A: I would certainly be happy to include farmers. There are kinds of farming you can do that are beneficial. Think that ag and forestry sector have a lot to offer as part of the solution.

I do not want the oil industry sitting on this board.

A: This policy is about moving away from their product. They do not want to see this succeed.

The Olympian, Tacoma Tribune, Stranger, Lewiston Herald (I missed one) has endorsed (anti has mentioned *many* times that Sea Times endorsed)

Closing arguments.

Pro 1631: Climate change is killing people. Asthma is killing people. WA Med Assoc rarely takes a position on an initiative, last weekend they endorsed this measure. I know who I'm up against. These companies, people who have no regard for our state, it scares me.

Pro 1631: There is a lot of misinformation and people making money off of spreading that misinformation. Those are the stakes.

Says included marginalized communities and is pissed when "BP says this will hurt poor people"

Anti 1631: There is a lot of misinformation. A lot of it comes from the yes side. Look at 1631, here's a fix all. That's flat out false. It raises $30bn by 2035 - no accountability. There are no performance metrics attached to 1631.

Anti 1631: Gas tax + inflation, no cap.

Talking about various politicians who are against this tax.

"We're not that far apart on the issue, but 1631 is not the answer."

Pro 1634: Who is affected by this tax? marginalized coms, low income community, people of color. Who made this decision? Seattle city Council. after that happened, they brought certain groups to the table.

Made more money than they thought from the tax.

Pro 1634: I think there are better ways to fix health problems across this state than taxing the people who are experiencing these problems.

Who has the most to lose? The kids and families exp homelessness, hunger, poverty.

Pro 1634: A vote for 1634 is a vote for a more affordable and equitable WA state for everyone.

Anti 1634: I did not come here tonight to vote no. I would appreciate it.
I just wanted to make sure I came to share the information I had to share and why I'm voting no.

Anti1634: I just want you to know this money is going toward great programs. No one said let's tax the most vul and take that money and give it back to them. They saw a need, saw people consuming sugary bevs. why not try to prevent childhood obesity and diabetes?

Anti 1634: The money is going toward early ed programs, food security programs. Can't wait to see what we can do for low-income families.

I think that other coms in WA state should have the opp to do what we're doing. The American Bev Assoc is funding the Yes campaign.

Anti 1634: It's about sugary beverages. I believe that with all my heart.