ELECTION 2024: Initiative 2117 opponents campaign in West Seattle

Eight weeks from tonight, voting ends and vote-counting begins. You’re well-aware that the races to be decided include president, governor, and one City Council seat. You probably recall that the renewed/expanded Seattle Transportation Levy will be on your ballot too. But did you know you’ll be asked to approve or reject four statewide initiatives too? Today the campaign against one of them, I-2117, came to West Seattle. From the state voters’-guide website, here’s how it will appear on your ballot:

Initiative 2117 would repeal the state’s Climate Commitment Act, which seeks to result in a 95 percent reduction in carbon emissions within the next quarter century. Its provisions raise money to help with environment-related programs, and that’s what today’s news conference was about. The “No on 2117” campaign gathered supporters at Southwest Youth and Family Services, the nonprofit headquartered just east of Delridge Playfield, to talk about how approval of 2117 would take away funding that they say is needed by schools as well as nonprofits like SWYFS to upgrade their indoor-air systems. We recorded the 15-minute briefing by SWYFS’s new executive director Essence Russ, Seattle teacher Andrew Echols, and pulmonologist Dr. Vin Gupta:

As Russ explained in response to our question at the end, and as local State House Rep. (and House Majority Leader) Joe Fitzgibbon affirmed, SWYFS is in line for $273,000 in Climate Commitment Act funding to help cover the cost of an HVAC overhaul. That’s one of several local commitments shown on this map – others in our area include electric-vehicle charging stations in various areas and a utility-meter upgrade at South Seattle College (WSB sponsor).

Those gathered in support of the speakers at today’s event included local advocates and even former SWYFS executive director Steve Daschle, who left the organization last year after 35 years.

THE OTHER SIDE: 2117 backers’ main argument is a contention that the Climate Commitment Act has been a “hidden gas tax” and repealing it will save people money.

52 Replies to "ELECTION 2024: Initiative 2117 opponents campaign in West Seattle"

  • YES on 2117 September 10, 2024 (11:07 pm)

    Y E S

    • Bbron September 11, 2024 (9:43 am)

      Vote “Yes” on 2117 if you despise the youth!

    • Mr J September 11, 2024 (9:49 am)

      Eye roll. This doesn’t cost the consumer anything but Pennie’s at most, this targets big polluters in the State. Stop taking the side rich industrialists that don’t want to pay for the damage they’re doing to the environment. 

      • YES on 2117 September 11, 2024 (12:53 pm)

        It raises the price of EVERY good and service in the state and raised the cost of living for EVERY Washington State resident. It does absolutely ZERO to help the climate situation. One look at a globe illustrates that. This is a cash grab, pure and simple.

        • Mr J September 11, 2024 (3:26 pm)

          Incorrect. Best of luck on your vote.

    • Jason September 11, 2024 (10:09 am)

      Cutting the carbon tax would not only allow big business to pollute freely, but the repeal would take billions from future clean energy projects all for the sake of drivers saving a few bucks at the pump. Vote NO.

  • Neighbor September 11, 2024 (1:03 am)

    Am I understanding this correctly that not only do these people want to repeal attempts to combat climate change, they want to do it to save a few cents on gas?  Cheap gasoline is the problem in the first place!  This is a despicable, short sighted, and selfish initiative.

    • Ivan Weiss September 11, 2024 (6:49 am)

      The poor pathetic dupes who think passing this initiative will save them a few dollars on gas are only useful idiots for the big polluters who would be the real winners. If you value breathing clean air, vote NO.

    • DB September 11, 2024 (7:38 am)

      Howdy neighbor, you are not understanding correctly (which is okay because it’s confusing)! Initiative 2117 would repeal the carbon taxing parts of the Climate Commitment Act and prohibit a cap and trade program on emissions, voting “yes” on 2117 would have that repeal move forward. Opponents of 2117 (those in the article above) are saying DO NOT repeal the carbon taxing program. So, to prevent the repeal of the Climate Commitment Act, you need to vote “NO.” Importantly, 2117 doesn’t just eliminate the carbon taxing under the Climate Commitment Act, it prohibits state agencies from taxing carbon in general, which could make relegislating a similar program difficult.

    • JustSarah September 11, 2024 (8:53 am)

      Correct on all points. 

  • Rocky Bullwinkle September 11, 2024 (5:13 am)

    No on transpo levy and no on 2117. Levies are hurting middle class families in WA and WS. There are many other ways of combating climate change without taxing hardworking families who are dealing with the regular high cost of living.

  • Genesee5Points September 11, 2024 (8:06 am)

    100% YES…. NO. NEW. TAXES.  They have enough money and have proven they’re not efficient with the money they already steal from us. 

    • Hitcho September 11, 2024 (10:04 am)

      Reminds me of an old Vonnegut quote: “the good Earth — we could have saved it but we were too damn cheap.”

  • Sam September 11, 2024 (8:24 am)

    The right wing group behind this initiative, “Let’s Go Washington,” have been behind several awful initiatives. Look them up…

  • Admiral-2009 September 11, 2024 (8:45 am)

    Neighbor – when the carbon tax legislation passed the Governor lied to the people regarding the effect to gas prices, he said it would be a few cents when in reality it was significantly more.  I believe high gas prices are appropriate, in particular if it discourages people from buying large vehicles that cause a disproportionate amount of fatality incidents.  The Governor not being truthful about the cost increase is the item that is putting me on the fence on this initiative.

    • My two cents September 11, 2024 (10:12 am)

      Mixed messaging … can you reference some data which shows the correlation on price increases and your thesis – while accounting for other variables? High gas prices and large vehicles correspond with traffic fatality rates has WHAT relevance? Larger vehicles have lower mpg – and correspondingly more emissions created is applicable to the carbon tax.  Side note – the size and weight of most electric vehicles are greater than the internal combustion engine equivalence.  Pedestrian risk is the same if not higher when you account for other factors such as reduced noise and vastly quicker/instantaneous acceleration capability. 

      • Kyle September 11, 2024 (12:04 pm)

        On the road between ‘hogwash and baloney’ on WA’s high gas prices | The Seattle TimesIt is a fact we have the highest gas prices in the nation. Economists say it’s responsible for about a 50-cent increase, not pennies. Whether this regressive flat tax is the best way to fight climate change is a good debate to have.

        • WSB September 11, 2024 (12:11 pm)

          Washington currently has the third highest average gasoline price in the nation, not the highest:
          https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/

        • Neighbor September 11, 2024 (2:48 pm)

          Cents is a synonym for pennies.  50 cents is literally pennies.

          • Kyle September 11, 2024 (9:30 pm)

            Pennies was imprecicely used to marginalize the increase and make folks think 1-5 pennies. Would saying 50 pennies be better? 

    • Jason September 11, 2024 (10:42 am)

      Gas prices go up because of greedy gas companies. No other reason. Inslee didn’t lie. 

    • Neighbor September 11, 2024 (10:48 am)

      So because the current law doesn’t go far enough you’re considering voting to repeal it and prohibit ever passing a better one.  Say that out loud to yourself.

      • Kyle September 11, 2024 (12:05 pm)

        Has the legislature come up with any plan to modify the existing cap and trade? Should we just keep waiting forever?

        • Neighbor September 11, 2024 (2:50 pm)

          So because you think the legislature should amend the current law you want to repeal it and prohibit ever passing another one.  I can’t take that position seriously.  You can’t be acting in good faith.

          • Kyle September 11, 2024 (5:13 pm)

            Because the legislature has failed to amend the law and this is the only option that got enough signatures for a popular vote. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.

  • Bbron September 11, 2024 (9:59 am)

    Gasoline, like many parts of car infrastructure, is heavily subsidized, and folks have never paid the true cost for it. I’m always for anything that gets gas back to its true cost so consumers can make better informed decisions both in their own choices and with policy rather than have everyone else who doesn’t use a car or disproportional amount of gas subsidize it.

    • My two cents September 11, 2024 (10:22 am)

      As the market continues to adopt more widespread adoption of  EVs (in conjunction with higher MPG requirements) occurs this will drive transportation based projects funding to shortfalls. I think we will see a “I’m using less, but paying more” environment which is another aspect of the subsidies topic that is unfolding. 

      • Bbron September 11, 2024 (11:40 am)

        laws aren’t static. a per-mile tax should also be passed. rubber and brake dust pollution are independent of a cars efficiency, and heavier EVs will increase road maintenance needs. in the future we should be shooting for less use of individual vehicles and a larger transition to public transit as it’s actually cost effective without massive subsidies.

        • Ivan Weiss September 11, 2024 (1:10 pm)

          I oppose this initiative, because it benefits the polluters at our expense. But you can stick a per-mile fuel tax where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s not the government’s business, and certainly not yours, how many miles I, or anyone else, drive. And politically, it has little to no chance of ever passing.

          • Cheer September 11, 2024 (8:46 pm)

            Cars run on taxpayer funded roads, pour CO2 into the air and salmon-killing chemicals into the rivers and Sound, depend on public first responders after collisions, and kill 40k people annually. Until those facts change, your driving absolutely is the public’s business.

          • Ivan Weiss September 12, 2024 (4:17 am)

            @ Cheer: Try getting something like that passed. See how far you get. 

  • Whisky Woods September 11, 2024 (10:24 am)

    So voting Yes,  will repeal the 50 cent per gallon carbon tax or the tax will continue?  
    Write it for everyone can understand, not some twisted version.

  • WSBreader September 11, 2024 (10:29 am)

    I’m glad to see the No on 2117 campaign get so much momentum! This article has a great overview on the initiative and its background, by a local journalist:https://grist.org/politics/washington-cap-and-invest-law-repeal-oil-companies/

  • jj September 11, 2024 (11:26 am)

    Another tax? No, thanks. I think the government makes plenty of money at this point. 

  • Dazman September 11, 2024 (12:58 pm)

    Vote yes pay less

    • walkerws September 12, 2024 (8:05 am)

      We already underpay for gas. Factoring in the externalities of gas use we underpay by an order of magnitude. Gas shouldn’t be cheap.

  • r September 11, 2024 (1:20 pm)

    West Seattle options for volunteering will show up here: https://no2117.com/volunteer/ Last weekend I got out and handed out voter info around 35th Ave.  Very positive responses from the voters I spoke to.

  • Derwreck September 11, 2024 (1:23 pm)

    Just say NO 👎

  • Everything in Moderation September 11, 2024 (2:20 pm)

    Great article from climate and weather scientist Cliff Mass that breaks down the pros and cons of initiatives like this. https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/08/vote-yes-for-washington-state.html?m=1 (he’s generally a fan of carbon taxes, but not the specific one that could be repealed by 2117)

    • K September 11, 2024 (3:27 pm)

      The problem is that the measure doesn’t just repeal the current carbon tax, it stops the state from ever imposing a new one.  If he’s in favor of carbon taxes in general, he should be encouraging a “no” on 2117 so they can come back with an initiative that’s a repeal of the existing law only.  It’s shady the way the initiative is about stopping the state from imposing carbon taxes in the future but they have directed all conversation toward repeal of the existing one.

    • Sam September 11, 2024 (3:28 pm)

      Cliff Mass is an unemployed blogger who was fired from multiple jobs as a weather forecaster because of his conspiracy theories, climate denialism and weird nazi comments.

      • Everything in Moderation September 11, 2024 (5:09 pm)

        Unless something happened in the last day or so, he’s a professor at UW and teaching a class this fall. https://atmos.uw.edu/students/courses/.

        K thanks for the note, will have to read up on 2117 – good to know that’s part of the measure too. Definitely want to think about this one pretty deeply.

  • Alki Parent September 11, 2024 (4:34 pm)

    Greed will be the death of this planet. Vote NO. 

    • Bubbasaurus September 11, 2024 (6:47 pm)

      Not sure you get the cash grab with minimal accountability that’s going on with the current situation… But in Seattle, there apparently is no such thing as a bad tax.

      • Alki Parent September 11, 2024 (9:01 pm)

        The only real way to make carbon usage less attractive is to make it economically unattractive. There is a real cost to it that hasn’t been paid for decades. 

      • walkerws September 12, 2024 (8:07 am)

        “Grabbing cash” from pollutors seems like a great idea to me.

  • Adam September 11, 2024 (6:49 pm)

    I just drove from here to Key West, and back. East of the Rockies I routinely encountered gas prices in the $2 range and $3 range. As soon as I hit Nev, Or, Wa, $4 was the norm. You all can continue insulting each other and siding with whichever orthodoxy you’ve committed to, or figure that out. There might just be middle ground. 

    • Hoooo September 12, 2024 (12:51 am)

      You’re aware that NV and OR don’t have carbon tax / carbon market schemes, yes? What you’re describing are regional trends that cannot be explained in terms of WA-specific legislation, and therefore will not be changed by repealing that legislation.

      • K September 12, 2024 (6:58 am)

        This.  If you look at the gas price chart WSB linked above, gas is overall the cheapest where the refineries are, which makes sense.  

  • Scarlett September 12, 2024 (9:00 am)

    This is going to get a “yes” vote from me.  It is a regressive tax that comes at the absolute worst time for those who are economically struggling, even though the price of gas has eased in price of late. The only ones who aren’t harmed are the affluent who can shrug off the higher prices at the pump and companies who pass the costs off to consumers.   

    In my book, taxing carbon is similar to taxing cigarettes,  you don’t want to “kill” a lucrative source of revenue and the monies collected and directed to remediation (smoking cessation programs or public transportation) don’t begin to rectify the orginal harm.   

    I’ll say it again, there are no easy shortcuts.   If you want a cleaner environment the only real solution is less consumption.  But, of course, that option is not attractive to anyone.  

    • Alki Parent September 12, 2024 (9:00 pm)

      You said it yourself. The only real solution is less consumption. If you make the cost of using carbon-based energy go up, it deters consumption that relies on it. You lament that option being unattractive but are advocating for the easy way out at the same time. 

      • Scarlett September 12, 2024 (9:36 pm)

        What this does is force some to consume less based on their income.  Is that “progressive,” an unequal sharing of the climate burden?

Sorry, comment time is over.