Posted on 11/08/2018 8:20:36 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Environmentalists were hoping to score a huge victory in Washington state with a statewide tax on CO2 emissions. Alas, even liberals in Washington don't believe climate change is that big a threat.
Before the election, glowing stories in the press talked about Washington "taking up the fight" on climate change after President Donald Trump dropped out of the Paris climate deal. The state would make history. It would be a "bellwether," and would start a trend across the country.
The initiative proposed a $15 tax on each ton of carbon emissions in the state starting in 2020, with the tax rate climbing each year. It would have cost families in the state nearly $1,000 a year by 2035.
Washington voters rejected even this minimalist step toward fighting what a large majority of them claim to believe is an existential threat to humanity.
Think about it this way. Washington is a deep blue state where Trump got less than 37% of the vote in 2016. Only six states in the nation were more anti-Trump.
Yet 56% of Washington voters rejected the CO2 tax. Only three counties in the state - Jefferson, King (where Seattle is located), and tiny San Juan - voted for the tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
If tree-ring analysis is correct and core samples all up and down the coast... The Cascadia subduction zone is due to pop. BAM! That’ll wake them up
I didn't think Washington State had a reputation for la belle weather.
Well, east of the Cascades it does. And over here I dont think I saw one sign supporting this referendum, although there are a few climate nuts here including at the National Laboratory PNNL.
Well, that may be true. Put the libs and commies made gains in that initiative 1639 passed, which basically guts the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I would look to that to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is totally and completely unconstitutional.
The very idea suggests the question of whether it is time to divide the west coast into six states -
coastal West California deliniated as the populous California coastal counties alone, from Los Angeles up to but no further than San Francisco, and East California deliniated as the rest of the California counties;
and Western Oregon deliniated as the counties west of Wasco straight down to west of Klamath with Eastern Oregon deliniated as all the counties included from Wasco straight down to Klamath and the counties east of them;
and Western Washington deliniated as the counties of Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island, Snohomish, King Pierce, Lewis, Skamania and the counties west of them, and Eastern Washington deliniated as all the present Washington state counties east of the aforementtioned ones.
The problem with these ideas are that while you get “your own” reprsentatives, it may not always change the net representatives a group now has in the U.S. congress, but just change them from a minority set of districts in their present state to a majority in the new state, but not necessarily “more” in the House of Representatives.
Then you have to factor how more states adds two additional Senators each, and THAT is the one area where the “new” states could gain representation in Washington D.C. The present Washington, Oregon and California senators would not likely see a change of political affiliation in the new states of western California, Oregon and Washington, while each of the new states cleaved from them would get their own two senators and there is where the political weight in Congress could tend to become greater with the “smaller” (less populous) states.
Is any of this practicle? Not likely in my opinion.
Just visited my friend in San Juan county on the island of San Juan, it is so beautiful, alot of leftys there. You have to focus on the scenery and fun, don't mention Trump while visiting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.