Fight over carbon fee initiative shaping up to be costliest

There's good reason why I-1631 has grabbed the national news. America needs a carbon fee; and if the federal government won't help, states must do the job. I hope “third time's a charm” for I-1631. It will embolden more states to establish their own revenue-neutral fees.

The petroleum industry itself is ambivalent about the issue. It likes the idea because it sees a carbon fee as increasing its advantage over coal. Exxon favors a fee that would exempt them from penalties for harm done. Petroleum, unlike coal, isn't yet on life support; but it's nevertheless fighting to hang on by opposing I-1631.

It's interesting that TransAlta, owner of Centralia's mine, is dialing down coal and dialing up natural gas and renewables. Fossil-fuel companies have been diversifying into nuclear- and renewable-energy technologies for decades for the same reasons individuals diversify their investment portfolios. That TransAlta will develop a solar electricity project and likely employ much of their current workforce proves what renewables advocates have long said: displaced fossil-fuel workers have many of the necessary skills and can easily be retrained for well-paid jobs in renewable energy.

I believe much of the resistance to a carbon fee comes from fear that it won't work. The findings of an economic analysis depend on its assumptions and the data put into it. Unbiased analyses show that a revenue-neutral carbon fee would work and would benefit those who need it most. Give I-1631 a chance! It can always be undone.