Letter: I-1631 not right for Washington state

Steve Ghan’s letter (09/26), indicated passage of Initiative 1631 would make a statement and establish a commitment to further reduce Washington’s low carbon emissions. It would also pressure U.S. businesses to push for a more coherent national climate policy. If that’s the purpose, I vote NO on I 1631.

To make a statement/commitment, a simple resolution would suffice and be less expensive. Further, the initiative seemed short on how, how much, actual/anticipated impact fiscally, socially and environmentally. The agencies involved flesh out implementation and actual workings of the initiative after approval. Why not now, and include in the proposal so the public can evaluate the planned methods and processes?

I-1631 seems to identify a special class of displaced worker, based on a shift in energy technology. What about technology changes, like autonomous vehicles (cabs, trucks), self-service, and process lines and farming completed by machines? The $50 million displaced workers fund, funded by the carbon tax (established and funded every year after year 4) appears to provide more benefits than the current L&I program?

The Legislature has struggled for years to meet the constitutional mandate to fund education. How can we expect initiative funding will or can occur?