LETTER: Initiative 732 would make Washington the first U.S. state with a carbon tax

Editor and Residents,

Tomorrow we may be voting for carbon tax. It seems to me we would do this because we are very concerned about global warming and want a way to restrict our contribution to this problem. I recently listened to Physics Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever in a speech entitled “Global warming revisited”.  It was an interesting perspective to the present day current of “global warming being the most dangerous threat to our existence”.

From 1880 to 2015 the earth’s temperature has increased 0.3% (288K to 288.8K). this shows that it is increasing (slightly) and shows that it is amazingly stable….

At one time our area was in an ice age and almost entirely covered in glaciers. As the glaciers receded they carved out the natural beauty we enjoy recreating and living in today. So what is the earth’s ideal temperature? If there is more CO2 don’t plants grow faster? Isn’t it true that the U.S. is currently seeing a “low period” of hurricane and tornado activity? So it is difficult to tie the climate change to extreme weather in our country.

I find myself concerned that we are reacting in this way, imposing another tax on ourselves, to relieve our conscience and think we are now leading the way here in the U.S. to stop global warming. Will we look back and say, ” That was out of ignorance and was reactionary” ?

Listening to Giaever is at least helpful in getting another perspective before making your decision on Initiative 732.  Watch HERE.

~  Michael Williams, North Bend resident

Comments are closed.


  • This just in from the UK: (Cut & paste this link in your browser)
    No, the science is not “settled.”
    Dave Battey

    1. Right. I love fringe science. When the icebergs hit London and Boston I’ll pull out the gin and tonic.

  • Michael, At this point I don’t agree with the Carbon Tax proposal as a solution, but I do understand it and think it may be a good option. I’m just not ready to support it because there aren’t enough options for consumers to mitigate the effects of the tax and that doesn’t move the ball it just puts a financial toll on consumers. If photo voltaic roofing, electric trucks and cars, carbon neutral home heating, etc. were available and financially viable options that would not take a negative toll on our families, I’d be more inclined to support this. But the options haven’t hit the market yet. We need to put more pressure on industry to take advantage of new technology, not just Tesla, and come up with better options. BUT Let’s not be silly by saying temperature has been stable. If you look at the NASA Global Land Ocean Temp Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_Dangerous_Climate_Change#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg) you’ll see that surface temperature trends are climbing steeply. We’re already nearly half way to the 2 Degree Celsius (3.6 Degrees F) gain from 1880 that will kick off the most serious effects of global warming and the rate of increase is gaining incredibly steeply. Look at the rate especially from 1960 to 2016. There is NO DENYING that we (the “Global We”) are on a disastrous track if we don’t do something VERY soon to start curbing our reliance on fossil fuels for our energy needs, and destruction of resources such as rainforests, timberlands, and oceans that have until recently done a pretty good job of mitigating the destruction we are causing to our atmosphere and planet.

  • A counterpoint – Washington State Ballot Proposal Shows Why the Right Should Reject a Carbon Tax “Deal”

  • Thank you for the thoughtful comments and articles. I am glad there are some people thinking beyond the “Vote Yes on 732 ” or “Vote No on 732” signs that are stuck at intersections……

  • Living Snoqualmie