In a move that came as a surprise to many, long-standing and well-respected groups like the Washington Environmental Council and the Sierra Club chose not to support the bill. The initiative, they argue, doesn’t go far enough to protect the communities most at risk from the impacts of climate change and environmental pollution, nor does it help spur the kind of massive reorganizing of energy and transportation infrastructure needed to fight climate change. The nation’s most aggressive price on carbon, they argue, simply isn’t enough.
It’s a sharp contrast from traditional climate debates, which often center on the basic question of whether climate change is a real, man-made phenomenon. The debate over Initiative 732, which has raged for more than a year within the Washington environmental community, and, more recently, in the public spotlight, seeks to answer a more difficult question: not whether we should act to slow climate change, but how exactly we should do it.
It’s good to see others not backing carbon taxing. It doesn’t go far enough. James Hansen supports it as do most establishment environmentalists. I think they see it as a good start, it’s something, it’s movement in the right direction. But I think it just gives corporations the ability to pollute. Hansen says they have seen positive changes come from it… but it’s too little too late. It may have worked if it’d been started 20 years ago but now it’s like putting bandages on gaping wounds. There needs to be complete transition to sustainable clean energy by 2020 at the latest.