People in Washington spend billions of dollars each year on dirty fuels. A big chunk of that money goes to out-of-state oil companies instead of staying in Washington to help create local jobs or improve quality of life. Initiative 1631, a citizen-backed measure to pass a Washington carbon fee, could change that by shifting the transportation sector away from fossil fuels and toward walking, biking, transit, cleaner fuels, and electric vehicles.
Washington residents spend billions on out-of-state oil
Washington residents spend nearly $7 billion per year on dirty fuels to power cars, trucks, and buses. More than half of that cash goes to non-Washington producers of crude oil. For the sake of easy math, let’s say gas in Washington is about $3 per gallon (the state average is actually at $3.38). More than $1.50 goes straight to the pockets of oil producers primarily in Alaska and Canada, but also in the Middle East and Africa. The remainder stays in-state to pay for refining, distributing, marketing, and taxes.
Washingtonians create almost $7 billion in revenue from gas each year. About half goes back into the pockets of out-of-state oil producers. Car exhaust by Ruben de Rijcke (Public domain)
Other energy industries we rely on don’t work that way. When you pay your electricity bill, for example, most of that money stays in-state. Washington produces more than three-quarters of its own electricity, and mostly from low-carbon sources such as hydro, wind, and solar. Clean power’s share will rise even further as Washington slowly but surely says goodbye to coal. Centralia, the only remaining in-state coal-fired power plant, will shut down by the end of 2025, and electricity utility Puget Sound Energy (PSE) will stop purchasing coal-fired power from the Colstrip Units 1 and 2 in Montana in July 2022, and will most likely stop purchasing from Colstrip Units 3 and 4 by 2027. Washington will replace at least some of that coal with in-state renewable power.
Cleaning up
Cleaning up the transportation sector with the help of a Washington carbon fee could allow people to spend less on fuel and send less revenue out-of-state.
Residents could keep more money in their pockets (and in-state) if:
- Walking, biking, and transit were safe and accessible across Washington.
- Most vehicles were electric and shared and the remaining vehicles ran on cleaner fuels.
If the $7 billion spent on gas doesn’t make your eyes pop, Washingtonians spend another $46 billion* purchasing, maintaining, and insuring private fossil fuel-powered vehicles. If infrastructure allowed more people to step out of their private, gas-powered cars to instead travel by foot, bike, scooter, bus, or shared vehicle, that money could shift from out-of-state polluting fuels to in-state businesses.
If Washington shifted about half its trips from gas-guzzlers to bikes or electric vehicles, that would save billions of dollars. It would also stop 15 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution** and remove more than 340,000 lbs. of air pollution,*** protecting people from asthma, heart attacks, and death.
The I-1631 measure could make Washington the first state or country to adopt a carbon fee through an initiative of the people.
I-1631 could make history—and help our futures
If voters get behind it, I-1631 could help speed the shift to clean energy and stem the flow of billions of dollars out of Washington. But the message could be much bigger: this measure could make Washington the first state or country to adopt a carbon fee through an initiative of the people. The Washington carbon fee is projected to raise close to $1 billion per year, and would invest 70 percent of revenue in projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, putting particular emphasis on projects that help low-income residents. This map shows projects across Washington that could shift the state’s transportation sector off dirty out-of-state oil and onto cleanly produced, in-state electricity.
It’s not unheard of, either. California has been using its polluter-pay money to invest in:
- Electrification of heavy-duty diesel vehicles at ports
- Purchase of zero-emission vehicles for agricultural workers’ group commutes
- Grants for governmental and non-profit organizations to buy zero- and low-emission vehicles to service residents of disadvantaged communities—car- or ride-sharing, and other mobility options
- Statewide rebates to citizens who buy or lease zero-emission vehicles
- Grants for lower-income citizens to scrap old, polluting vehicles for new or used electric, or other zero-emission vehicles
- Grants for public transit agencies and businesses to buy down the added cost of purchasing a low-emission bus or truck, such as electric or hybrid vehicles
- Grants for school districts to replace old diesel buses with zero- or low-emission buses
- Funding for sustainable housing—increasing housing density, reducing commuting time, and getting away from the need for passenger vehicles altogether
Washington could use a fraction of its I-1631 revenue to fund discovery and planning to make a robust regulatory framework for shared fleets of electric, autonomous vehicles that could rapidly de-carbonize the transportation sector.
Shifting to cleaner, less-expensive transportation sources could create many benefits. Among them:
Stimulating the local economy: A review of literature by the University of California concluded that investing in projects designed to boost walking and cycling yield about $13 in economic benefit for every $1 spent. There are several reasons for the boost: One is that when more people get where they need to go by bike and bus, they have more money to spend on things other than cars, insurance, maintenance, repairs, parking, etc. Another is that when people feel safe walking and biking in public spaces, they are more likely to shop locally in that area.
Public health benefits: It should be no surprise that getting out of the car also offers the chance to be more active— ultimately a savings for all taxpayers. Investments in cycling infrastructure in Portland are projected to yield up to $594 million in health care savings and up to $218 million in fuel savings by 2040.
Help for low-income residents: Investing in electric vehicles could directly enable low-income people to replace a failing gas-guzzler with a used, electric vehicle—eliminating gas costs, oil changes, and significantly cutting down on maintenance costs. This scenario recently played out in Stockton, California, where Jerome Mayfield was able to swap his 1989 Silverado that was failing its emissions tests for a fully-electric 2013 Nissan Leaf. Thanks to the pilot program for low-income residents, Jerome is saving money on transportation and California has replaced an old, polluting truck with a zero-emission vehicle.
Directly create jobs: The US is producing less coal, and other fossil fuel energy markets are unpredictable at best. Renewables, on the other hand, is a rapidly growing sector. One of the largest biodiesel production facilities in the US is located in Grays Harbor—local workers take Washington-grown canola oil, other crops, and turns them into a cleaner-burning fuel. Another Pacific Northwest biodiesel producer, Sequential, takes waste grease from Washington and produces biodiesel. Would new tax credits or other incentives enable more agricultural production and expanded refinery production of biodiesel in Washington? If I-1631 is approved by voters in November, time will tell.
————————————-
Methodology
*To estimate that Washington residents spend $46 billion per year on vehicles outside of spending on fuels, we multiplied the average cost to own and operate a vehicle in the United States, subtracted the amount spent on fuels in Washington, and multiplied by the number of gas-powered vehicles registered in Washington.
- Average cost to own and operate a vehicle in the US in 2017 = $8,469
- Number of “gas-powered” vehicles registered in Washington state in 2017 = 6,180,137 (This is conservative because some hybrid vehicles might be classified as “electricity-powered” but still use some gas)
- Total cost to own and operate all vehicles in Washington state = ($8,469 per vehicle * 6,180,137 vehicles) = $52.34 billion
- Amount spent on fuels in Washington = $6.67 billion
- Additional cost to own and operate vehicles, beyond fuel costs = ($52.34 – $6.67) = $45.67
**To estimate that Washington could remove 15 million tons of CO2 pollution per year, we began with the assumptions that passenger cars are driven, on average, 12,500 miles annually and average 24.1 mpg. We then took the average pounds of CO2 produced by such a vehicle annually, converted it to tons of CO2, multiplied the result by the number of “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington, and then halved that number to reflect the scenario where miles driven by “gas-powered” vehicles are reduced by half: …
- The average annual amount of CO2 produced by such a vehicle = 9,737.44 pounds
- 1 ton = 2000 pounds
- Average annual amount of CO2 produced by such a vehicle = (9,737.44 pounds / 2000 pounds) = 4.8687 tons
- Number of “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington = 6,180,137 vehicles
- Total annual CO2 produced by all “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington = (4.8687 tons of annual CO2 emissions per vehicle * 6,180,137 total vehicles in Washington) = 30,089,233 tons of CO2 emitted annually by “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington
- This scenario reduces the number of vehicles by half: (30,089,233 tons of CO2 * 0.5) = 15,044,616.5 tons of annual CO2 emissions avoided
***To estimate that Washington could remove 340,000 pounds of PM2.5 pollution per year, we began with the assumptions that passenger cars are driven 12,500 miles annually and average 24.1 mpg. We then took the average amount of PM2.5 produced by such a vehicle annually, multiplied the result by the number of “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington, and then halved that number to reflect the scenario where “gas-powered” vehicles are reduced by half::
- The average annual amount of PM2.5 produced by such a vehicle = 0.11 pounds
- Number of “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington = 6,180,137 vehicles
- Total annual PM2.5 produced by all “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington = 0.11 pounds of annual PM2.5 emissions per vehicle * 6,180,137 vehicles in Washington = 679,815.07 pounds of PM2.5 emitted annually by “gas-powered” vehicles in Washington
- This scenario reduces the number of vehicles by half: 679,815.07 pounds of PM2.5 * .5 = 339,907.5 pounds of annual PM2.5 emissions avoided
Don Steinke
The oil industry is the most powerful in history and hires the best spin-masters money can buy. They’ve raised $11.1 million as of today to fight us.
They got free advertising in the Columbian when they got a local propane dealer to write an op-ed with the following headline:
A carbon fee would hurt families.
No it would hurt the oil companies.
They may have paid a million dollars to come up with this line.
“The topic of Climate Change is way too important to make mistakes with legislation that can’t be undone. ” — Pretending to care while undermining the boldest and most equitable climate action plan ever.
I’ve heard them say similar things in the legislature — We care about climate change but this plan won’t accomplish any thing. They almost NEVER say what plan they support. At best they say, we’d support market solutions.
As I understand it, a market based approach would be a carbon tax. They say that because a carbon tax would need to be $2 per gallon to make a difference and the public would vote against it.
mark Woods
C02 is a gas similar to oxygen, nitrogen, etc. They weigh basically nothing. Saying millions of pounds of c02 are released into the air is very deceiving. One ton as they call it, is equal to 1200 filled gallon jugs with the c02. It does not weigh 2000 pounds as perceived. Why do they even call it tonnes. Instead of gallons, or cubic feet?
Don Steinke
When you burn 1 pound of gasoline in your car, the exhaust weighs nearly 4 pounds. Of that some is water vapor and most is CO2.
Kev
Get real. The weather isn’t conducive to biking, walking, scootering for much of the year. Nor is it realistic to people who have to live further and further from where they work.
Don Steinke
I have an electric car. I charge it with solar panels. I’m keeping $50,000 away from big oil.
Ruth Knagenhjelm
I agree for many weather is not conducive, but for 1/2 of the year I would argue it is and if we got rebates for buying electrical bikes a lot more people would buy and use them.Biking is just one of many steps in going to a renewable transportation system. Commuters will get more opportunities to take a clean air bus or other public transport or buy an electric car. Wa. state is a good state to drive electric as they can all be powered by electricity coming from the clean energy of hydropower!
Sailor
So I agree the oil industry is doing things to foster its own interest, that’s what businesses do. However, we have bought into this devils bargain when, we as a people, kept clamored for cheap fuel and natural gas, instead of paying the real costs of burning fossil fuels, which include pollution. It’s time to start paying the piper.
I have a bone to pick with the initiative data in this article, particularly the including the calculation that the “Average cost to own and operate a vehicle in the US in 2017 = $8,469.” This is misleading data at best and total crap at worst. Looking back to the source article that’s actually the average cost to own and operate a NEW car and includes Depreciation, which is a large part of this misleading number. Cherrypicking numbers doesn’t serve anyone well!
Also, where is the annual cost to citizens breakdown by income? Not there! This is important data to know for Seniors on a fixed income and low income people in this tax heavy state.
There is also the point that this initiative ignores the needs of folks who live in rural areas and those who drive long distances to work where there is no possibility of rapid transit.
And finally, if you think hybrid and EV cars are non polluting and that solar, hydro and wind power are invironmentally friendly, I suggest you reconsider damages to salmon, birds, and life cycle costs of making and recycling EV batteries and Solar panels
Don Steinke
There are two types of air pollution created the burning of fossil fuels.
1. The conventional health-harming pollutants such as CO, SO2, NOx, Pm10, PM2,5, VOCs and NH3.
According to the Department of Ecology, the burning of fossil fuels in King County produces 930 tons per day of that stuff.
2. Greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4,and NOx. King County probably generates tens of thousand of tons per day of that.
According to the EPA, for each dollar spent reducing health-harming pollutants, we will save $30 in health care costs such as missed days from work, hospital visits and birth defects.
Sources:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Air-quality-targets/Air-emissions-inventory
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study
Mark Vossler MD
The status quo of an economy dominated by fossil fuels is unacceptable. Attempts to delay and distract from moving our economy to 100% clean energy is likewise unacceptable. The fossil fuel industry would love to frame this issue focusing on taking money from hard working citizens.
The reality is that the status quo is unacceptable because it poses such great risks to human health in both the near and the long term. While the goals are set in terms of tons of CO2 reduced and the fee is set based on carbon content of fuels 1631 if enacted will reduce other seriously dangerous pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small particulate matter. All these co-pollutants are increasing the risk of lung disease, heart disease, stroke, cognitive impairment and developmental delay in you, your children and your grandchildren.
Furthermore a warming planet with changing air and ocean currents will change disease patterns as well. Public health researchers predict increases in mosquito and tick borne diseases, flooding induced diarrheal illness, drought induced famine, and extreme heat illness. The most vulnerable are children, the elderly, the chronically ill and people getting by on lower incomes.
By investing in clean energy and healthy forests and by targeting investments toward vulnerable communities 1631 mitigates the health impacts of pollution at a far lower cost than society will be asked to bear if we delay action.
Syndi martin
Once again, people in Seattle think that all of Washington lives there. News flash – there are over 3 million people who live in Washington outside the Seattle area, where walking, biking, and carpooling aren’t options. We are called middle-class citizens; we work every day to feed our families, pay our mortgage and other bills, save for our children’s education (hopefully) and often wonder if our paycheck is going to stretch to the next payday. We drive 30-60 minutes a day to work, each way, and we cannot afford electric or hybrid cars. And we make too much money to qualify for any of the subsidies they’re speaking of. We are single mothers, two-income families, military personnel, farmers and others. Any tax on business or industry is passed down to the consumer – that’s us. So we will see gas prices rise, and God-forbid you’re one of those who has an old oil heater or heat your home with electricity, which runs on fossil fuel. Because if you make between 50,000 and 75,000 dollars per year, you are going to need to take out a home equity loan (if you have enough equity, that is) or go bankrupt switching over to “clean fuel”, or watch your electric rates rise and rise and rise. Because like most of us, you can’t afford to switch your home over to solar, wind, or whatever the latest clean fuel fad is and you make too much to qualify for a subsidy.
But hey, look on the bright side. When you can no longer afford the price of gas, you won’t be able to go to work and you’ll get fired. Then you can qualify for a subsidy to buy yourself a nice new electric car.
I think since King County and the surrounding area are responsible for 95% of the pollution in Washington, they should pay the tax and leave the rest of us alone.
Syndi martin
Mark, I have a question for you. Who is buying my electric car? And my daughter’s? We both drive almost an hour to work each way; we live out in Yelm and there is no public transportation to either of our jobs. Carpooling is also not an option. We live in a community that is 50% military personnel; young men and women just starting out in life. They drive an hour to base. They live out here because its still relatively affordable. So who is buying their electric cars? Because I will bet that we all make “too much” to be considered poor, but just enough to make ends meet.
And lets not forget how long it takes to charge one of those babies. If you drive any distance at all (I make 2 trips to Portland and further south each month), I have to plan to sit somewhere on the side of the road (if i can find a charging station) for a couple hours waiting for my charge.
Here’s some info – not everyone lives in Seattle and drives 10 blocks for work, in a city where they have charging stations on each corner. Have you ever been over the other side of the mountains? Ever visited a farmer? Seen the equipment he needs to run his farm? I doubt they make electric options for that guy, either. The world doesn’t revolve in your own little orbit.
Cong
Endless tax won’t help Washington residents. Tax those countries who pollute more if you can!
Don Steinke
Initiative 1631 will invest in clean energy projects and create 40,000 jobs, installing solar panels, energy efficiency upgrades in schools and shore power for ships.
We send $20 billion out of state every year for fossil fuels. How does that create jobs here?
Tyler
I commute 30 miles to a from work. A lot of people in Washington have long commutes this carbon tax is just another shot at the common man who work hard so all you trendy progressives can live in your little bubbles that don’t match reality.
Mark Vossler, MD
I think Tyler raises a valid concern. In order to be maximally effective some of the 1631 revenue will need to be spent improving transportation options for those who have long commutes. Given the cost of housing closer to jobs many WA residents don’t have much choice. Bike lanes won’t do much for folks like Tyler but more accessible public transportation and assistance with purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles would. Fortunately the plan is to invest in clean energy in rural communities and to target 35% of total investments toward those of lower income. This will make the necessary transition to clean energy equitable for all.
Don Steinke
In you understood the seriousness of global warming and the urgency of reducing its extent, you’d see that doing nothing is far more expensive than investing now in clean energy projects.
Climate scientists recognize that at some point mechanisms that restore the balance of nature will be overwhelmed and that global warming will be unstoppable.
We are trying to prevent that from happening.
Don Steinke
Initiative 1631 will help more people buy and electric car.
I have a Nissan Leaf which I charge with my solar panels.
If I need to take a longer trip, I drive my Honda Civic.
kevin
Ride the bus if you can, drive an electric car. That is what i do. i only drive a gas powered vehicle when i have no other alternative. You can get a used electric car for under 10K with four years of warranty left on it.
Don Steinke
There are two kinds of air pollution: conventional pollutants that directly harm health and greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
In King County in 2014, the burning of fossil fuels produced 930 tons of health-harming pollution PER DAY, plus tens of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases.
Initiative 1631 will reduce both kinds of air pollution and help protect our children’s future.
I don’t know how to post the link for the source, using HTTP.
Rusty
I heard that Boeing is going to be exempt ? Any other big companies getting a free ride? Why are they exempt?
Nicholas
This is from their website on exemptions: 1631 is truly built for Washington. Our plan ensures that when we need steel, aluminum, and concrete to build new clean energy in our state we are using our companies and our workers to do it. These companies are leaders in efficiency and give us the cleanest manufacturing in the world. That means we are allowing more people in Washington to share in the clean energy economy and aren’t just exporting our pollution somewhere else, while still covering 80% of polluters in our state.
Rachel Molloy
We went carbon neutral in our home. Our energy and efficiency upgrades LITERALLY paid for themselves in savings, and they will save us another $5 or more on top. When the costs of climate impacts mount on taxpayers, there is just no reason for us to keep paying more to give free air sewage handouts to private corporations to they can keep out outdated, polluting product viable. #YESon1631
Steve Erickson
The map linked to in the article states:
“One of the largest biodiesel production facilities in the US is located in Grays Harbor—it takes locally-grown canola and soybeans and local workers then turn them into a cleaner-burning fuel. ”
Neither the coal nor the soybeans processed by this plant (Imperium) are “local” in any sense of the word. This mistake really needs to be corrected because such a glaring error makes the entire map questionable.
There are crops that can be grown in WA for producing bio-fuels, but the logical location for doing this is eastern WA (think: Columbia Basin), not on the much more expensive land west of the Cascades. The Grays Harbor plant located there to be able to ship by water and at one point the owners proposed shipping crude oil through the facility.
Kristin Eberhard
Thanks for pointing this out. I have updated the wording to make clear that the canola oil is grown in Washington, and other crops may or may not be from Washington.
Gail Downing
How much does Snohomish County pollute the air and water?
Steve Hoffman
I am interested in how the near-inevitable transition to a greatly increased percentage of electric vehicles on the road might impact climate in non-obvious ways, and how that impact can be minimized. Ideally, for instance, each EV that’s on the road would be used for its full life span — i.e, until it dies. Use up all the older ones by matching them with folks who only need, e.g., a 90 mile range per charge. But what about gas/diesel powered vehicles? At what point, from a life cycle assessment perspective or other holistic perspective, does it make sense to mothball or recycle them? Have those behind the 1631 Initiative considered the embedded energy and resources in all of those vehicles? E.g., the energy it took to extract the resources, process resources, manufacture the gas/diesel vehicles; the pollution which resulted from all of the above; the water used; the resources themselves; etc. If we were to simply throw out all existing gas/diesel vehicles on the road, we would throw out all of that energy/resources, in a way. How does 1631 consider this? I guess a fee pushes people in the direction of EVs, mass transit, etc. It does not try to make the transition happen overnight. As one reader noted above, the used EV market is worth considering (though range is much less on older EVs, and many people will probably go for newer (or new) EVs that can go 200-plus miles on a charge rather than 90. So — it’s complicated! If everyone rushes out and tries to buy a new EV, that’s not a terribly climate-friendly proposition, given how resource and energy intensive it is to produce them.) Given all of this, I can’t help wondering what the 1631 initiative developers had in mind in terms of these impacts — and how we can help the transition go as smoothly and wisely as possible. I see the ‘diversity of transpo options listed’ — from scooters to mass transit to bikes to car sharing. That is all helpful. But at what point in its life span does it make sense to mothball or try to recycle a gas/diesel powered vehicle? I’ve researched similar questions with regard to light bulbs and refrigerators. With light bulbs, a huge % of the energy used in their full life cycle is used during light bulb *operation*. So throwing out/recycling an incandescent light bulb which still has plenty of life actually is fairly easy to justify. I’ve not found nearly as good data w/ regard to refrigerators — I don’t think the case is as clear. And cars/trucks are on, it would seem, a whole different level. It is generally a safe bet to change over/transition/upgrade when you *need* a new piece of equipment. What about earlier? It seems that the Initiative 1631 creators had a rapid transition in mind, but… I’m wondering what they might say to this set of questions.
Max Girouard
The most immediate threat from Climate Change is permafrost melting!
In the northern hemisphere, permafrost covers an estimated 9 million square miles—nearly the size of the United States, China, and Canada combined. However, that footprint is rapidly shrinking. While global warming is upping temperatures around the world, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else—and faster than it has in the past 3 million years. Warming leads to more methane release which leads to more warming until we get into a runaway greenhouse effect. According to NASA, that “occurs when a planet absorbs more energy from the sun than it can radiate back to space. Under these circumstances, the hotter the surface temperature gets, the faster it warms up.” Scientist estimate there is enough carbon in the permafrost to double the amount of carbon in our atmosphere! So instead of 400 ppb, more like 800 ppb. Some scientist think this is what happened to Venus! The oceans boiled off into space! Let’s not find out if it could happen here!
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere have risen rapidly since measurements began nearly 60 years ago, climbing from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to more than 400 ppm today.
In the northern hemisphere, permafrost covers an estimated 9 million square miles—nearly the size of the United States, China, and Canada combined. However, that footprint is rapidly shrinking. While global warming is upping temperatures around the world, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else—and faster than it has in the past 3 million years. Warming leads to more methane release which leads to more warming until we get into a runaway greenhouse effect. According to NASA, that “occurs when a planet absorbs more energy from the sun than it can radiate back to space. Under these circumstances, the hotter the surface temperature gets, the faster it warms up.” Scientist estimate there is enough carbon in the permafrost to double the amount of carbon in our atmosphere! So instead of 400 ppb, more like 800 ppb. Some scientist think this is what happened to Venus! The oceans boiled off into space! Let’s not find out if it could happen here!
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere have risen rapidly since measurements began nearly 60 years ago, climbing from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to more than 400 ppm today.
Is there a trend line here?
Consider this: No one benefits from extinction and everyone benefits from a functional social democracy! Everyone benefits, even the former billionaires!
We need to nationalize the fossil fuel industry NOW!
Consider this: No one benefits from extinction and everyone benefits from a functional social democracy!
Nationalize Extreme Wealth Too!
We will be Pro-Extinction or Pro-Survival! Middle of the road is where the yellow line is!
Frank Gibbons
1) where does the other 30% of revenue go?
2) who ultimately decides on how it is spent- the WA legislature?
3) the 50% reduction in gas vehicles is achieved over what period of time?
4) how much will this increase add to the price of gasoline?
Tom Balderston
Good article, sloppy editing. I am shocked to read that workers in Grays Harbor are being made into Biodiesel!
Kelsey Hamlin
Tom, the corresponding sentence you were pointing out here has been corrected so the antecedent is not “workers.” Thanks
Naomi Aldort
Electric cars are not a good solution as we end up sitting in Electro Magnetic Field radiation that is not the kind our bodies need. In fact it will just cause more cancer and the costs would move from gasoline to big pharma. I am all for this tax as a first step, but the most important is how the money will be used. We have to transform our lifestyle to make walking and biking possible and create radiation free electric cars. By the way, the moment you have a computer in the car (GPS) you are fried in very damaging radiation. When a solution is clearly another huge problem, it is time to move the residence close to where we work, or move the work into our homes or neighborhoods, or any other creative, really new solutions. More of the same with a different kind of motor will still be a giant problem. We must create a complete shift. With offices in the homes, for example, and in homes in the neighborhood, we not only kill the traffic, but also reduce the amount of buildings. We must stop finding ways to feed the existing system, and instead, create a new system that does not feed the dirty fuel corporations.