What has happened is climate change. It has contributed to the dry conditions that fueled forest fires, blanketing Seattle with smoke this year. It has altered the acidity of the oceans, damaging oyster farms in Seattle’s Puget Sound. And now, climate change has made its way onto the Nov. 6 ballot, in the form of a statewide initiative that would impose a $15-a-ton fee on carbon emissions that cause global warming.

‘‘I’ve lived in Seattle my whole life. This is not something I remember growing up with,’’ said Holly Olsen, owner of the business. ‘‘Clearly there has been some kind of change that happened.’’

The bride had asthma. The scenic Seattle skyline — the ideal backdrop for photographs — was shrouded in smoke from wildfires. And Perfectly Posh Events, the wedding planner, had to scramble for an indoor venue in the middle of summer, usually the best time of the year for an outdoor exchanging of vows.

If the measure is adopted, Washington would become the first state in the nation to tax carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.


The drive has sparked a fight for votes that pits big-oil refiners against a coalition of environmental groups, unions, Native American groups, communities of color, liberal business leaders like Bill Gates, and Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat.

The battle has already set a new Washington state record for spending on a ballot issue. The Clean Air Clean Energy coalition to say ‘‘yes’’ on the ballot has raised nearly $14.8 million, including $1 million each from Gates and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. Big-oil companies belonging to the Western States Petroleum Association — including Koch Industries — have given $26.2 million, according to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission.

‘‘I have three grandkids, and I’d like them to have a shot at a healthy Washington,’’ Inslee said. But two consecutive years of smoky wildfires have shown that ‘‘unfortunately it is not just for our children but also for our lives.’’


Win or lose, Washington’s Initiative 1631 is a case study in how thorny the politics of carbon pricing can be, starting with the name. Calling it a tax might please economists, but could be fatal politically. The measure’s supporters call it a fee.

‘‘If something is a fee, it makes it much more difficult for the Legislature to use the money raised for things not directly related to what it’s supposed to do,’’ said Gregg Small, executive director of Climate Solutions. Seventy percent of the revenue is earmarked for renewable energy investment, and 25 percent for water and forests.

‘‘People want a fee on pollution, not a tax,’’ pollster Frank Greer said. ‘‘People want to do something about carbon pollution and see those funds invested in a clean-energy economy.’’

Support is heavy in the bigger cities of Seattle and Spokane, and among young voters and suburban women — a lot like the voters Democrats hope to win over. And the bout of bad summer air quality, which rivaled Beijing’s, still looms in people’s minds.

‘‘It is definitely a thing that has become a concern for couples,’’ Olsen said. She said those making plans for 2019 ask: ‘‘Should this be a regular thing to expect in summer?’’

In a Crosscut/Elway Poll, Initiative 1631 drew 50 percent approval among the 400 registered voters polled. Thirty-six percent said they opposed the initiative, while 14 percent were undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 5 points.


Stuart Elway has polled on 90 initiatives and only 16 have passed when drawing less than 50 percent support in October. ‘‘It’s right on the cusp,’’ Elway said. ‘‘There’s no cushion.’’

One reason the initiative has a chance is the difference between it and other carbon tax proposals, including one being promoted in the nation’s capital by a group of leading economists and former Cabinet members and lawmakers. The group, led by former Treasury secretary James Baker and former secretary of state George Shultz, supports a revenue-neutral plan that would tax carbon emissions and send identical refunds, or dividends, to households.

Washington state tried a similar idea two years ago, combining a carbon tax with other tax cuts. It failed to win the support of unions or even some environmental groups.

This time, the initiative reflects a variety of stakeholders. Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, is on board. The measure would exempt eight energy-intensive manufacturing plants, pour fee revenue into clean-energy projects, fund training and early retirement plans for affected workers, and create an appointed board that would allocate revenue in the future.

One of the exempted facilities is the biggest emitter of all, a coal-fired power plant owned by TransAlta, which had already agreed to close its plant by 2025. Exemptions would also go to paper companies, aircraft manufacturers, and an aluminum smelter, all highly sensitive to international competition. Indian tribes that do not pay sales taxes would also be exempt.


But oil refiners would have to pay.

Some climate experts criticize the fee for being too small. After kicking in at $15 a ton, the fee would increase $2 a ton a year until 2035. It would raise more than $1 billion annually by 2025.

Washington Post