2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,255
- 2,290
Almost nothing from wind or solar, you are quite full of it. Most is from dams but 10% from coal and 4% nuclear. We would have more if it wasn't for the halfwits shutting down the Satsop and Kelso plants.The dishonest bias in that article is that they take pains to tell you the dollar amount of how much you will "save" in sales tax, but utterly fail to mention the dollar amount you will pay in extra utility bills and gasoline.See if you can detect the dishonest bias in your article from this quote:The article tells what taxes are decreased.
Sales tax will decrease. Taxes on certain manufacturing will decrease.
It's revenue neutral.
Do you see it? And I don't just mean the use of "polluters".
- I-732 will add a $25 per ton tax to polluting fossil fuels. This is equivalent to about a 25 cent increase per gallon of gasoline. Household electricity prices would go up about five percent.
- I-732 returns the money polluters pay to everyone’s pocket by lowering other taxes:
- Lowers the sales tax by one percentage point, saving the average family hundreds of dollars per year.
I didn't read the whole article.
I read the text of the initiative.
If my electric bills are going to go up 5 percent I have no problem with it.
My last electric bill, which was a 2 month billing cycle, was 27 dollars. My house is 3800 sq feet and I'm right on Puget Sound so we get the storms first and we always have lower temeratures because of it.
My electric bills are low enough to pay a surcharge on pollution. We're paying it anyway by having to clean up the mess so why not do it the cheaper way instead of the unhealthy and expensive way? I'll pay a little more to help prevent a child from having a disease like asthma because of pollution.
A lie of omission that is a sure sign of a scam.
I will pay less in sales taxes which will off set the very minimal amount I might pay extra for the carbon tax.
I decided in 2001 to never buy a regular gas car again and haven't. I don't use as much gas as those with a regular car. So the increase for those like me will be less.
Which is the point. Encourage more people to be more environmentally responsible and get as many of those horribly stinky cars off the road.
Since I don't drive a regular gas car I've noticed how horrible regular cars smell. I hope more people have even more incentive to trade in their old gas guzzlers that harm our environment and get one that doesn't pollute as much.
I just went through the voter's pamphlet again. I didn't miss the so called 5% increase on a household on energy. You got that from the article. Which isn't in the financial declaration required by the law here. So I'm more inclined to believe that 5% increase in the article is supposition and not fact.
The tax isn't on energy that's created from non carbon sources such as water, wind and the sun. Which is how we generate energy here. Water is the largest percentage at 60%. The rest is renewables such as wind and sun. We have a law that requires the renewable energy so there's no energy that I know of that comes from fossil fuels here beyond the gas people put in their cars.
Nuclear Energy in Washington - CASEnergy Coalition
Nuclear energy is a vital part of America’s energy portfolio. Nuclear energy already provides about 20 percent of the country’s electricity, and Washington’s Columbia facility generates 4 percent of the state’s electricity.
Demand for energy is expected to grow in Washington and across the United States, as much as 28 percent by 2040 in the U.S. In order to meet future electricity demands, the United States will need to embrace a broad portfolio of American-produced energy solutions, and nuclear energy must be a part of that mix.
Not if hilary gets into office...she has been bought and paid for by the muslim, oil nations....so the American energy industtry is about to get murdered....