The contrast with climate policy in southern states is stark:
... [Washington Governor Jay Inslee] has proposed collecting a new charge on emissions from oil refineries, power plants and other industries that would reap an estimated $1.3 billion in the first year. But in contrast to similar systems in California and the Northeast, energy experts said, Mr. Inslee’s plan would use most of the new revenue for education and transportation rather than on climate or energy projects.
By linking the money to broadly popular bread-and-butter programs, he hopes to build support for an antipollution policy that faces stiff opposition from Republicans and some industry groups. He is also trying to solve two problems with one policy. Washington has been cited for contempt by the state’s highest court, which said the government violated the State Constitution by underfunding schools by billions of dollars. ...
... the state would set an overall cap on carbon emissions and require the state's biggest polluters to pay for each metric ton of pollution emitted. The price would be set at an auction, and buyers of emission allowances could sell the amounts they did not need.
The governor's allies on environmental issues are already talking about taking his ideas directly to voters in a referendum, perhaps in 2016, if the Legislature does not pass them.
Also, would someone in Washington state conduct a survey, like right now, with a hypothetical referendum on the cap-and-trade plan? And then another closer to the actual referendum?
And I wonder what the Stand-up Economist, who is working towards a revenue-neutral carbon tax in Washington, thinks about this?