Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Big Oil Backs Eyman's 2/3 Tax Initiative

Posted by on Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Two oil companies with refineries in Washington—ConacoPhillips and Tesoro Corporation—count among the highest donors backing Tim Eyman's 2/3 tax initiative, which would reimpose a two-thirds majority vote in Olympia in order to raise taxes and fees. It may seem like an odd move, but environmentalists say refineries are throwing their weight behind Eyman's initiative—to the tune of $25,000 each—because they want don't want to be held accountable for oil-related environmental cleanup in the state.

Puget Sound
  • ECityBlues via Flickr
  • Puget Sound
"There's no question in my mind that they’re trying to block our next move," says Brendon Cechovic, political director for Washington Conservation Voters. For the last two years, 25 environmental groups have been fighting to put oil refineries on the hook for cleaning up stormwater run-off.


Here's why: Each year, millions of gallons of toxins wash from roads, driveways, and parking lots into waterways like Puget Sound and the Columbia River. "This is the state's biggest water pollution problem," says Cechovic, and the majority of comes from oil.

So what needs to be done? "We need to invest in infrastructure," says Cechovic. He says building better storm-water drains and retention ponds would more efficiently trap pollutants before they entered our waterways. The problem is, there’s no money to pay for them. Still, the federal Clean Water Act mandates that local governments clean waterways up.

That's why environmental groups have introduced measures for years to hold refineries accountable for those cleanup costs. Last year, their measure would've raised an existing tax on hazardous materials in the state from .7 percent to 2 percent (I touched on this yesterday). The hazardous materials tax applies to 8,000 toxic materials, including petroleum, and the revenue it generates is dedicated to toxic cleanup. The tax increase would've generated an additional $100 million for cleanup, according to Cechovic. It passed the House by one vote but never made it though the Senate.

"There's millions of dollars worth of work out there," Cechovic says. "But oil refineries don't pay a penny towards cleanup. The little we do pay comes from property taxes and utility rates. Local governments are at the point where they can't keep raising property taxes."

Now, Cechovic says, environmentalists are gearing up for a third try. But if Eyman's initiative is passed by voters, any measure they introduce is dead in the water. Passing a tax hike is hard enough; passing one by a 2/3 majority vote is nearly impossible. "Instead of fighting us in the legislature, they're blocking us before we can get our measure off the ground," says Cechvic. "These guys know what they're doing."

Representatives from ConacoPhillips and Tesoro Co. haven't returned calls for comment.

 

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Packeteer 1
Why should oil companies be responsible for oil cleanup? They are simply selling a product. If I bought rat poison and dumped it in a river nobody would go after the company making the rat poison. Unless the refinery is spilling the oil it is the consumer who is responsible. Ultimately it is society as a whole that needs to bear the burden.

Arbitrarily choosing one of the companies involved with the production is silly. Why are the drilling companies not held responsible? Why are the shipping companies who move the crude to the refinery not responsible? Why are the gas stations not help responsible for the cleanup?
Posted by Packeteer on July 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM
2
Tax the shit out of them.

A refinery is fixed infrastructure. They can't take their business anywhere else. If they raise prices too much for the consumer, we'll import our gas and oil from Oregon.

@1 -- These companies will do all they can to spread the tax amongst everyone in the production / consumption chain. The drilling companies will pay, the shipping companies will pay, the gas stations will pay. The consumer will pay. Everyone will pay, pay, pay.

Now do you like it?
Posted by six shooter on July 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Fnarf 3
I think the runoff from lawns and septic systems, particularly in fragile waterways like Hood Canal, is worse than auto-related runoff. I could be wrong. Of course, fertilizer is oil too.

@1, who should pay, then? There is no way to avoid these toxic effluents; they don't just come out of your leaky crankcase but every time you start your car or depress your brake pedal. They come off your tires as you go down the road. It's a COST, a real cost, not a made-up thing. Who's going to pay? Who's going to pay when the waters are dead, as they very nearly are already?
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on July 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Packeteer 4
@2 Yes that would make me happy. Everyone should be paying. The way to get everyone to pay is usually with property or income taxes. Taxing a certain part of the production chain is silly and will just recruit more people who's jobs rely on oil refineries to join the tea party.

I am all for paying for the cleanup but you have to realize that making tactical political moves like this is just rallying support for our opponents.
Posted by Packeteer on July 1, 2010 at 12:41 PM
5
FUCK Tim Eyman.

/That is all.
Posted by jns on July 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM
6
Yes, it will recruit more teapartiers. The tax will also let at us get at the billions of dollars IN PROFIT these companies have made in the last decade.

Why should the oil companies be so rich when we are so poor?
Posted by six shooter on July 1, 2010 at 12:56 PM
7
I'm not concerned with "recruiting more teapartiers" as that is a poor excuse to not do something, especially around pollution. And, taxing the refinery, while not a perfect solution, may be the only solution (see: go after the guys with the deepest pockets) as local government either don't have the ability or the will to raise to taxes. And, coordinating that would be a nightmare. Some communities might then have effective groundwater mitigation while others don't. A tax at the refinery level would level the playing field, so to speak. And anyway, have you seen the Gulf of Mexico? You don't think refineries have a price to pay? Seriously?
Posted by kulshan on July 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Packeteer 8
@7 I don't think refineries should pay directly. The owners should pay through income taxes and property taxes. Why is their profitable business any different than whole foods?

Should whole foods be held responsible when people little organic juice bottles on the street? After all they are making a profit off someone polluting, therefore by the logic behind this tax they should lose some of their profit for the cleanup effort.
Posted by Packeteer on July 1, 2010 at 2:44 PM
9
@8, because their profitable business comes at an immense cost to the rest of us. I don't think it's a good analogy to compare them to Whole Foods. And, I'll agree with you re: they should pay via income taxes and property taxes. But lacking that I certainly support WCV's efforts on this front.
Posted by kulshan on July 1, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Packeteer 10
"when people litter organic juice bottles"
Posted by Packeteer on July 1, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Packeteer 11
@9 You said Whole Foods is not a good analogy but why?

I have another example. Asphalt companies profit comes at an enourmous environmental cost to us. Why do they not pay to create new wetlands when wild ones are paved over?
Posted by Packeteer on July 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM
12
@11, I don't think it's a good analogy because oil is a fabric of everyday living and an organic juice bottle is essentially a luxury. Or at least the juice in it. My point is that oil literally is in every facet of our life, from our clothes, to our food, to the computer(s) we're typing on. As such, I think oil refiners and the like get largely a free pass when it comes to the responsibility of consumption. To me it's analogous to making coal-fired plants pay for filtering technology..after all, coal smoke is a by-product of creating electricity. I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't have to pay to clean their smokestacks. Well, maybe you are. In any event, I'm happy to agree to disagree. Perhaps in a perfect world we'd be paying a lot more for a gallon of gas with the knowledge that those extra dollars would fund things like stormwater treatment infrastructure. Until then, I will advocate taxing refineries for the damage their products cause.
Posted by kulshan on July 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM
13
@11 -- Whole Foods funds the city (and the cleanup of the garbage their products produce) through the B&O tax.

This is not a question of "if." It's a question of "how much."
Posted by six shooter on July 1, 2010 at 4:45 PM
14
@11 -- The property owners who hire asphalt companies to pave pay taxes through their permits and through taxes on the asphalt.

Everyone pays taxes. Most of the time, they get honest value through their taxes. You couldn't afford the cost of the road in front of your house, but you and your neighbors together can afford the costs of roads throughout the city.
Posted by six shooter on July 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM
15
I am always amazed at the mentality of people. Oil companies make billions while avoiding US taxes by setting up overseas. They create an environmental catastrophe and the tax payers are stuck paying for clean up. Tax the oil industry, they will pass it on and then everyone pays since fairness seems to be the biggest complaint. The State Senate killed this legislation last session at the hands of State Senator Steve Hobbs and his Roadkill Corporate shill caucus. Sure, let big oil make their billions in profits and let the rest of us clean it up. That's fair. It'd be nice to actually have people represent the interests of the public for a change.
Posted by True Believer on July 1, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy