Clean the Darn Air Is Worth a Vote
– By Lisa Rutherford –
I attended a hearing on February 12 for the Clean the Darn Air (CTDA) initiative. It’s an initiative to help deal with air quality problems—current and future—and set Utah on a cleaner path. Citizens in this state have the right by law to run initiatives and get them on the ballot for voters. State code requirements have made it very challenging for citizens to have a voice in this manner, but the CTDA team is working hard to make it happen.
The hearings—seven statewide—were scheduled based on information from the state concerning when the state would finalize their fiscal review of the initiative. Only after state review could hearings be held and signature gathering begin. The final initiative hearing was in St. George on February 12—Super Bowl Sunday. Although people grumbled about it being held on Super Bowl Sunday, there was standing room only.
The initiative proposes to eliminate the tax on grocery store food and put a tax on carbon instead. With fossil fuels being the main cause of the pollution currently in the Salt Lake area—pollution NOT haze, as newscasters like to say—and our area prone to the same with projections that we will grow to nearly 500,000 residents in twenty-five to thirty years, this initiative deserves to go to voters. We are a constitutional republic, as was noted at the hearing by many in attendance who oppose the initiative. That does not mean that this initiative is not worthy of a vote. Nor does it mean that this state’s constitution does not support such an effort. In fact, the state constitution (Article VI, Section 1) says that the “Legislative power of the State” belongs jointly to the state legislature and to “the people of the State of Utah” through the ballot measures process.
There was a lot of talk about freedom from taxes at the hearing. People seemed to ignore the fact that we are eliminating a regressive food tax, not adding another burden. Like the impact of the food tax, the carbon tax will increase as time passes, but that’s in an effort to have less carbon-miles driven, which is reasonable given that the air quality problem is the result of excessive driving of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. As the population of this state increases, if we don’t reduce the effects of ICE vehicles, we will just continue to have more problems: not just in Northern Utah but here and elsewhere, too.
I get that people don’t want to pay taxes. Heck, I don’t like paying taxes either, but more than that I don’t like breathing crappy air or having my loved ones breathe it. I made the point at the meeting that for those who want their children, grandchildren, elderly and other loved ones to breathe harmful air, that’s their choice—that’s freedom. But all Utahns should have the chance to vote on this initiative. To take that choice away from other citizens is not fair nor in keeping with our Constitutional Republic. Are we trying to encourage people to drive fewer ICE vehicles? Yes. But that’s a choice people will have. If they continue to drive ICE vehicles many miles and at high speeds, they will pay more. But that’s choice, folks. That’s freedom of choice. Yes, ICE cars are polluting less than before as was mentioned at the hearing, but that’s not enough to solve the problem.
Some at the meeting asserted that people can and should be good stewards of our environment without government force. I agree with that, but this is not government force. It’s the people having a chance to vote on doing something that will benefit all, especially those they love. This is government “by the people.” Again, this is not about supporting northern Utah just to clean up their bad air. A peer-reviewed study by a BYU interdisciplinary research team revealed the level to which air pollution is harming not only the health of those in heavily-polluted areas but our state’s economy, too. That economic impact affects all of us no matter where we live in Utah.
Take the Olympics as an example of how air quality can hurt us economically. Currently, Salt Lake City is vying to host winter Olympics in either 2030 or 2034, whichever year the International Olympic Committee chooses. But dismal air quality in the Salt Lake area could reduce the number of people willing to spend lots of money to attend the games. Nearly 80% of Utahns support hosting the Olympics according to a University of Utah Hinckley Institute of Politics poll. Was air quality an issue during and leading up to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake? I don’t know and can’t find any information regarding that, but it certainly could be this time around.
In January of this year, Salt Lake City had the worst air quality in the nation and 18th worst in the world. What effect could that have on attendance at the winter games should Salt Lake City’s bid be successful? We have seven to eleven years, depending on the IOC’s decision, to improve that air quality.
The 2002 Winter Olympics themselves turned a profit of about $100 million after the state was paid back for Olympic facilities investments. Those facilities are now in place and Salt Lake is ready to host again. A 2018 analysis by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute valued the 2002 Olympics economic impact at more than $6 billion, after spending $2.5 billion in preparation.
Approving this initiative, getting it on the ballot, and passing it hold great promise for not only cleaning our air but improving Utah’s economics, too.
So, back to the hearing. There were those who pointed out problems with EVs. Specifically, mining of precious metals, such as lithium and cobalt, needed for manufacturing EVs is causing problems such as slave labor in Africa and water right challenges in the “lithium triangle” of South America, where indigenous and rural communities are struggling to fight the industry’s demand for water and land. I understand and agree that we have challenges with this, but that does not diminish the challenges and costs we already face with climate change. According to NOAA it is costing the U.S. trillions of dollars. In 2021 alone there were twenty separate billion-dollar weather and climate disaster events across the United States with a total cost of $145 billion, the third most costly year on record behind 2017 and 2005. The 323 weather and climate disasters since 1980 have cost the United States – us! – over $2.195 trillion, and the costs are going up.
I also wonder if the people who expressed concerns about the slave labor for EV minerals would be as concerned if the slave labor did not have to do with what they view as a political issue. Are these folks equally concerned about and working to stop slave labor in industries such as clothing, agricultural, domestic work? Are they buying products produced by Nestle and Starbucks?
There’s more to say about the hearing and the comments made. Suffice it to say, however, that citizens should just go to https://www.cleanthedarnair.org/ to learn more themselves and consider the benefits this holds for our state and our health.
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
 initiative. It’s an initiative to help deal with air quality problems){kind=link}
Well Mrs Rutherford, I agree with you on many points in this article but always there is another angle. The simple verdict is we need clean air to breath and there have been many studies that show living in an environment with pollution shortens lifespan and causes developmental issues with children. A recent documentary piece by Vice (see Youtube) was released a week or so ago and details the issues with the Great Salt Lake.
Believe it or not is is dying and there are also serious issues related to AIR as well. It is truly controversial whether EVs are the answer. (Slavery issue aside, the carbon imprint to manufacture EVs may offset any benefit) And likewise there are issues with carbon tax credit systems. Do they really work? Now please do not feel disconcerted as I am with you 100% that we need to solve the air quality issue and your work on this serious problem is commendable. But we need the right solution. Maybe Hydrogen cars? Or maybe efficient transportation systems as is the case with the train network in Europe. Remember people movers at Disneyland – sounds far out but Disney was a visionary) As far as taxes being bad – most people do not understand that they are neutral. Figure that we have already been taxed in the form of inflation due to trillions of dollars of bloat in the money supply. Taxes can work but rarely do politicians get them right due to corporate influence hidden behind the veil. You are doing God’s work here. So keep us informed, and as you know Lisa, ole Fulcanelli always comes out of nowhere with a different side of the equation. Peace out – and I truly have enjoyed your recent series of articles regarding this issue.
Footnote: MEER = Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing. Project MEER is the only solution I can endorse at this time. It is in its infancy and very little funding or publicity currently exists. Note – Based on peer review studies regarding addressing carbon in the atmosphere… at this time… dealing with carbon emmisions may not be enough to reverse course due to potential likelihood a self-reinforcing feedback loop may be present. If that is the case carbon masking may be present and that would be a game changer.
Fulcanelli, as always, I enjoy reading your comments and considering your ideas. I agree that we need the right solution, as you say, but while we are working on ideas you mention we are losing ground and must do something. To me, this tax swap makes sense and hopefully will help to move us in the right direction. Sometimes the “right” solution is not available and we must do something (cough, cough) before we lose more ground.
From the Deseret News, article by Katie McKellar, published on 2/17/23.
Headline reads: “Lawmakers say they’ll repeal Utah’s food tax – if constitutional earmark for education is removed.”
Four excerpts from the article:
1) Utah lawmakers are slated to consider HB101, a bill that would remove the state’s portion of sales tax on food, contingent on removing the constitutional earmark for income tax revenue, as laid out in SJR10. It’s scheduled to be heard in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee on Tuesday at 8 a.m., legislative leaders announced Friday.
2) “Utah is the only state in the nation that has these types of budget constraints,” House Majority Leader Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said in a statement. “We can’t remove the sales tax on food and continue to efficiently balance the state budget. I’m excited to give citizens the opportunity to make the final decision at the ballot box next November.”
3) If the Republican-controlled Legislature passes SJR10, Utah voters will decide whether to approve the constitutional amendment to remove the education earmark during the 2024 general election. If lawmakers also approve HB101 — and voters approve the constitutional amendment — it will eliminate the sales tax on food, resulting in a $200 million total tax cut.
4) The removal of the state’s portion of sales tax on food would not take effect if voters opt against removing the education earmark.
Guess the CTDA will have to stick with “other regressive taxes” because the food sales tax, one way or the other, is out of play.
Dear G Lea – it seems you have covered all the bases on Utah tax issues, however in context to the article that was a minor little itty bitty detail. The idea all taxation is bad has its roots in the 80s with Reagan and hit its peak in the late 90s early 2000s. Actually taxation is an economic tool and improperly used can have negative consequences – on that we can agree. But essentially it is neutral… With that said I did have Dr Art Laffer for my Money and Banking class in my senior year. BUT HELLO! The article is about air quality. To reiterate taxation was a minor point and was relatively contextual. Guess it must have hit a nerve or something. You provide no solutions. And to be honest does not inflation these days have more of an impact on our lives than taxation? Yuh think? How about breathing fresh air… sorry for being critical but your comment is more or less passive aggressive diatribe. Guess it is good to vent.. Peace out.
Did you not follow the links within the CDTA website? The bulk of their ‘revenue’ is derived by replacing the food tax with the carbon tax. The food tax is not theirs to bargain with.
You of all people, with your exemplary qualifications, should know that inflation is nothing more than taxation – probably the most insidious & regressive tax of all.
I am not a climate alarmist.
Duly note I made that point on inflation very clear if you read my comment in detail. So hey – we agree again. Oh glad you mentioned you are not a climate alarmist. Duly noted as well. That translates into no solution. Actually if you look up self reinforcement feedback loop in regards to carbon masking which I state may be occurring – GET READY (drumroll please) – it introduces the paradigm that at this point carbon is now masking solar radiation and the idea of reducing carbon is useless as we have already reached a level of exposure to the Sun’s emmisions. Peer review studies support this msy be the case and one can site France as the canary in the COALmine when they transitioned to nuclear power decades ago which lowered carbon emissions and this resulted in an uptick of surface temperature – to put it in simple terms. So gotcha… and now I am in trouble with Lisa. (Thanks alot) So go back to your cut and paste far right talking points (I e. Tribalism) and memes and rest assured your gut feeling trumps science. Oh let’s add I am a registered. Republican . . So call me a name like RINO… lol if that works for you. Ed Kociela though would disagree Bigly on that point. Peace out
Not yet it isn’t as clearly stated in the information you yourself have provide. Voters would have to approve removing the education earmark and it is quite controversial and may not be approved by voters, so the grocery tax would not be removed either.
I cut & paste, as you put it, in order to get around the interminable moderation on embedded links that is imposed on this site.
I did not cite far right talking points. I told readers how to find the source for my discovery that the food tax is well outside of the CTDA’s purview. Those interested in facts should read it for themselves. In my comment I did highlight points within the report that are relevant to CTDA’s claims. I didn’t assume that readers would grasp the importance of the conflict. You didn’t.
“Clean the darn air is worth a vote” is the title and main point of the article Lisa wrote – not taxation without representation… Maybe Howard S. will write another piece regarding tax issues in Utah in the coming months…. Notice Lisa has ghosted you herein… no response… Likely not because she agrees or disagrees with you rather you are a little far afield from the main topic. Anyway I think all of us agree (including Lisa) taxes are not fun especially with April 17th looming ahead. Peace out… no further comment
Fulcanelli did you attend the meeting? With this comment I’m guessing not,”BUT HELLO! The article is about air quality. To reiterate taxation was a minor point and was relatively contextual.”
No one wants to breath bad air, but throwing money at the problem is not going to clean the air. And I for one expect some kind of ROI for my tax dollars. If you think taxation is a minor point when it comes to “clean air” you are mistaken.
The problem with dirty air is that if all countries don’t do their part it will never get better, because we don’t live in a bubble, and air travels around the world. If you want to pay for clean air go ahead, I’m sure there’s plenty of organizations out there that are fighting for clean air that will gladly take your money.
Taxes is the main point of this issue, and should be the main issue of this article. Because that’s why “Clean that darn air “isn’t” worth a vote.
So, David Johnson, your answer to the problem is to let China and other countries will little or no concern for air quality set the standard by which we make decisions regarding the places in which we live? Sounds like they’re setting the standard for you and others who oppose this initiative. What is your answer to the problem we will face when Washington County has half a million people and bumper-to-bumper traffic? Personally, I don’t want those who come after me, many who are elderly or have health problems exacerbated by poor air quality, to have to deal with the garbage we put in the air. We are just hoping that this can be on the 2024 ballot so Utah voters have a choice. If passed, this will save people money at the store and perhaps make them think a little more about how they use carbon in their lives. Maybe some will stop letting their car idle in drive-thrus. Maybe some will start thinking about how many trips they make – can they be better organized? Can they drive more efficiently? There are lots of choices people can make. As for me, I will spend my Saturdays at the Farmers Market gathering signatures and other locations while others just don’t care.