Recently, the Hawaii Tax Review Commission’s primary consultant, PFM Group, issued a final report to the Commission asking it to review many taxing alternatives, including a “carbon tax” that had the potential to put an additional $360 million per year into our state coffers (assuming a tax rate of $20 per metric ton of CO2 released).
PFM Group pointed out that we in Hawaii already had enacted a very ambitious climate change policy, Act 234 of 2007, that requires state greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
An economist from UHERO, the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, recently posted an analysis arguing that strong, decisive action such as a carbon tax is going to be needed if we are going to achieve the greenhouse gas goals. “But without any specifics as to how we are to achieve [greenhouse gas] reductions – through a carbon tax or otherwise – it is largely symbolic,” she argues.
So what is a carbon tax? It is a tax imposed on the carbon content of different fuels. Typically, it is due and payable when the fuel is either extracted and placed into commerce, or when it is imported. At present, neither the U.S. federal government nor any U.S. state has enacted a carbon tax. The city of Boulder, Colorado, enacted one by referendum in 2006; it applies at the rate of $7 per metric ton of CO2 and is imposed on electricity generation only. Several European Union countries, Japan, and South Africa have carbon taxes.
In Hawaii, we have a liquid fuel tax (chapter 243, Hawaii Revised Statutes). Like a carbon tax, the fuel tax is imposed upon import and entry into commerce. So, PFM Group thought that the systems and processes we now have in place to collect fuel tax in Hawaii can be adapted to a carbon tax, and for that reason concluded that a carbon tax would entail “[l]ittle administrative burden.” There are, however, several important differences between the two:
Both the county and state governments are given the power to impose fuel tax. One big question up for discussion will be whether, and to what extent, the counties will have a piece of any carbon tax.
The fuel tax is now earmarked for Highway Fund use, and the money in that fund is spent by the Department of Transportation. As a result, vehicles that don’t use the highways, such as tractors and other farm machinery, are exempt from fuel tax. A carbon tax would need to apply to both on-road and off-road use, as long as the CO2 generated from burning it gets into the atmosphere.
The potential big losers will be the electric companies, because electric generation accounted for 6.8 million metric tons of CO2 in 2013 out of a total 18.3 million metric tons. However, the electric companies won’t simply absorb the tax, but can be expected to pass on the enhanced costs to anyone who gets an electric bill.
Finally, the fate of our existing fuel tax needs to be decided. If a carbon tax is going to be layered on top of the existing fuel tax, which the PFM report assumes, people who pay the fuel tax now (anyone who drives a motor vehicle, for example) may complain that they are being unfairly treated. If it is going to replace the fuel tax, there will be winners and losers such as farmers and the Department of Transportation.
Both the Tax Review Commission and our lawmakers are in for a lot of hard work as they wrestle with the issues surrounding carbon taxation.
The last show of the year focuses on tax reform and Hawaii’s economic diversification, or lack thereof. Very fast paced discussion.
Tax reform – Something for almost everyone, especially small businesses. Most individuals will save on their 2018 taxes. Some will save a lot. Be prepared and work with your tax preparer to maximize the benefits.
Economic Diversification – As a member of the Hawaii Chambers Board of Directors we dealt with this issue about 25 years ago. And we still are. We missed an opportunity with Healthcare and then again with Education. Let’s not miss another opportunity with Ocean Energy or Technology.
The 2018 general election is going to be a special one for our state because we get to vote on whether to have a constitutional convention.
Normally, our legislature acts as the gatekeeper for any changes to the Hawaii Constitution. No proposed amendment can even get on the ballot if our legislature hasn’t approved it. In a way, this is like the fox guarding the henhouse because one of the most fundamental functions of a constitution is to provide limitations on the power of government. If there were no limitations, the majority could do whatever it wants and could be accountable to no one except themselves.
The biggest exception to this gatekeeper rule is the constitutional convention, where the people elect delegates directly, the delegates organize and vote at the convention, and the approved proposals are then presented to the voters for ratification whether the legislature or the governor likes them or not. Since we have been a state, this happened only in 1968 and 1978.
A constitutional convention is authorized only when the people vote for it in an election. Normally, a proposal to have a constitutional convention can be put on the ballot only if the legislature approves it – there’s that gatekeeper role again. But our constitution itself provides that if such a proposal isn’t put on the ballot for nine years in a row, then it automatically goes on the ballot in the next scheduled general election. That is why this question is going to appear on the 2018 general election ballot.
Once the question is on the ballot, the people will then need to decide if we will indeed have a constitutional convention. To have one, “yes” votes are needed – leaving the ballot blank will be counted the same as a “no” vote. Any of your government officials who are comfortable where they are can be expected to discourage people from voting yes. A constitutional convention and constitutional amendments would mean change, and change would mean discomfort for them. Change could also mean more limitations on the power of government, which those in government would instinctively resist.
And then, if the constitutional convention is approved, we would need to go through the process of electing delegates. Delegates to a constitutional convention run in nonpartisan races, similar to many county offices. They campaign and get elected the same way as other politicians. Public employees are also eligible to become convention delegates. Indeed, a person who is so inclined may run for convention delegate and another elective office at the same time. They also get paid — delegates to the 1978 convention were paid $1,000 a month. However, this election is a one-shot deal and being a convention delegate is not a realistic career for anyone.
Nonetheless, there is much to be said for having a constitutional convention. Since the last time we had one, we have had revolutionary changes in our daily lives, many brought about by technology. The now-ubiquitous smartphone, for example, didn’t even exist in 1978. Its progenitor, IBM’s Simon Personal Communicator, debuted in 1992 and the Apple iPhone came out in 2007.
Also, the state-county balance has radically changed since 1978. Before then, the state administered and collected real property tax; many readers of this column today probably know the real property tax only as a county function. Now, the counties have exclusive control of the tax but are constantly battling state lawmakers for other moneys such as a share of the Transient Accommodations Tax (which also didn’t even exist in 1978).
As voters, we want to think hard about whether the sweeping changes in our society merit a review and perhaps an update of the document forming the bedrock of our state government. This chance might not come by again for another ten years.
This weeks Business in Hawaii features guest host Dailyn Yanagida and guest Chad Higa of Express Employment Professionals, the largest staffing company in the US with 750 locations. Dailyn and Chad discuss the very challenging employment situation in Hawaii and what companies can do to deal with the challenge.
Special Report by Soma Grismaijer, Medical Anthropologist, Co-Author of Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras
Most women hate their bras. They pinch, bind, constrict, and irritate. They can also cause breast pain, cysts, and cancer. And yet, we women are supposed to wear them in public, suppressing our discomfort to conform with standards of beauty and propriety.
Who makes those standards? Men do. Who suffers from those standards? Women do.
If it’s wrong for a man to squeeze your breasts without your permission, then why is it right when bras do it?
Bras are an extension of male dominance over women. Instead of a man squeezing and foundling a woman’s breasts, the bra does it for him.
If the world were run by women, there would be no bras, and there would be low rates of breast cancer.
I have been working on the link between breast cancer and bras for over 25 years, after discovering a lump in my breast. I have always been healthy, and the lump was a shock, especially since I was pregnant at the time. I was also in Fiji doing fieldwork with my husband, and we had recently had an epiphany about bras that changed our lives, and saved my breasts.
We were on a remote island in Fiji where there were no bras. A teenage girl saw me hanging bras on the line to dry and she asked me why I wore one. I explained that most women in my culture wear bras, but couldn’t really tell her why. She took a bra and examined it. “Isn’t it tight” she asked? I said I suppose it is, but you get used to it.
After discovering the lump, we returned to the US deeply horrified that I might have breast cancer. I took off my bra and looked at my breasts. What could I have done to cause this, I wondered. I then noticed the typical red marks and indentations in my skin left by my bra. Constriction! Could tight bras be the cause of breast disease, including cancer?
I immediately stopped wearing bras, and my lump slowly disappeared. Meanwhile, we began the world’s first study into the bra-cancer link. We discovered that bras are a leading cause of breast cancer. They are also the main reason why millions of bra-using women experience breast pain and cysts.
But try telling that to a culture where bras are a foundation of fashion. One million bras are sold per day in the US alone. Making women’s breasts more fashionable is a major market. And so is detecting and treating breast cancer.
You might think that women have a choice not to wear a bra. Technically, they do. Practically, they don’t.
I have met many women who wish they could be bra-free, but who felt that they couldn’t in today’s society. They feel they will be judged as being sluts, or will be leered at for having, God forbid, their nipples showing through their blouse. They fear sexual assault without a bra. So they keep wearing them, despite the pain.
But wearing bras does not stop the assault from men. If anything, bras are advertisements for sex. What do you think Victoria’s Secret models are modeling?
Let’s face it. Bras are an integral part of a culture where women are considered sex objects. Women will dress as the male-dominated fashion industry tells them, and display their bodies in the shape-shifting garments that please the designers, and titillates men’s fantasies. Sometimes, men will act on those fantasies, especially if they have powerful positions over women. Sexualizing women leads to sexual assault.
When women wear bras, they are sexually assaulting themselves. Whether a woman wears a bra for modesty or sex appeal, the culture wants breasts in bras. Never mind the health hazards and discomfort.
It’s time women stop harming themselves with bras. Bras are assault by proxy. We must say no, not only to the groping and assault by men, but to the assault we make on ourselves with the clothing men give us to wear.
To help women make this transition, we have started the International Bra-Free Study. Women around the world are taking off their bras to prevent breast cancer. This empowers women to take control over their breast health, and redefine themselves as women and not objects.
Take back control over your body. To find out more, go to BraFreeStudy.org.
Our state was recently in the news when State Reps. Chris Lee and Sean Quinlan held a press conference in response to the controversy surrounding loot boxes and microtransactions in video games. Lee announced that he would be looking to introduce legislation to combat predatory practices by game publishers. He called Star Wars: Battlefront II an “online casino specifically designed to lure kids into spending money.” He added that he wants to “protect kids who are underage, not psychologically or emotionally mature enough to be able to gamble which is why gambling is prohibited under 21.”
In Hawaii, our law says that gambling is where a person (1) stakes or risks something of value, (2) upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event, (3) upon an agreement or understanding that there will be something of value received upon a certain outcome. Which means that gambling needs to have a bet, an element of chance, and a prize.
Our supreme court held in 1961 (State v. Prevo, 44 Haw. 665, 361 P.2d 1044) that an entry fee, or paying just to play the game, satisfies the “bet” element. Most games, online or not, have a chance element (rolling a pair of dice, for example). So, we need to think about whether games such as this have a “prize.”
The Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, as well as the U.K.’s gambling regulator, took the position that a “prize” needs to have value outside the game in which it is generated before it could be considered a prize from gambling. They feel that if only in-game items result, the “bet” is a sunk cost. It may be different if the game allows, or at least turns a blind eye to, a “black market” where people can and do trade real money for in-game items.
The Hawaii law defining gambling, HRS section 712-1220, defines “something of value” in the prize context as “any money or property, any token, object, or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service or entertainment.” The last few words in this definition may be broad enough to include in-game items as satisfying the prize element of gambling. But that definition may be broad enough to sweep up lots of other things. How about paying taxes? I pay taxes, which satisfies the “bet” element. If I’m lucky (there’s the element of chance), my trash gets picked up, the pothole on my street gets fixed, or the public school that my kids attend gets a few air conditioners.
What about federal law? Federal law doesn’t regulate gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or UIGEA (31 U.S.C. sections 5361 to 5366) prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments for Internet gambling activity that is unlawful under any federal or state law. This law doesn’t legalize or criminalize the underlying game.
In any event, all we are talking about here is what kind of gambling constitutes criminal conduct. That’s a different question from whether parents should allow their kids to access gaming sites with a valid payment card (especially if it’s not the kid’s money). If you’re a parent who doesn’t want your child spending money on in-game items, you can check to see if games have microtransactions or loot boxes. You can also make sure that no payment method, such as a debit or credit card, is attached to consoles or accounts that they’re using. Whether you complain about loot boxes or microtransactions, the reality is that if consumers are buying them, developers and publishers will want to keep offering? them. But if you as a citizen make your voice heard, you can help make a difference as lawmakers or governments may start listening to the dialogue, as they did with the Star Wars: Battlefront II controversy.
808 Viral had a chance to visit this year and share their experience with what is called, “the most realistic snow show in Hawaii”.
“Let it Snow!” is a snowfall experience December every year in Maui. Visitors are treated annually to a “white Christmas” during the holiday season where Queen Ka‘ahumanu Center transforms into a giant snow globe.
“Nothing is more unexpected and special than snow falling on Maui,” said Toni Rojas, director of marketing for Queen Ka‘ahumanu Center. “Our goal is to help families and friends create heart-warming memories and traditions they will cherish and talk about with great happiness for generations to come.”
Each snowfall show lasts ten minutes and presents a different holiday theme to make sure there is something for everyone.
“We had never seen snow. So this was our first time,” said Kohl Smith of 808 Viral. “We dressed in snow clothes. It really felt like winter.”
The snow is created from a specialized snowmaking system custom-designed for QKC and operated by a snow technician. Using special effects adopted directly from Hollywood movie sets, it makes a realistic snowfall effect created with millions of snow-like “bubbles” that look and act like real snow. Unlike real snow, though, it vanishes upon contact and does not accumulate. The snow is water-based, so it’s not harmful, and if you catch a snowflake on the tip of your tongue, it might taste similar to a soap bubble.
“The best part of the experience was the vibe. The anticipation of the countdown, and when it started to fall, you have to be there to feel it, ” said Dani Girl of 808 viral. “People gasp and start laughing and screaming. Everyone turns into children for a moment, dancing and singing. Toni and her team have truly created a magical experience there.”
In case you missed it, contact the Guest Service Desk at (808) 877-4325 or visit www.queenkaahumanucenter.com to find out about next years schedule.
These two ladies were so much fun and had a great message to share.
Leaving the corporate world to roll the dice on starting your own business is very scary!
But boy are they having so much fun and helping people too!!
As we hear all of the talking heads and news show mouthpieces claim calamity at the prospect of a so-called “government shutdown,” once again the American people have to suffer the egos and power play of politicians in Washington, DC. But the fact of the matter is this. This moment in time isn’t about a government shutdown. It’s about politicians holding the government hostage for political purposes.
Additionally, there are opportunities that Republicans can exploit to affect a positive outcome from this moment in time. It simply requires an “outside-the-box” approach to handling the matter. Sadly, Republicans in Washington, DC — especially establishment Republicans, have no ability nor compunction to capitalize on Democrat threats.
In Waiʻanae, west O`ahu, islanders from all counties came together today on the Polynesian voyaging canoe Hōkūleʻa to commit to another major renewable energy goal: 100% ground transportation
In Waiʻanae, west O`ahu island leaders from the City and County of Honolulu, Maui County, Hawaiʻi County and Kauaʻi County came together today on the Polynesian voyaging canoe Hōkūleʻa committing to transform Hawaiʻi’s public and private ground transportation to 100 percent renewable fuel sources by 2045.
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell, Maui County Mayor Alan Arakawa, Kauaʻi County Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr. and Hawaiʻi County Managing Director Wil Okabe, representing Mayor Harry Kim, set the new target by signing their respective proclamations.
The mayors were joined by Master Navigator Nainoa Thompson at Pōkaʻī Bay on Oʻahu’s Leeward Coast to sign the proclamations on the captain’s box of the Hōkūleʻa, which promoted sustainability and resilience during its recent Mālama Honua voyage.
“The stakes are too high for Oʻahu, as well as the rest of our state. We have to change our path,” said Mayor Caldwell. “With this announcement we want to send a message that we welcome the next phase of Hawaiʻi’s clean energy transformation, which will not only reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel imports, but will also ensure a more resilient future.”
The four mayors recognize that this pledge is a critical next step to energy sustainability since ground transportation accounts for over one-quarter of Hawaiʻi’s imported fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It also represents a significant financial gain for our residents as operating and maintaining an electric vehicle costs about one-third less than a comparable vehicle powered by fossil-fuel.
In their specific proclamations the City and County of Honolulu, the County of Maui, and the County of Kauaʻi pledged to lead the way by transitioning all of their fleet vehicles to 100 percent renewable power by 2035, and the County of Hawaiʻi plans to establish a goal toward the same end.
“It is vitally important that we chart a new course that steers us away from fossil fuel use and carbon emissions in our ground transportation,” said Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa. “The goals we are setting today are not only desirable, but attainable, and help send a message that Maui County and Hawaiʻi are open for innovation to help ensure the greater health of our communities and the planet as a whole.”
The signed proclamations solidify Hawaiʻi’s role as a global renewable energy leader, with the state and all four counties becoming the first in the nation to commit to a 100 percent renewable transportation future. “Hawai’i County is committed to the goals of this initiative, and we will do everything we can to see it fulfilled,” said Hawai’i County Mayor Harry Kim.
The proclamations also continue Hawai‘i’s progress in transitioning away from fossil fuels and builds off a 2015 state law that requires 100 percent of Hawai‘i’s electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2045. Hawai‘i’s 2045 goal was the nation’s first such benchmark.
“It is our shared kuleana to reduce our emissions, no matter how big or small our communities may be,” stated Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. “It is an ambitious goal, but by bringing everyone to the table to work together, we can achieve 100 percent affordable, safe, renewable transportation by 2045.”
The four Hawaiʻi mayors join leaders in France, Great Britain, India, China, Dublin, Madrid, Oslo, Milan, Paris, and Brussels who have also committed to transition their transportation systems away from fossil fuels.
“Hōkūleʻa’s voyage around the world was dangerous, but the risk of inaction outweighed the risk of the voyage,” said Nainoa Thompson. “The call of Mālama Honua is being answered today by these four mayors who are continuing the legacy of the voyage and showing the world what local climate leadership looks like.”
Local businesses and clean energy organizations applauded the historic action by the four mayors.
“This initiative will spark innovation and entrepreneurship in our state,” said Sherry Menor-McNamara, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce Hawaiʻi. “We’ve seen how the renewable energy revolution in electricity has grown jobs and helped keep over $300 million every year in the local economy.”
Background
The proclamations signed today by the chief executives of the four counties are in alignment with the state of Hawai‘i’s recent commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
All four mayors previously joined Governor David Ige on June 5, 2017 to commit to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement just days after President Donald J. Trump announced he would withdraw the United States from the international accord to address global warming.
More recently, Mayor Caldwell returned from the North American Climate Summit last week where he signed the Chicago Climate Charter and met with former President Barack Obama, who encouraged U.S. mayors and local governments to lead the country in meeting the Paris Climate Agreement goals.
The City and County of Honolulu was recently selected by 100 Resilient Cities, pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation, to be part of an international cohort of cities addressing the increased stresses and shocks of the 21st century. The city will be developing a “Resilience Strategy” in 2018 that will include how best to address climate change challenges on Oʻahu. Nainoa Thompson serves as a member of the Mayor’s Resilience Strategy Steering Committee.
For more information, please contact the City and County of Honolulu’s Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency at resilientoahu@honolulu.gov or (808) 768-2277.
What’s A Carbon Tax?
Recently, the Hawaii Tax Review Commission’s primary consultant, PFM Group, issued a final report to the Commission asking it to review many taxing alternatives, including a “carbon tax” that had the potential to put an additional $360 million per year into our state coffers (assuming a tax rate of $20 per metric ton of CO2 released).
PFM Group pointed out that we in Hawaii already had enacted a very ambitious climate change policy, Act 234 of 2007, that requires state greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
An economist from UHERO, the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, recently posted an analysis arguing that strong, decisive action such as a carbon tax is going to be needed if we are going to achieve the greenhouse gas goals. “But without any specifics as to how we are to achieve [greenhouse gas] reductions – through a carbon tax or otherwise – it is largely symbolic,” she argues.
So what is a carbon tax? It is a tax imposed on the carbon content of different fuels. Typically, it is due and payable when the fuel is either extracted and placed into commerce, or when it is imported. At present, neither the U.S. federal government nor any U.S. state has enacted a carbon tax. The city of Boulder, Colorado, enacted one by referendum in 2006; it applies at the rate of $7 per metric ton of CO2 and is imposed on electricity generation only. Several European Union countries, Japan, and South Africa have carbon taxes.
In Hawaii, we have a liquid fuel tax (chapter 243, Hawaii Revised Statutes). Like a carbon tax, the fuel tax is imposed upon import and entry into commerce. So, PFM Group thought that the systems and processes we now have in place to collect fuel tax in Hawaii can be adapted to a carbon tax, and for that reason concluded that a carbon tax would entail “[l]ittle administrative burden.” There are, however, several important differences between the two:
Both the county and state governments are given the power to impose fuel tax. One big question up for discussion will be whether, and to what extent, the counties will have a piece of any carbon tax.
The fuel tax is now earmarked for Highway Fund use, and the money in that fund is spent by the Department of Transportation. As a result, vehicles that don’t use the highways, such as tractors and other farm machinery, are exempt from fuel tax. A carbon tax would need to apply to both on-road and off-road use, as long as the CO2 generated from burning it gets into the atmosphere.
The potential big losers will be the electric companies, because electric generation accounted for 6.8 million metric tons of CO2 in 2013 out of a total 18.3 million metric tons. However, the electric companies won’t simply absorb the tax, but can be expected to pass on the enhanced costs to anyone who gets an electric bill.
Finally, the fate of our existing fuel tax needs to be decided. If a carbon tax is going to be layered on top of the existing fuel tax, which the PFM report assumes, people who pay the fuel tax now (anyone who drives a motor vehicle, for example) may complain that they are being unfairly treated. If it is going to replace the fuel tax, there will be winners and losers such as farmers and the Department of Transportation.
Both the Tax Review Commission and our lawmakers are in for a lot of hard work as they wrestle with the issues surrounding carbon taxation.