By Rob Roper
As discussion continued in the Natural Resources & Energy Committee over the Clean Heat Standard bill, S.5, in anticipation of a vote this week, Sen. Dick McCormack (D-Windsor) suggested that the committee consider scrapping the whole thing and simply enacting a carbon tax on fossil heating fuels and use the money to fund programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
McCormack was expressing concern about the logistical burden that implementing a “carbon credit” system would have on small fuel dealers, and the system as a whole was unnecessarily complicated.
Sen. Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) explained that these fuel dealers had the option of paying a fee to a “Default Delivery Agent” that would assume the responsibility for earning and retiring the dealer’s carbon credit obligation. “They don’t have to do anything,” said MacDonald. “Just pay the going rate.”
“With money they got from where?” asked McCormack. “From their customers?”
“Yeah, from selling fuel,” said MacDonald. “Where else might you suggest we get the money?”
VIDEO: McCormack stumbles onto the fact that the CHS is just a complicated carbon tax
What MacDonald is describing here is precisely a carbon tax on home heating fuels. The mandate placed on a fuel dealer to purchase a “carbon credit” is for all intents and purposes an carbon excise tax on home heating fuels, the cost of which will be passed along to customers in the form of higher heating bills.
McCormack sees through the scam. “It seems when I get into the complication here [in creating a carbon credit system], we could simply bite the bullet, face the music, and have a carbon tax. That’s the stick. And then we have a carrot is, hey, we’ll help you get off of that [fossil fuels] altogether…. Instead, we’ve got this convoluted system.” The senator retracted the word “convoluted” as insulting, “But,” he insisted, “you will agree complicated.” The previous day McCormack described the whole scheme as a “Rube Goldberg” contraption.
What McCormack may be missing is that all the complication and distraction in the Clean Heat Bill is there precisely to mislead voters into thinking this de facto carbon tax isn’t a carbon tax when it is.
Sena. Chris Bray, chairman of the committee, weighed in aggressively on this point: “I am going to pause to put on the record — again — that this is not a carbon tax and there should be no confusion that it is one. … So, I’m just going to say that in case anyone gets confused.”
But you the reader be the judge.
S.5, the Clean Heat Standard, would force sellers of carbon-based heating fuels (oil, propane, kerosene and natural gas) to buy “carbon credits”, the cost of which will be set based on a formula accounting for the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned and the amount of revenue necessary to pay for programs that help subsidize greenhouse gas reduction measures. The ultimate cost of the credit will be passed along to the end-user of the fuel.
An excise carbon tax on home heating fuels would mandate fuel dealers pay a tax based on a formula accounting for the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned and the amount of revenue necessary to pay for programs that help subsidize greenhouse gas reduction measures. The ultimate cost of the tax will be passed along to the end-user of the fuel.
The only differences are that S.5, the Clean Heat Standard, requires an army of an expensive bureaucrats to establish and manage a massively complicated “tradeable credit system” (essentially a type of currency exchange), has the fuel dealers paying their carbon credit debt to private company, the Default Delivery Agent, instead of the state treasury, stripping transparency from the whole scheme, and opening the door for an orgy of cronyism, waste fraud and abuse. And, of course, the politicians think that they can get away with these semantic games and claim they never passed a huge tax on products their constituents need to survive Vermont winters.
Sen. MacDonald warned that, “There will be people who deliberately intend to confuse the public with that language [carbon tax].” This is ironic because less than a year ago on the Senate floor when debating the previous version of a Clean Heat Standard (successfully vetoed by Governor Phil Scott) it was MacDonald himself who implored his colleagues to be honest about what the Clean Heat Standard is: “This bill is going to make buying fossil fuels more expensive. It’s a carbon tax on the street,” said MacDonald. “So, if we’re going to go head in this direction, let’s say so.”
VIDEO: MacDonald on why the Clean Heat Standard is a carbon tax
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. © Copyright True North Reports 2023. All rights reserved.
Sadly, this bill passed 5-0 out of committee on its way to a full vote, and with the House and Senate having a Democrat majority, Scott probably won’t be able to stop it this time. How did a group of elected officials become dictators? Who gave these people the authority to take our rights away? To dictate what we can heat with, cook with, drive, etc. All this bill does is hurt the people… the increased cost to heat your home, the increased cost to drive your car between gas and additional fees if you don’t get the approved MPG, the increased costs to cook, the increased cost of electricity, etc.
They are not concerned about the environment, if they were…
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/report-new-york-vermont-to-get-hit-with-chemicals-from-east-palestine-chemical-disaster-mace/?utm_source=whatfinger
there would be an outcry of what happened in ohio….it is such a massive ecolological disaster that it is affecting Vermont.
Sometimes it’s more important to understand what they DON’T and WON’T cover than what they talk about.
This is yet another issue where VTGOP could take the reins and show the conservatives are concerned and willing to take action to protect the environment, without losing their soul. It at the same time would expose the uniparty for the complete sham that it is…..
Our coach and team captain are quick to call out Trump, say the voted for Biden, lock down our entire state for some b.s science and totalitarian experiment, but when a whole town get’s chemically nuked….on purpose by the Government orders….people are really quiet.
Some believe we need a new quarter back and a new coach.
When the pandemic hit Phil Scott wasted no time rolling out a plan of action that virtually all Vermonters embraced – close your business, stay home from school, wear masks, “One death from Covid 19 is one too many”, he said. Right now Phil Scott should be telling all Vermonters to call their representatives and insist that they vote against the Affordable Heat Act, otherwise the economy will be devastated by fuel shortages and much higher taxes to pay for subsidizing heat pumps which won’t heat houses. His mantra should be, “One fuel dealer being forced out of business is one too many”.
If all Vermonters were to disappear, the CO2 reduction would cause less global warming by 0.0001 C, which is totally unmeasurable
If China and India were to disappear, about 3 billion people, the reduction would be 0.10 C
The average CO2 radiative driving force is about 1.75 W/m2
The average cloud plus water vapor radiative driving force is about 120 W/m2
Both vary up and down.
CO2 is a pigmy regarding GW
The main problem of burning fossil fuels AND bio fuel is not CO2, but FLYASH, which consists mostly of sub-micron particles that remain in the atmosphere, move around, fall on land and sea ice causing it to melt quicker
The fixation by lay people on CO2 is totally unwarranted, based on Physics
Well Sen. MacDonald given that current green house gas emissions are not harmful why not just scrap the whole thing and stop there. CO2 is necessary for life on this planet and only 0.4% of the atmosphere (that’s one molecule in 10,000). It does have a slight warming property but that is nothing compared to water vapor. It also acts as plant food. Who in their right mind would want to curtail it?
Would you and your committee agree to a psychiatric evaluation?
I’m sure everyone would like to see the calculations which show otherwise.
That’s 0.04%!
412/1,000,000
McDonald and others down there are 78 and older. I think it’s time for mandated age restrictions. After all, look what we have for president! The guy needs to be led wherever he goes. Probably old Joe needs to be told to wear pants.
Gotta say , I left Vermont in 2016 and was hearing “carbon tax” from just about every politicians mouth. Now that I’m living the life in the Carolina’s T a. I have reduced tax burden I haven’t heard it whispered from a single democrat. Fortunately we don’t have progressives, and for the most part our democrats would be considered far right lunatics in Vermont.
Why folks endure the pain is beyond me, even my loyal in-laws who always said VT for life are seriously considering picking up ship.
Dishonesty on display – they are so disgusting.
You hit the nail right on the head, Mr. Hunter.,
Our so-called “Representatives” could care less about adding more taxes to our already exorbitant rates. Yes, they’ll achieve their goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions simply by chasing all the humans who can no longer afford to live in Vermont, out of the state. Mission accomplished! Stand in line to get your “Genius” medals.
The outcome here is to obstruct our use of carbon emitting fuels on the way to outlawing them. They are doing this TO us with the pretense that they are doing it FOR us. We don’t know any better but it’s for our own good…just hush up let the adults take care of this stuff. That there is no consensus among us about this is of no consequence in the discussions. They function as enlightened overlords with no thought of winning us backward folk to their positions. This self-serving delusion is pervasive among our legislators. Ruling is their mind set, not representing.