Last Thursday, lawmakers in the House Committee on Environment and Energy heard testimony on a bill that would restrict about a third of the state’s lands from development.

H.126 is “an act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection.” The bill’s text says “Thirty percent of Vermont’s total land area and waters shall be conserved by 2030, and 50 percent of the State’s total land area and waters shall be conserved by 2050.”

‘Unnecessary’ legislation

Ed Larson, a lobbyist working for the Vermont Forest Products Association, spoke at length about how the bill is “unnecessary” and could cause unintended consequences.

FORESTRY: State lawmakers are mulling over legislation that would restrict development on at least a third of Vermont’s lands.

“This legislation is unnecessary. It sets random artificial goals for conservation,” he said. “If you look at the already existing conservation accomplishments, we’re good for another eight years.”

Larson noted that industry plays a critical role in forest management which ultimately benefits the health of the land.

“Forest management protects and enhances tree health, forest health, biological diversity, you protect water quality and we prove it every year — wildlife habitat, carbon storage and sequestration, and resiliency to climate change,” Larson said.

Good for the climate?

For those concerned about climate, he said that allowing the industry to play its role in forest management reduces carbon emissions as well.

“More carbon is stored and sequestered in sustainably managed forests than in any old-growth forest unmanaged for timber over time,” Larson said.

He noted that in areas of the state where there is currently less development, forests are coming back.

“Outside of Chittenden County, we don’t see fragmentations, we don’t see the loss of forests, we actually see new forest coming,” he said. “… The University of Vermont confirms that the state has already protected 33% or 1.3 million acres of the highest priority lands needed to protect wildlife habitat,” he said.

Industry facing logistical challenges

Larson noted that some wood products are currently difficult to sell, mostly for logistical reasons. He said there’s no market for pulp-grade softwood, other than “two biomass plants we can go to and two pellet mills that are kind of far away.”

“And there’s no paper anymore, though we can go to Ticonderoga, and we do go all the way to Rumford [in Maine],” he said.

Remember The Council of Regional Commissions?

He also said past attempts at increasing land use restrictions did not produce the desired results.

“Some of you might remember in the 1990s we had a thing called the Council of Regional Commissions, a court, Governor Howard Dean abolished it and Vermonters cheered,” Larson said. “They don’t like statewide top-down planning. … I have ten years representing Montpelier on the Regional Planning Commission so I’m well aware of the mindset of this community.”

Climate alarmism rhetoric in the bill

The language in H.126 includes alarmist rhetoric that all humans and species face imminent perils if extreme measures aren’t taken.

“The health of ecosystems on which humans and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever, affecting the very foundations of economies, livelihoods, food security, health, and quality of life worldwide,” it states.

The bill adds: “The 2021 Vermont Climate Assessment highlights an increase in extreme weather events such as droughts and floods as a significant impact of climate change in Vermont and recommends nature-based solutions as a proven, low-cost strategy for climate adaptation and resilience.”

Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at bielawski82@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.