By Guy Page
Gov. Phil Scott doesn’t want the state of Vermont to “turn the screws” on Vermonters or “break their wills” when it comes to climate-change reduction policies. His position runs contrary to advice given to the Vermont Climate Council by a Massachusetts climate official.
Sharing Scott’s ‘carrot vs. stick’ view is Administration Secretary Suzanne Young, one of his representatives on the Vermont Climate Council, charged with planning and implementing policy to meet Vermont’s stringent carbon reduction goals, as required by last year’s Global Warming Solutions Act.
Vermont Daily asked at Tuesday’s press conference: “Secretary Young, you were on the January 25 Vermont Climate Council Zoom call when Massachusetts climate official David Ismay told you: ‘60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right … there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.’ Should the Vermont Climate Council ‘turn the screws on’ and ‘break the will’ of Vermont citizens, including our seniors on fixed income? What do you make of that statement?”
Young responded: I did find that statement very interesting. I think the Vermont Climate Council will take a look at the science and the data … what works and what doesn’t work, what is affordable for Vermonters and what is fair and equitable.”
Young said that’s how she plans to lead the council as its chair. However, Young may find herself outvoted. She and the other Scott appointees are outnumbered by appointees from the Legislature and climate change activist organizations. A draft “process roadmap” presented at this morning’s council meeting called for consensus for all major decisions.
The governor clearly rejects the citizen thumbscrew approach to carbon reduction. “I think you’ve seen over the last four years, you’ve seen I support the carrot approach versus the stick approach … and I would apply that in this case,” he said.
Scott vetoed the Global Warming Solutions Act that established the Vermont Climate Council last year. His veto was overridden by the Legislature.
Gov. Scott also said he was unaware of alleged infractions against his quarantine policy. Vermont Daily asked: “Governor, you have been insistent that people entering Vermont must follow quarantine and testing guidelines. I’ve heard reports that people are flying in from Nevada for four-day ski trips, and also that people entering the U.S. illegally through the Swanton sector may be detained and then released, per the new administration’s directive. Are you on top of either of these situations and what’s being done about them?”
“I haven’t heard of either of those situations,” Scott said. “So I’m not aware of those.”
In terms of people entering Vermont without quarantining, “I believe it is happening, we’re trying to mitigate as best we can,” he said. As with the carbon reduction policies, he prefers the carrot to the stick, he said.
Read more of Guy Page’s reports. Vermont Daily is sponsored by True North Media.
GWSA is designed to subsidize the RE companies of EAN members for decades, at everyone else’s expense.
The members of the GWSA “Committee of 23” are the same or similar people, who presided over 20 years of government energy programs, costing about $2 billion, which had the net result of increasing Vermont’s CO2.
Vermonters would be much better served with increased energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles.
See URLs for much more information.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol…
Here is an example of how legislators were deceived so they would vote for GWSA
Of course, many of them were merely looking for a fancy “cover your a..” , CYA, report
EAN, a big proponent of GWSA, whose membership lists includes the Vermont RE Who is Who, used a number of dubious assumptions to have an average EV reduce 4.5 metric ton of CO2/y, much more than is realistic.
The EAN “parameters” likely were chosen to deceive non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters to obtain favorable RE-subsidy legislation, such as the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA.
However, if more realistic assumptions were used, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, an average EV would reduce only 3,035 Mt/y.
EAN would need 4.5/3.035 x 90,000 = 133,443 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMT/y by 2025, if the VT LDV mix,
22.7-mpg, were used for comparison. See tables 6 and 7 of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-electric-vehicles-in-new-england
EAN would need 4.5/1.705 x 90,000 = 237,537 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMt/y by 2025, if a Subaru Outback, 30-mpg, were used for comparison.
Whether 90,000 or 237,537, such increases in EVs, by end 2025, are a total fantasy, because, the capital cost would be at least $10.0 BILLION, at $40,000/EV, which over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters do not have to pay for:
1) EVs
2) Chargers at home and on the road
3) Grid expansion/augmentation, to connect additional wind and solar, and to serve the greater demand of EVs and heat pumps
4) Additional electricity generation plants to serve consumption of EVs and heat pumps
5) Utility-scale battery storage, in case of wind and solar build-outs, and DUCK-curve management, as proposed by EAN “to meet Paris”
https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi…
The Vermont Climate Council had a ZOOM meeting with Massachusetts counterparts, to find out what to do.
NOTE THE HAND WRINGING
They were advised:
Oh, you have to BREAK THE WILL OF VERMONTERS, because they are GUILTY of having vehicles and buildings that emit 60% of ALL CO2.
Of course this has been known for several DECADES.
Did Vermont’s government do anything about it, like Denmark and Sweden and Norway? Are you kidding me?
Here is the LUBRICOUS EAN PLAN TO MEET PARIS BY 2025.
CEP GROSS EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS; THREE PHASES
GWSA essentially is a big stick, wielded in a threatening manner, by Vermont’s RE interests, to hit Vermonters over the head to cough up lots of money out of their empty pockets, to implement the CEP, including highly subsidized wind and solar systems that produce expensive, weather-dependent, seasonal electricity, that would do nothing regarding climate change.
CEP Financial Implications
Very few legislators have any idea how much it will cost to MANDATE the implementation of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
The below CO2 emissions reductions for Phases 1, 2, and 3 are based on the VT-CEP goals, as mandated by GWSA.
Phase 1
The CEP mandate:
Reduce CO2 from 10.22 MMt, at end 2005 to 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, or 2.76 MMt, to “meet Paris”.
The Council would take about a year to develop plans, which means most of 2021 would have elapsed before any action.
EAN Plan:
Reduce CO2 from 9.76 MMt, at end 2016, to 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, or 2.30 MMt, to “meet Paris”
This article:
Reduce CO2 from 9.02 MMt, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46 MMt, by Jan 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, to “meet Paris”
This would take place during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period.
The turnkey capital cost would be about 1.56/2.30 x 13.70 = $9.29 billion, or $3.10 BILLION/y. See table 1A
Currently, Vermonters, and the VT and federal governments, spend about $200 MILLION/y, on heat pumps, electric vehicles, insulation/sealing, solar systems, wind turbine systems, grid extension/augmentation, battery systems, etc.
Reducing such a large quantity of CO2, requires ramping up electricity generating capacity, MW, and implementing energy reduction measures, during 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.
Vermont would not be able to spend $3.10 BILLION/y for 3 years, i.e., the required resources far exceed what is available to Vermont.
Mandating such build-outs, because of GWSA, would be far beyond rational.
Any rational engineer at the VT-DPS would agree in private, but likely would not publicly, because he would be ostracized, or out of a job.
Most of all, the Vermont taxpayers had better start speaking out, LOUDLY and CLEARLY!!!!
This is all about redistribution of wealth, it is about control of lives and what we do or do not do. It has nothing to do with the climate. The climate has been changing since God rested on the seventh day.
Do Vermonters get this???? I think they do after seeing the track records of similar actions, the latest big one by Shummy and his cartel and what they did at VT Yankee.
This was totally needless, but they (liberals and other control freaks) could not accomplish that, and the money , other than the 600+ jobs lost, went out of state.
They also are very cold towards Hydro Quebec for the same reasons. This nonsense is breathing down our shirt collars big time and can be railroaded outa here if we all speak up and be heard. THAT HAS TO HAPPEN OR WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!! Remember, they have passed the framework, with no money. Why do you think they want to raise taxes now all of a sudden??? Three guesses. God have mercy in our time of need.
Pay attention people. The Global Warming Solutions Act, with its all powerful panel of non elected Climate Committee members, is the ROCK that is going to eventually break Vermont as we know it, unless the GWSA is permanently rescinded. This is the very definition of Boondoggle, and if not shut down, will hurt our State dearly…
The sole purpose of GWSA is to have increased comment and control over the lives of Vermonters, who have been over-regulated and over-taxed for decades by an over-bloated State government.
Anything Vermont COULD do with its COERCIVE/REGRESSIVE “SOLUTIONS” act will not have one iota of impact on the climate
Everything will be made to fit under the umbrella of “fighting climate change”.
Rah, Rah.
If you are not with us, you are the enemy, who will be made to feel our power and control.
Any resistance will be nipped in the butt.
You will have no place to run or hide.
You are the power.
Carrot and stick? What are you thinking?
It is hilarious, from our point of view.
We are almighty, because we have GWSA to use as a club.
Remember, these are the same folks who recommended useless energy programs for the past 20 years.
The legislators swallowed them wholesale, because there were all these subsidies to be had for friends, and friends of friends.
The net result was spending several $billion to benefit heavily subsidized RE businesses
The government programs were failures, because they did not reduce Vermont’s CO2
Now, these same folks want 5 times as much money each year to implement the grossly unrealistic Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan.
Suzanne Young is quoted in the above article saying: “I think the Vermont Climate Council will take a look at the science and the data … what works and what doesn’t work, what is affordable for Vermonters and what is fair and equitable.”
To accomplish the above, Ms. Young and the Climate Council must interview Rep. Scott Campbell and the other members of the 2019-2020 House Committee on Energy and Technology to determine what they believe the GWSA can do to stop climate change. It was this committee that interviewed witnesses on climate change and ultimately recommended the GWSA to the full Vermont House.
These interviews are necessary because Rep. Scott Campbell has already stated the following in writing:
“Let me start by repeating that no one, least of all me, believes Vermont can stop climate change – or even affect climate change “…….. “GWSA will not mitigate change.”
If Rep. Campbell doesn’t believe the GWSA can stop or mitigate climate change, what do the other members of the Energy and Technology Committee who voted for the GWSA believe?
This is critical to know before putting the GWSA into operation and spending undefined millions of dollars or even more. If our elected representatives who have heard all of the climate change testimony and come away not believing the GWSA will mitigate climate yet voted to pass the bill, we have a serious problem. Rep. Campbell has already stated that the Vermont and the GWSA will not stop or even affect climate change.
Time for Climate Council to determine what our elected officials who took testimony and voted for the GWSA really believe before making any recommendations on how to proceed.