Initiatives target a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

By Dave Fidlin | The Center Square

Initiatives targeting a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be funded if the Vermont Office of Climate Action gets an additional $200,000 in the state’s upcoming fiscal year 2024 budget.

The office’s ongoing initiatives were discussed Thursday as members of the House Committee on Transportation continued digging through Gov. Phil Scott’s proposed executive budget for the new fiscal period, which will take effect in July.

The Office of Climate Action is designed to carry out the provisions outlined in Act 153, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. The legislation includes a number of benchmarks, including net zero emissions across all sectors by 2050 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors.

“It’s nothing short of ambitious, and hard-to-reach goals,” Jane Lazorchak, director of the Office of Climate Action, said of the goals in her presentation before the House panel. The office is a division within the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

The office has about $650,000 in funding currently available, Lazorchak said, “to move this work forward.” The infusion of $200,000 in additional state dollars, she added, would be allocated in the proposed budget “to actually build on the tools.”

Throughout her presentation to the House panel, Lazorchak touched on some of the tangible ways the office carries out climate-related goals, including data tracking that could ultimately assist in further legislation.

The challenge, Lazorchak said, is the state’s reliance on some of its data, which includes a lag time of up to three years for the various sectors that use greenhouse gas emissions.

The most recent available data is from 2020 — which, on its face, indicates usage has been declining. It comes with a glaring caveat.

“This was specifically because Vermonters were home,” Lazorchak said, pointing to the onset of the pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns.

The committee-level discussion included the planned introduction of an electronic database that would measure and assess progress — oftentimes referred to as a MAP tool — in greenhouse gas emission reduction and the other climate-related goals in Act 153.

Lazorchak said a request for proposals is being assembled to prospective vendors who could assist the office with its planned rollout of the MAP tool.

Collin Smythe, climate change progress and data analyst with the Agency of Natural Resources, said the full implementation of the MAP tool will take two to three years for full functionality.

“We’re in the very early stages of putting out a contract,” Smythe said. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

The MAP tool will be most effective, Smythe said, when all of the information from such sectors as fossil fuels, waste, electricity, and water have the most current information for true apples-to-apples comparisons.

“The challenge for us, with the industries, is we don’t want to put it out until all off the sectors are up-to-date,” Smythe said of the MAP tool.

To that end, the office reportedly is looking to use more of the state’s own resources to track sector data.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Mac

4 thoughts on “Initiatives target a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

  1. OMG, this type of technology was available in the ’70s and was used to quantify and map things like emissions from New York which drifted over to Connecticut and affected the local air quality.
    I used it in the Midwest to track mortality rates downwind from refineries. It was never designed to be used this way.

    Unlike the effect of CO2 on the climate, tracking air quality is well known and understood.
    Putting any money into something which is NOT falsifiable and therefore unverifiable is a total waste of resource and should be stopped.

    In other words, you cannot trust any of the results from the MAP tool as there is absolutely no way to verify the future effects of CO2 on the climate. None. Which means the results are worthless, especially in regards to guiding policy decisions.

    It is really a form of mental masturbation which provides both funding and pleasure for the participants.

    Search for “Popperian Logic” and learn something about the real world.


    Vermont “Electrify-Everything” Goals Will Cost $Billions and Will Reduce Little CO2

    The Vermont state government wants to electrify-everything (heat pumps, electric cars, and transit and school buses, no matter the:

    1) Very high turnkey capital cost,
    2) Very meager energy cost savings
    3) Very meager CO2 reductions, on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis.

    VT-DPS Survey of Vermont Heat Pumps

    VT-DPS commissioned CADMUS to perform a survey of Vermont air source heat pumps (HPs), after numerous complaints from HP users regarding: 1) high electric bills and 2) minimal annual savings after installing HPs

    The report and VT-DPS found the average energy cost savings regarding HPs was about $200/HP, as proven by the CADMUS survey report of operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites. See URL and Appendix 1

    Open URL to read more


    THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

    He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
    He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
    He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
    His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.
    Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note

    NOTE: Range-driving is an absolute no-no, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile, and 5) increase the chance of battery fires.

    Charging at 32F or less

    Open URL to read more

    • Heheh couldn’t have happened to a better person. Trouble is eventually it’s going to lead to the death of a innocent who didn’t want this EV crap to begin with. Buses have caught fire while charging and while moving after the battery got wet. The whole process of lithium base batteries is a disaster and between all the minerals needed a unsustainable solution besides being a highly toxic and human unfriendly process. On top of that the cobalt mines in Africa use slave child labor as many other ones do to. How none of this is known is a good question to ask the media who’s strangely quiet on all facets of EV batteries.

Comments are closed.