Letter: No Vermont tax will cleanse the Earth

Editor’s note: This letter is by Randy Gray, of North Springfield. He was twice a candidate for state Senate in the Windsor district.

Many of you are first- or half-generation Vermonters. What was the attraction that brought you here? Did you come here to transform Vermont into the places you left? Did someone pay you $10,000 to locate here? I’m not being snide — these are straightforward questions.

I feel state Sen. Dick McCormack’s recent submission (“Something to write home about”) leads us to a very important conversation on climate control and the political process. The protest in the Vermont Capitol during the governor’s State of the State address was disrespectful and inexcusable. Many protesters there were school aged kids. Was this not a school day? What do these kids know of real-world situations — only what is taught by their peers and educators, educators who excuse their school attendance for this disrespectful display? How is climate change protest productive when roads are blocked, causing people to sit “idle” in their vehicles, and preventing the passage of emergency vehicles and people going to work?

I see the end result is the carbon tax, which will burden the young families and struggling seniors. Though the U.S. is one of the top polluters in the world, China is No.1, and India, Russia, Japan, Germany and Canada are all in the top 10.

Vermont has 0.002% of the U.S. population, about equal to Boston, and we think we’re going to save the world by increasing the tax burden, a tax burden that will give a rebate to those wealthy enough to afford an electric car and solar panels?

For your electric cars, where is the lithium mined, how is it recycled? Why do we support wind power when it takes more energy to make a windmill than it will ever produce? Is it recyclable? Solar panels, with their 20-year life span, are they recyclable? Why are our state agencies so against hydro power? Modern hydro is “green,” and by the use of diversion dams, non- obstructive to fish migration. Do we really want to make a change in global pollution? Almost everything is made of plastic, not just grocery bags and straws. Stop the burning of the rainforests, our natural air filter, and plant a tree.

No tax will cleanse the Earth.

Randy Gray
N. Springfield

Image courtesy of Public domain

13 thoughts on “Letter: No Vermont tax will cleanse the Earth

  1. Let’s send a big message to Vermont in 2020—starting with a Trump re-election. His exposure of the money laundering through “progressive taxes”, endless “foundations” and “institutes” that grab gun-running money, human trafficking money . . . we are done with it.

  2. For those who do not realize, Extinction Rebellion is an international organization and now they are here. They were responsible for the disgusting show during the Governor’s Statehouse speech. They are Antifa light but they are capable of more. Here’s an example from London.


    Time is past due to TAKE BACK VERMONT from all these social justice warriors. We need politicians from Vermont for Vermont. The crazies have taken over the asylum. It will not get better unless people stand up and say they’ve had enough.

  3. Right on, Randy. Unfortunately, most of the folks in the legislature could care less about what the electric want because THEY THINK THEY KNOW BETTER!!!! If there ever was a myth, this goes to the front of the line. As I’ve said time and time again, if Vermont went to “0” emissions tomorrow, it would have absolutely NO impact on global warming. The net effect would cause the folks to suffer while a bunch of sanctimonious feel gooders pat themselves on their back sides.

  4. Most folks, especially agitating folks, have zero idea what is required to transform the US energy situation.
    They want to tax this and that and everything nd hand the private economy to the STATE GOVERNMENT, as part of their Socialist mantras.

    Here is and example:

    According to the CADMUS report regarding Vermont’s air sour heat pumps, ASHPs, there would be a very costly reduction in CO2/y

    Before ASHPs,
    – The purchased fuel oil was 601 gal/y, of which 75 gallon/y was allocated to DHW.
    – The energy of 394.4 gal/y was used for heat; representing 100% of heat.

    After ASHPs,
    – The electricity for 39% of heat was 2085 – 205, standby/defrost = 1880 kWh/y.
    – Heat provided by 1880 kWh/y was 21.375 million Btu/y. See table 8 of URL, and table 3
    – The reduction of purchased fuel oil for heat was 525.9 – 318.5 = 207 gallon/y
    – The reduction of CO2 was 4,142 lb/y per ASHP; source energy basis; downstream ignored.
    – The CO2 reduction cost was $4500/(4142 lb/y x 15 years) = $0.0724/lb, or $144.86/US ton; capital cost basis; excludes all other costs.
    – The CO2 reduction cost was $427.03/y/4142 lb/y = $0.1030/lb, or $206.20/US ton; amortization basis; excludes service and maintenance.
    – The average owner had a net loss/y due to other annual costs that more than offset the energy cost savings. See tables 6 and 7.

    NOTE: The US CO2 emissions are about 6 billion metric ton/y. If this were reduced by 25% using 100% ASHPs in all US buildings at $536/metric ton of CO2, the annual cost would be $804 billion/y, based on the low-CO2 NE grid at wall meter, somewhat less, based on the US grid CO2 at wall meter.

    NOTE: Remember, just about the entire US building stock would have to upgraded to at least well-sealed/well-insulated to make that even possible.
    Passivhaus level buildings, with near-zero heating and cooling, and very low electricity consumption, start to look pretty good?

    NOTE: A car driven 15000 miles/y, at 30 mpg, would use 500 gallon of gasoline/y and emit 19.301, combustion + 4.825, upstream, well to tank = 24.126 lb of CO2/gal, or 12,063 lb CO2/y; source energy basis; downstream ignored

  5. 1,600 New Coal-fired Power Plants are Planned or Under Construction in 62 Countries

    Here’s a small sample of how many coal plants there are in the world today.
    The EU has 468 plants building 27 more for a total of 495
    Turkey has 56 plants building 93 more total 149
    South Africa has 79 building 24 more total 103
    India has 589 building 446 more total 1036
    Philippines has 19 building 60 more total 79
    South Korea has 58 building 26 more total 84
    Japan has 90 building 45 more total 135
    AND CHINA has 2363 building 1171 total 3534

    Here come our AUSTRALIAN politicians that are going to shut down our 6 remaining plants and save the planet!!

    Source and read more: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/

  6. Randy: Very well done piece. You make an excellent point about Hydro, and I am guessing in our case here at home you are referring to Hydro-Quebec. The same logic you refer to was in play at Vt Yankee and the shutdown of a non-carbon producing, affordable power source. The one point the Greenies do not talk about is control. If it can’t be controlled by these folks, it is not a germaine choice. Vt Yankee had another 20 year approval to operate from the feds, but that was not good enough, it was outside of their sandbox so it had to be gonzo’d at once. And it was.
    Hydro for VT is in the same category, especially being outside the confines of VT, which for us is a great way to have it.
    Bottom line is control and redistribution of wealth, the things progressives refuse to talk about. This non-sense can be put to bed this coming Nov, if the voters so choose. The voters have the last word, and I am not sure they (Progressives) understand that yet either.

  7. A study by German scientists find electric vehicles are responsible over the ten year expected battery life of adding 11% to 28% more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than their Diesel counterparts when energy requirements including battery production are considered. However, we know that climate hasn’t a damn thing to do with these taxes and controls, that the petitioners and protestors are led into subscribing to a fanatic religion by obsessed pathologically controlling one-worlders who place responsibility for a changing climate entirely on human actions and refuse even to debate the issue – because “the science is settled” – a paradox in itself. Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of working group 3 of the IPCC: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. […] One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” The AGW cabal has indoctrinated the masses through threat of an imminent Gotterdammerung only to be prevented by global self sacrifice except for themselves, giant yachts, multiple mansions, private jets, climate crisis convocations in exotic locations… Do you think they believe the doctrine they’re peddling to the masses?

  8. It’s not about saving the earth or anything noble at all about it.
    Rather the goal is the end of capitalism and the free market.

    More of the Lefts push toward globalism and control of the economic reigns of the one world governmental and populases.

    “The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.”

    U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

    ” The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.”

    “At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

    Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.


Comments are closed.