Even if Vermont reduces GHG emissions to zero by 2050, the total reduction between now and then would be just over 100 million metric tons — one day’s worth of world emissions. So, nothing Vermont does will have any measurable impact on world climate.
The members of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee are tying themselves in intellectual knots over why they don’t need to investigate how much the Clean Heat Standard they’re prepared to put into law will cost Vermonters or how it will work.
Although there may be good intentions and hopes behind S.5, it is actually harmful to Vermonters and small businesses who have been heating homes for decades, even generations.
Democrats and Progressives are hoping that newly elected supermajorities in both the House and Senate, along with a new name for what is essentially a carbon tax on home heating fuels, will ensure that that the Clean Heat Standard will become law this year.
Why on earth would the Legislature seriously consider such CO2 reduction proposals if the Energy Futures Group model shows they will be terrible investments? Certainly not the loosest pretense of scientific merit. Rather, because Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020 says so.
It appears we will be reviewing rules that follow California’s clean car standards. California’s clean car standards are much stricter than the federal standards require. I believe Vermont should revert to the federal standards.
Dozens of the recommendations of the Vermont Climate Council, ardently backed by the Climate Action Network, will whistle through House and Senate. An early one will be the clean heat standard, to drive up the price of natural gas, heating oil, propane and kerosene. It failed by one vote last May. The Democrats can’t wait to push that through.
Our policy makers are betting that an EV technology that is ripe with fire hazards and reduced effectiveness in cold weather will carry the day. If this does not happen quickly enough, a large portion of the public may only be able to use public transport.
At the very least, when the new legislature convenes in January it should repeal the lawsuit provision of the GWSA. It is not fair or good policy to stick taxpayers with potentially millions in legal fees failed to implement programs that were “impossible” and “unviable” from the get-go.
The “savings” being promised by the Climate Council if we spend the multiple tens of billions of dollars necessary to implement their programs are largely based on something called “the social cost of carbon.” What is this? Well, like Murray’s caddying fee, there won’t be money.
In 2020, no one bothered to put a serious price tag on these Global Warming Solutions Act policies before they were voted upon. Part of that façade is starting to disappear in 2022, and the costs are becoming disturbingly apparent.
So, no revenue, no interested partners, no logistical capability, no ideas, and no public support. Perhaps this is why a number of key legislative-appointee council members are asking not to return when their terms are up next month. These folks are fleeing the sinking ship.