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.

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.

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.

As gasoline prices hover around record highs, the Vermont Climate Council is coming up with a plan to make the problem worse. Much worse.