Following the recent flooding throughout Vermont this summer, the state very proudly touted a response program that offers victims who lost or suffered damage to their cars the opportunity to replace them with an electric vehicle. Not an internal combustion engine vehicle, just an electric vehicle.
Another example of why more people are dying of climate change policy than climate change.
If you want the $11,000 in incentive subsidies, you will get the car the government wants you to have, not the one you necessarily want or need.
But there’s a problem with this policy beyond the overreach of A) taxing Peter and forcing him to pay for Paul’s car and B) putting a government thumb on what should be free-market decisions. Electric vehicle batteries, when submerged in water, create a highly dangerous fire hazard. (See: Electric Vehicles Spontaneously Combust In Florida After Hurricane Ian.)
Encouraging/enabling people who park their cars in places with a demonstrably higher-than-average potential for flooding to switch to vehicles that can explode and burn for days when exposed to flood conditions seems, well, kinda stupid.
With the examples of flooding in California and the Northeast and fires in Hawaii and elsewhere, we are increasingly hearing the refrain that more people are dying of climate change policies than climate change, with good reason. The repeated decisions by federal, state, and local governments to prioritize CO2 reduction over adaptation and emergency preparedness are making bad situations worse than catastrophic.
Hawaii presents the most horrific example. Hawaiian law states, “Pursuant to Hawai’i Revised Statutes §225P-5, Hawai’i has a target ‘to sequester more atmospheric carbon and greenhouse gases than emitted within the State as quickly as practicable, but no later than 2045’, effectively establishing a net-negative emissions target.” So, bowing to that pressure, the electric companies put their resources into carbon reduction and neglected grid resilience and fire safety.
According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of the Maui fires, as reported by NBC, “Unfortunately, for the residents of Lahaina, these proposed grid hardening expenditures were deferred,…. The suit states the company hadn’t spent any funding on power pole upgrades or wildfire prevention in 2021, 2022, or 2023, nor had spent anything on hazard tree removals in 2021 or 2022.” But, hey, Hawaiians can take comfort in that they are “lead[ing] by example in adapting to the impacts and mitigating the extent of climate change.” At least the ones who are still alive.
Hopefully, the lessons of 2023 will convince lawmakers to change gears and start prioritizing practical, beneficial policies focused on infrastructure and public safety over CO2 reduction efforts that are high-cost virtue signaling for zero benefit. The questions lawmakers need to start asking are what technologies and policies are the best equipped and most cost-effective to help us deal with – and minimize damage from — the next fire, flood, heatwave, deep freeze, etc. Not what has the lowest carbon footprint? And if they don’t, it’s up to voters to replace them with lawmakers who will as soon as possible.
Watch Vermont policymakers advocate for encouraging development in floodplains over public safety concerns as part of our Climate Action Plan. Geniuses at work!
However, comments by Vermont Transportation Secretary Joe Flynn regarding the post-flood EV program don’t fill me with confidence that lessons have been learned. “We hope these incentive changes will make a difference in curbing the worst effects of climate change,” said Flynn.
If Flynn really has ANY hope that this program will make ANY difference in curbing ANY effects of climate change, let alone “the worst effects,” he is completely and utterly delusional. And if his intent is to perpetuate the fraud that Vermont’s CO2 reduction policies can or will have such impacts, that’s just plain dishonest. Maybe he’d like to share some statistics comparing the roles that internal combustion engine vehicles played in rescue operations and clean-up vs. electric vehicles—looking forward to that press conference.
Vermont politicians are banking on the massive adoption of electric vehicles by Vermonters over the next few years in order to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals in the Global Warming Solutions Act (very similar to those from Hawaii noted above). According to the Climate Council, Vermonters need to put 126,000 EVs on our roads by 2030. As of this July, there were 5,260 registered.
This number comes as overall demand for EVs nationally is softening, so it’s pretty clear meeting this target isn’t happening – by a very long shot. People just don’t want these cars (at least not to that level of demand), and taking advantage of flood victims to make that pathetic number look slightly less pathetic seems awfully cynical.
Helping people who have lost a vehicle because of flooding get back on the road is a noble goal, and I’m sure can be a real difference-maker for someone trying to get their lives back on track. However, the policy should be to help the most people in the most cost-effective and practical way. I seriously doubt that limiting assistance to those who want, have access to the charging infrastructure, and can afford the unsubsidized portion of the cost of an electric vehicle is the best or most compassionate way to do this.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics, including three years of service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free-market think tank.
