As the Vermont Climate Council punches away at a document that will, I assume, be heralded as “The Plan” (cue heavenly chorus) to meet the greenhouse gas reduction mandates of the Global Warming Solutions Act, I’m happy to say a few honest, semi-sane voices have emerged in their debate. Will the majority on the Council heed their admonitions? I doubt it, but all the more reason to highlight them here. (For sure, no one else in the Vermont media will.)
First prize goes to Billy Coster of the Agency of Natural Resources – not a formal Council member, but he does serve as chair of a subcommittee. When the Council was reviewing its recommended action items for the Climate Action Plan (CAP), Coster observed:
This seems to suggest that these [action items] will get us to the 2030 target, and I just don’t think that’s accurate. I just don’t think there’s an affordable and equitable way, even if we were to join WCI [Western Climate Initiative] tomorrow and put into place these other programs… that we could hit the 2030 target in an affordable and equitable way. So, this seems to create this false narrative that all we need to do is do these things and we’ll hit the target. I don’t think we’ve seen that as feasible…. [T]he likelihood that it all gets done and is implemented in time to reduce emissions on pace to meet 2030 is unlikely at best. So, this is misleading from my perspective.
“No way.” “False narrative.” “Misleading.” Ahh-yup! Michelle Boomhower of the Agency of Transportation chimed in:
Yeah, I think it doesn’t acknowledge the Treasurer’s report which said even at the highest fee level in a Cap & Invest [program taxing fossil fuels] we wouldn’t meet 2030, and there’s no reference to the Treasurer’s report here either…. I don’t think we’re being transparent with the public by not including the findings we’ve already calculated.
So, thank you for pointing out that the Council – and the legislature, for that matter – is paying zero attention to the hard numbers analysis of what meeting these mandates will actually cost and what is actually doable. The Treasurer’s report she refers to determined that Cap & Invest was too expensive, too regressive, too complicated to do on our own as a small state, and no possible partnership with other state(s) currently exists. Sooooo… yeahhh…. But these genius planners of our economic future refuse to acknowledge data they don’t want to hear. Cap & Invest is in their plan!
Regarding cost realities, Council member David Mears spoke an obvious truth (well, obvious to anybody not drunk on the Kool-Aid):
I think the headwinds are more challenging than this [Climate Action Plan document] captures. There was a shift in state politics in Vermont, and I think there’s less support for the state to step in and play the role [of global climate leader] than there was…. Whether you agree that the state body politic has shifted, the legislature thinks that it has shifted. So, the legislative ability and willingness to take on a larger role in the absence of the federal funding isn’t there. [Emphasis added]
This is true! We have less federal money available, and no tax capacity left at the state level to backfill that federal hole let alone fund the massive expansion of green policies necessary to implement this not-a-plan plan. The Democrats who control the environmental committees refused this year to fund or even seriously discuss funding just the Fuel Dealer registry they said was so critical to keep.
But here’s how absurd this whole farce really is. During the presentation by the highly paid (by us taxpayers), expert consultants from the Stockholm Environmental Institute who put together the “Pathways” recommendations for this “plan”, Sylvia Ulloa confessed:
We are assuming that there are funds available to implement these measures and we are not considering any constraints for example in terms of the labor that is required to implement these weatherizations or other types of restrictions that might exist in terms of the implementation of these policies.
With what little respect I can muster, that assumption is – to use drastic understatement because I can’t find suitable vocabulary – wildly WRONG. The funds ARE NOT available. The labor force IS NOT available. The other restrictions that “might” exist do, in fact, exist. So, how much did we pay for this utterly useless set of recommendations? It’s like giving driving directions to someone who doesn’t have a car.
In regard to the labor force issue, one Council member noted, “In the criteria [section of the plan] it says, ‘make certain there are enough trade workers in the state,’ and I’m like, HOW? And, so, I think we need to be more specific there.” Yeah y’ do! It’s taken literally five years of these meetings for someone to ask that question. Nobody answered it, but the asker gets a smiley face sticker for asking.
Some Council members even poked holes in the Great Green Hope that the “Make Big Oil Pay” scheme will magically make the money materialize to carry out the CAP. Sorry, not happening. Department of Public Services secretary and Council member Kerrick Johnson described the lawsuit scam situation, thus:
This is like, take a swing, and if it comes in with money, great. But I have no idea how realistic it is that we’re going to get anything. It’s going to take resources, and we’ll see.
Another member (I think ANR Secretary Julie Moore, but not 100% sure from the video) acknowledged, “It’s ten years from now…. I worry it creates false hope.”
Bingo. That’s all this expensive, nonsensical, half-decade long and going exercise in Kabuki theater is about: manufacturing the false hope that the climate warriors in the State House are doing something to lead the world in saving the planet when, in reality, they ain’t doing squat. They are perpetrating a fraud on the people of Vermont and costing taxpayers millions in wasted money to do it.
So, all of this begs the question, if the money isn’t there to run these programs and the legislators who passed this boondoggle aren’t willing to raise it or move forward with any significant policy that would require an on-the-record vote, then how can they justify keeping Vermont taxpayers on the hook for the lawsuits we’re facing because of their unworkable law? It’s unjustifiable. Repeal the Global Warming Solutions Act!
Agree? Disagree? Submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com – We want to hear from you, too!
