|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Senate Energy Chair Chris Bray says he’s “not interested” in any plan that adds even $1.70/gallon to cost of heating oil
by Guy Page
The Legislature asked the experts to estimate the cost potential of implementing the Clean Heat Standard, the legislatively-required transformation from heating with fossil fuels.
Friday morning, Rob Roper’s Behind the Lines substack column and the Vermont Daily Chronicle broke this story. We then expanded on the news yesterday on Friday at Four podcast (above).
The nub of the story is this: implementing the Clean Heat Standard would add between about $1.88 to $4 per gallon to the price of home heating oil. And that fact alone is, or at least should be, a non-starter, former Vermont Fuel Dealers president and current Vermont Climate Council member Matt Cota said on Friday at Four.
Apparently Senate Environment and Energy Chair Chris Bray agrees – at least in principle. “I, for one, am not interested in building a program that adds $1.70 to a gallon of heating fuel,” Bray said in a VTDigger news story published at 4 PM, hours after VDC and Roper. “That would be a real problem for many Vermonters.” Bray told Digger he’ll be working all fall to build a more palatable Clean Heat Standard.
Following Cota as our interview guest on Friday at Four, Roper urged Vermonters to support candidates who will oppose added heating fuel costs.
Editor’s note: Paul and I do Friday at Four for shows like this one. Friday at Four lets our audience hear firsthand, while you’re making dinner or driving or whatever, from experts like Matt Cota about the real costs of the Legislature’s hyper-bureaucratic War on Carbon.
One thing has been made very clear: the people supporting the Clean Heat Standard don’t want to see any headlines about its potential cost, at least not before November 5. But that won’t stop us, because we believe that sacred cows make good hamburger.
If you agree, please consider becoming a Sustaining Subscriber and click the link below.
Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Media, VDC-TV Friday At Four
I’m sure most Vermonters will just “Get a Blanket for Christ’s Sake’ If You Don’t Like Paying Extra for Heat”
Thanks Sen MacDonald.
That said it all about Mark MacDonald. He’s a pompous ass !
“sacred cows make good hamburger”, and steaks, stew, belts, and shoes !
Do these people have their head up their butt or what?
This brave little state is being led by the stupid. Stupid and brave not a good combo for the future.
“Apparently Senate Environment and Energy Chair Chris Bray agrees – at least in principle. “I, for one, am not interested in building a program that adds $1.70 to a gallon of heating fuel.”” BULLPOOP! If Bray cared at all about what the cost impact of the Clean Heat Carbon Tax will be on Vermonters he would have used his power as chair of the committee that wrote the bill to INSIST that a cost analysis be done BEFORE passing Act 18. Plenty of people told him and his colleagues that this would cost billions. Any cursory look at what it involves shows that to be the case. He refused for three years to take any of it seriously, and did everything he could to bury discussion of the cost. He’s a lying snake and should be immediately fired from his job by the voters. This quote from his is just an attempt to weasle his way past the next election. Don’t let him get away with it, Addison County. Vote him out! And all the Democrats who blindly went along with this idiotic farce — which has already wasted millions of dollars for zero public benefit.
Don’t you understand, Rob? Bray may not be “interested in building a program that adds $1.70 to a gallon of heating fuel.”
But how about a program that adds one dollar a gallon? Then he can say that he cut the cost of the proposed Clean Heat Standard tax by more than 40% and Vermonters should be pleased.
Of course. everyone continues to disregard Article 9 of Vermont’s Constitution that says “previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected”.
Not only should Bray be voted out of office, the entire legislature should go. All of them. We’d be far better off on our own.
Re: “INSIST that a cost analysis be done BEFORE passing Act 18. … Plenty of people told him and his colleagues that this would cost billions.”
Let the record reflect that every Republican state senator at the time argued that very thing. Our arguments were discarded because we didn’t have the numbers to counter any vote.
Joe, the reason the Republican argument was ineffective was because it was poorly articulated to Democrats and Progressives like Chris Bray. The point isn’t that the Act 18 program will cost ‘billions’. The point is that CO2 emissions are actually good for the environment. If you don’t see it that way, you’re part of the problem. If you do see it that way, then invest your time in spreading the fact that the so-called ‘settled science’ of carbon neutral mitigation isn’t settled at all. And that, even if you are unsure of CO2’s effect on the environment, it’s better to invest in the certainty of adaptation, not the speculative mitigation programs that benefit special interest groups like the VPIRG guys who started SunCommon, later bankrupting everyone else.
Case in point: Even Rob’s missive says nothing about the folly of limiting CO2 emissions in the first place.
@Joe Benning – Can you point me to the direction of the accountable?
“… are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way(“penalties of perjury”), accountable to them.”
ought to appear evident to the Legislature
ought to appear evident to the Legislature
ought to appear evident to the Legislature
ought to appear evident to the Legislature
ought to appear evident to the Legislature
EVIDENT: “expression for when the proof is great and overwhelming”
_____________________________
That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute the member’s proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto, but no part of any person’s property can be justly taken, or applied to public uses, without the person’s own consent, or that of the Representative Body, nor can any person who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if such person will pay such equivalent; nor are the people bound by any law but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good: and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.
_____________________________
That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislators and magistrates, in making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the State.
_____________________________
“That all power being originally inherent in and co[n]sequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”
You can not be given power that we don’t have to give to begin with. This global government climate authority is not an authority “the people” can provide. If human behavior is causing damage, we must be put to trial and have those damages proven in a court of law. The Vermont constitution therefor grants NO AUTHORITY to the legislature for S5 or any similar such nonsense.
Jay, the arguments against passing the CHS were very well articulated to the Democrats and Progressives by many people. They key point is THEY DID NOT CARE. They do not care. They did not think they had to listen, because the did not believe they will be held accountable. We’ll find out in November if they were right.
The narrative pushed by leftist and elitist legislators has been thorough- There are few Vermont residents I’ve talked with that know anything about the “clean heat standard” or it’s costs. these folks have tuned state government and the antics of those like bray out, stating ” when it gets bad enough, I’m outta here.”
So thorough is the media complicity that a VDC article, June 26th 2024 https://vermontdailychronicle.com/powerful-senate-chair-lobbyist-in-apparent-relationship/ regarding bray’s romantic relationship with maggie lenz, VP and lobbyist for leonine media seems ignored. The corruption, nepotism, grifting and pretending surrounding the past 2 biennium’s legislators is repugnant, dangerous and illegal.
Rob, et al: That our legislators ‘don’t care’ is a speculative assertion. Of course, they ‘care’ – about something. Just not what you or I care about. And, I assume, that’s because their constituents ‘don’t care’ either.
Perhaps I was unclear when I characterized Democrats and Progressives like Chris Bray. I’m not saying that the issue wasn’t well articulated to the legislators, but that the issue wasn’t articulated to their constituents… to ‘Democrats and Progressives like Chris Bray’.
I just spoke with a neighbor while paying my property taxes at our town hall. He was adamant that the Clean Heat Standard was worth every penny it would cost because CO2 emissions had to be stopped. When I asked him how much CO2 was in our atmosphere, he had no idea. When I said there are more than 2000 scientists and researchers trying to explain that CO2 isn’t the boogieman it’s made out to be, he said there were tens of thousands of scientists who say that isn’t so. When I asked him to provide a list of those people, he couldn’t do it.
But when I told him that CO2 was merely a ‘trace gas’, accounting for a bit more than 4/100ths of a percent of our atmosphere, and that anthropomorphic (human) CO2 emissions were a fraction of that amount, he said he’d look it up.
I also asked him to check out the Milankovitch cycles that describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements in relation to the sun on its climate over thousands of years, and to check proportionate CO2 levels over the last million years as they relate to global temperatures, sea levels, and plant growth.
Who knows? Maybe he will think for himself and do the research. Because when everyone realizes that putting all of our financial eggs in the CO2 basket, and that that investment is bankrupting us, maybe, just maybe, they will see our world differently and reasonable common sense will prevail.
But, Rob, you and Joe Benning are still not making this argument. Why is that?
So the updated NV5 study says (according to the VT digger article on 6 Sept)
“That estimate is $9.6 billion — about half of the consulting firm’s initial $17.3 billion estimate, presented in August”.
And further:
“The cost estimate changed in response to feedback from members of the public about the data the consulting firm had used. Jared Duval, executive director of the Energy Action Network and a member of the Vermont Climate Council, was among those who recommended changes and said the cost in the consulting group’s first estimate was about twice as high as it should have been”.
So some members of the public and a VT climate council member took issue with the estimated cost, and the paid consultant who did the study just changed their numbers??
Lets not forget its an election year. He’ll say anything to get re~elected!!
Jay, what they don’t care about is the cost of the program to normal people trying to survive in this state. Plenty of experts, fuel dealers, HVAC installers, opposing party members made clear and obvious cases that this program is logistically and fiscally asinine. Throughout most of that testimony the Dems on the committees paid bills or texted others on their phones.
Why don’t I spend time arguing that CO2 is a trace gas? I can’t speak for Joe, but my reason is it is an ineffective argument for persuading people that the CHS and GWSA are bad policies. It’s a trace gas? Okay. Trace amounts of fentanyl can kill you. Why can’t trace amounts of a gas in the atmosphere be dangerous? Not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re not going to win that argument with someone who doesn’t already want to believe you.
But the average Vermonters burns 700 gallons of heating oil a year and a $4.00/gallon carbon tax means they’ll be paying an extra $2800 for the privilege of surviving winter. That tends to get their attention and be more persuasive, so I stick with that.
So, equating CO2 with fentanyl is an effective argument? That makes the extra $2800 one pays for the privilege to stay warm seem cheap.
‘There must be some way out of here
Said the joker to the thief.
There’s too much confusion,
I can’t get no relief.’
No, Jay, I am not equating CO2 with fentanyl. Obviously. I simply use it as an example as to why just pointing out that something represents a “trace amount” is not an effective argument regarding its danger/non-danger. Trace amounts of broken glass in your meal could be dangerous. Large amounts of bacon in your meal are not dangerous and are in fact desirable. As such, telling someone that CO2 in the atmosphere is benign based solely on the percentage of the atmosphere it represents is a meaningless argument, and it won’t persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to change their position on climate change mitigation efforts. There are better arguments to use, so I personally don’t waste time trying to make this case, which is the answer to the question you asked. But go for it if you want. You be you as the saying goes.
Geesh, Rob. Now it’s a comparison of CO2 with ‘trace amounts of glass’ and ‘large amounts of bacon’.
Re: “As such, telling someone that CO2 in the atmosphere is benign based solely on the percentage of the atmosphere it represents is a meaningless argument, and it won’t persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to change their position on climate change mitigation efforts.”
Again; “…based *solely* on the percentage of the atmosphere it represents is a meaningless argument,”
First of all, that CO2 is a trace gas is NOT a meaningless argument… especially when it’s compared to broken glass, bacon and fentanyl. And I might agree with you, if that’s *solely* what I was telling you and others. But it isn’t remotely close to what I’ve been saying. Go back and reread what I said.
If this is how you’ve been lobbying our legislators, it’s little wonder they ‘don’t care’ what you say.
Re-read your post, Jay, and all I can say is if you can’t persuade me, who is always on the lookout for and open to strong arguments in opposition to these policies, you’re not going to persuade someone who is reflexively defensive. But good luck to you, sir!
For the record then, given that Rob won’t recognize my logical progression, here’s what I said.
1. 2000 scientists and researchers try to explain that CO2 isn’t the boogieman it’s made out to be – a reference to the World Climate Declaration.
2. Not only is CO2 a ‘trace gas’, anthropomorphic (human) CO2 emissions are a fraction of total atmospheric CO2.
3. Check out the Milankovitch cycles that describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements in relation to the sun on its climate over thousands of years.
4. Check proportionate CO2 levels over the last million years as they relate to global temperatures, sea levels, and plant growth.
5. Putting all of our financial eggs in the CO2 basket will bankrupt us.
Consider first that the total mass (weight is variable, while mass is constant) of the earth’s atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons. If you have a calculator that can handle it, for perspective, 1 Quadrillion = 1000 trillion. One trillion = 1000 billion.
At 4.2 parts per million, total CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is estimated to be 2.3 trillion tons. Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are estimated to reach a record 35 billion tons this year, or 1.5% of the earth’s total CO2, or 1.5% of .0004% of the earth’s atmosphere.
Now consider that there can be 1 million times more water vapor in the atmosphere of tropical air than there is CO2 (the difference between 4 percent and 4/100ths of a percent).
Finally, now consider the hubris displayed by Vermont’s legislators (and others) who think that taxing heat oil in a State with .0076% of the world’s population is going to significantly affect world-wide CO2 levels.
Why the discrepancy in logic? Consider why doctors were afraid to criticize mandated Covid vaccines. They risked losing their license to practice if they didn’t tow the line. Climate Change researchers run the same risk of losing their funding if they criticize the CO2 narrative.
Check my math, if you can. And read the World Climate Declaration. If you still want to invest your money in the CO2 pipedream, be my guest. But please keep your hands off my wallet. I have better things in which to invest.
Ahh, the curse of the misplaced decimal point. Please consider these corrections to the above missive calculations.
At 420 parts per million (not 4.2 parts), total CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is estimated to be 2.2 trillion tons. Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are estimated to reach a record 35 billion tons this year, or 1.6% of the earth’s total CO2, or 1.6% of .04% of the earth’s atmosphere.
Now consider that there can be 10,000 times more water vapor in the atmosphere of tropical air than there is CO2 (the difference between 4 percent and 4/100ths of a percent).
But I hope you all still get the idea. CO2 isn’t the problem. And please, do check my math.
Totally agree with you Robert , Bray does NOT care for VERMONT :” In 2016 at a legislative breakfast in Vergennes I asked Senator Chris Bray, a lead sponsor of these policies, why such ratepayer punishing policies were necessary, he responded, “I’m just trying to be a good steward of the planet.” So much for being a good steward of his constituents! He must be voted out !!! “”https://vermontdailychronicle.com/thurston-taxpayers-suffering-in-cold-and-silence/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFIUlBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWt9kqg7adxtjPSdaiKHuqQrE8G-9cBPyUtPW3L4uaDE3T1JopCqacfd7g_aem_oDzupdk7dI_-zo4VlRp3FQ
I have been campaigning for the House seat in the Lamoille-Washington District. In talking with many residents of the District I have not come across ONE person interested in paying more for fuel. My instructions, if elected, are to vote it down! I intend to do so. The incumbents voted for it and other large spending bills. They do not deserve to spend another session under the golden dome.
Inviting parties that do not like the bill to sue the State of Vermont is the most ludicrous concept ever put forth and needs to be repealed as soon as possible before more costs are incurred by taxpayers. I pledge to do my best to repeal ANY effort to promote similar concepts. That sacred cow may have allready left the barn.
Well, Vermont you better start saving as Vermont’s ” Stupid Majority ” and the others within the state house and its gaggle of fools ” Just Don’t Care “, they have an agenda, and your financial difficulties have no bearing…………………………
Before you vote this year, ask your representatives, what they have done to curtail all the ” polluters” around the world, with countries like Russia, China, and India, all you’ll get is, that we are working on it and ask for data like policy numbers …… you’ll get nothing, but little Vermont will make a difference with your increase pricing on your fuel oil from $1- $4 per gallon……………………. they think you’re stupid !!
Wake up people.
You people should have became awake when the Govie locked the state down and told you to wear the face diaper and take the Covid kill shot. Now big pharma is pushing more shots on Tel./// Lie./// Vision./// Now get in line for your next jab.
1st. order of business should be to disband the “Climate Council” and any legislation that bears it’s influence.
“The farmer wouldn’t budge.”
“60 years later, a Vermont farmer’s tragic tale lives on. But for how much longer?”
“On Sept. 12, 1964, Romaine Tenney locked himself in his Weathersfield house and lit it on fire to protest its imminent bulldozing for Interstate 91. Today, fewer and fewer neighbors are around to share his story.”
https://vtdigger.org/2024/09/08/60-years-later-a-vermont-farmers-tragic-tale-lives-on-but-for-how-much-longer/
“’You can’t just move him out like you would a younger man,’ the now late former Deputy Sheriff Robert Gale was quoted [as saying] in 2013. ‘Think of it: Here’s a highway that’s costing a million dollars a mile, and they can’t find the money to take care of an old man.’”
It’s interesting to see Vermont Digger publishing an article like this, especially since Philip Hoff, a Democrat, was governor at the time and throughout the sixties. I’m not a lawyer (though I did fairly well on the LSATs), but I see the Clean Heat Standard as being close in spirit to an Eminent Domain seizure, in terms of the government taking control of one’s private property “for the public good,” so called, although they are using sticks not carrots. I’m not a stubborn Vermont farmer, either, just a writer: I do work as an editor and ghostwriter for people (including attorneys) who have been very high up in Congress and the American intelligence community, and if the Clean Heat Standard goes through, and my work is interrupted for any reason (say, I can’t get my car fixed to do errands since all the garages have closed), rather than have my clients irritated at ME, I will eagerly assign blame to the phony aristo’s seeking to clear out Vermont’s working poor with this ill-considered, ill-thought-out, inhumane, envy-driven and ridiculous Marxist property-grab.
Democratic perfidy knows no bounds.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/ellin-anderson/the-third-hill/paperback/product-q9evrr.html?q=The+Third+Hill&page=1&pageSize=4
These Socialists legislators HAVE to visit stores to get groceries, clothing, fuel, the basics of life to exist. These establishments they know who (be about to equate with) deny servicing them or allow them to purchase in the state. Create hardships for them. If taxed by certain individuals in a town, I wouldn’t go anywhere near them, boycott. The power of the purse. They are not your friendly neighbor.
Absolutely, trespass them all from your business if you own a business. Great idea! Don’t deliver, fix, or otherwise participate in anything they need you for. Maybe start an awareness campaign and notify all the local business.
Anyone have a link to the study? I’d like to read through it, as VT diggers take on it is very different…
https://vtdigger.org/2024/09/06/consultants-update-clean-heat-standard-cost-benefit-figures-in-final-version-of-study/
Brian, access the NV5 Final Potential study at
https://tinyurl.com/yc85fdtc
Since you read the VTDigger account, post a letter to the editor or commentary, if you find the study repulsive.
Brian, access the final NV5 Study at
https://tinyurl.com/yc85fdtc
Digger’s “coverage” is words designed to mislead you into thinking your read something worthwhile. They do not discuss the cost (except in a vague, low reference by Bray in the second to last paragraph — not a direct reference to the NV5 conclusions.) They do not ask hard questions of the advocates for the program, Bray and Duval, and they don’t bother to interview anyone who has an opposing view. Digger does not dig. It buries.
What should concern everyone the most is NOT the fact the mainstream media is lying to us- but that most people believe the mainstream media.
Vermont’s current crop of marxists rely on pretending and a complicit media.
I’m curious, is this an example of gouging.
If not, is an over 20% increase in property taxes, price gouging.
If not, are back to back double digit increases in healthcare premiums, price gouging?
Asking for a friend.
The true price gouging is where they vote themselves huge raises, more vacation time, then commences to take that vacation time immediately while screwing over the taxpayers year after year.
Clean Heat Standard. Clean, as in clean out your bank account.
I’m stealing that! 😉
“”Apparently Senate Environment and Energy Chair Chris Bray agrees – at least in principle. “I, for one, am not interested in building a program that adds $1.70 to a gallon of heating fuel,””
I think Bray didn’t finish his sentence, the ending of course would be …”as I am up for re-election and would prefer to wait before screwing over those I profess to represent until after I’m re-elected”. There I finished it for him, you’re welcome.
Bingo in the front row !
Why can’t they repeal the law? If it’s going to cost the state money if the goals can’t be reached, and they know now that goals WON’T be reached, then just repeal it. And tell all those “special interest groups” to go pound sand!
Those “special interest groups” are the lifeblood of politics and grifting- here in Vermont and nationally. The 2020 Vermont legislature overrode phil scott’s veto of the GWSA enabling Vermont’s NGO’s the ability to sue us, Vermont for not achieving the goals of the GWSA. There are BILLIONS at stake here in Vermont, from the taxpayer’s wallet to the NGO and then to the legislator by way of campaign cash, career paths for past legislators, their family members and such-
Grifting it is called. With Billions of dollars at stake, there’ll be no repeal unless there is a drastic change in legislative makeup in future years. The ability of legislative pretending is endless. The “clean heat standard” is the second whack at the taxpayer piñata… healthcare was first in the 2010’s-energy for transportation
is next up then more healthcare. mr. bray, ms. sibilia and most other D/P legislators aren’t going to give up the power and dollars without a fight. Given the apathy of the majority of Vermont voters things may not change anytime soon.
I’m all for saving the planet, but until there are cheap clean ways to keep from freezing, this cost is outrageous. It’s not a small home in Vermont that is going to cut emissions. It’s factories in asia, China and India that do the most damage.
I kept my heat low, wore sweaters, 2 pair of socks and could hardly afford heat before this tax. It hurts mom and pop shops and small fuel suppliers. Giving the low income, most Vermonters, fuel assistance will add to the budget. Tax on delivery and hope to get a refund, assistance does not help on the day to day. People can’t afford to redo their homes to other heat systems.
Even IF carbon was a real pollutant, the government does little to nothing to reduce carbon usage. Their laws and plans for carbon reduction don’t include even the easily identifiable externalities of redirecting those resources, let alone the potentiality that not destroying the wealth would provide at reducing pollutants.
The government is not qualified, and the government is not authentic. If they really cared about reducing carbon they wouldn’t be doing things such as forcing folks to waste over a million gallons of fuel in 10 years for a gun waiting period. They would do things like encourage home schooling instead of further away schooling. They would make laws that require less visits to the DMV and related tasks. They would support keeping us out of wars. They would remove hurdles to remote working and hiring local instead of importing workers. They would reduce the amount of times the legislature needs to meet up for making all these terrible things. They would reduce the amount of pointless bureaucracies. The list can go on forever.
Being “green”, is a luxury we can only afford when the government stops destroying wealth. The government is the number 1 polluter. The government is the number 1 cause of poverty.
Donna, thank you.
Globally CO2 emissions totaled 47 BILLION tons; Vermont’s total is about 8 million tons and CO2 from home heating fuels is about a third of that…2.48 million tons. Weahterization and a het pump installed can reduce CO2 emissions by about 40% and the household will still keep burning fuel. 40% of 2.48 = nearly a million tons removed at a cost of??? who really knows; something around 8 Billion dollars.
As Mr Bammo said above: “Given the apathy of the majority of Vermont voters things may not change anytime soon.” That apathy is reported here on Daily Chronicle each time a commentator complains, gripes, lashes out at the Maxists. Rather, all who condemn this darned CHS know friends, neighbors and candidates that can turn this runaway catastrophe into its early grave. Support all Republicans on November.
The 7 Republican Senators need four more to sustain Governor Scott’s veto. And one Democratic Senator already voted to sustain his veto last year. Send Senator Irene Wrenner back to Montpelier and three other Republican candidates and he will have leverage over the super majority by forcing the Dems to negotiate with Republicans to resolve objections to bad legislation. Pick up the phone and call on Vermonters to put aside their apathy and fight because their home is being attacked by CHS.
Oh don’t forget the new yearly fuel tank inspection,that ain’t free !
More and more of the latest research done by actual physicists and true climate scientists is confirming that Temperature Drives CO2 levels.
This makes every single action to eliminate “carbon” a waste of time and energy (literally). Ex = https://notrickszone.com/2024/09/02/new-study-human-emissions-irrelevant-in-determining-changes-in-atmospheric-co2-since-1959/
I for one will NOT be paying the $4.00 tax for my fuel! This is how I will avoid the tax while keeping my house warm, I will buy a 100 gallon tank with a pump to put in the back of my truck and fill it up at a truck stop with kerosene or offroad diesel!
All well and good- until a super-majority legislature goes to work on carbon in the transportation sector- which has been already announced. VPIRG, CLF and other NGO’s are fine-tuning bills for introduction in January 2025, dependent on the outcome of Nov. 5th….
H. Jay Eshelman, you have not mentioned how CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation
Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.
Molecules are constantly in motion, colliding with other gas molecules and transferring energy from one molecule to another during collisions. In the more-complex, real-world process, a CO2 molecule would most likely bump into several other gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. The CO2 molecule might transfer the energy it gained from the absorbed photon to another molecule, adding speed to that molecule’s motion. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the IR photon that was absorbed by a CO2 molecule raises the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.
Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).
And with your above statement, Mr. McCormick you jump headfirst down the rabbit hole of ClimateChange™ rhetoric. For every “study” and “report” condemning man-made CO2 as the villain of the planet, there too is counter “reports” and “studies”.
But caveat emptor, the validity of information presented to us has the addition of grift and manipulation for profit attached. Since the 1960’s, America has been under attack by all manner of pundits, grifters and some truly sincere people warning us about all manner of pollution- and as a nation we have responded, cleaning up (literally) our act and awareness of environmental concerns. In the process of cleaning up, grifters set forth to cash in on the clean up. Climate Evangelism™ is a billion dollar enterprise, with trillions more at stake. The ability of the Climate Evangelist to coerce politicians to do their bidding is clearly evident, especially here in Vermont. The NGO’s and alternative energy corporations have engineered a propaganda campaign that has now become law, with the social and economic pratfalls becoming exposed.
No amount of factual evidence will ever change people’s opinions. ClimateChange™ is one of the most successful propaganda campaigns ever run on
this planet- and without definitive proof- or even proper skepticism Vermont has embarked upon a path that will lead to a level of social and economic devastation unseen in modern times. All without altering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by any measurable amount. By whatever name one chooses- Act 179, the Affordable Heat Act or Clean Heat Standard this legislation exposes the grift, corruption and gullibility of Vermont’s politicians and population- to embrace willingly the concept of a totalitarian and almost fascist society.