If there’s any benefit at all, it doesn’t get back to the people paying the bills.

by Rob Roper

Vermont climate activists in the legislature and beyond continue to insist that their policies will ultimately save Vermonters money. How they reach this mathematically questionable conclusion (apart from the scenario where the politicians rob Peter to pay for Paul’s “free” weatherization project and installation of cold climate heat pumps in which case Paul certainly saves money; Peter not so much) always comes down to application of the “Social Cost of Carbon” to the tally.

As I have written in the past, the Social Cost of Carbon is a fake number. A “keleven” in reference to “The Office” joke referring to the character Kevin’s imaginary number used to balance accounts that in actuality don’t balance. This creatively monetized warm fuzzy has been calculated at everywhere between $5 per ton of CO2 to currently I think it’s $190 a ton (!). Always just high enough to cast a black shadow over the sea of red ink pouring from policies like the Clean Heat Standard, Renewable Energy Standard, Clean Cars & Trucks, etcetera and seemingly ad infinitum.

But even if it were a real number – and this is a critical point – it doesn’t amount to any financial benefit to the Vermonters who are ponying up the cash to pay for the programs. Usually, when someone promises if you spend X dollars up front you will save Y dollars down the road, one assumes that refers to a long-term payback on your investment. And therein lies this subtle and sleazy deception. In fact, “you” pay, but society on a global scale reaps whatever Social Cost of Carbon benefit there is. Not “you.” “You” get squat. A detail in the fine print blithely glossed over by the advocates.

Yes, I have pointed this out numerous times over the years, but it was refreshing to see one of those legislative climate activists finally admit the scam – and, hat tip, explain it very clearly.

During testimony on the affordable housing crisis and the impact climate related mandates in building codes add to the cost of housing ($60,000 per unit!!! but that’s another story), as some of his colleagues tried to cover up that devastating number with, you guessed it, the Social Cost of Carbon “keleven”, Rep. Scott Campbell (D-St. Johnsbury) let the cat out of the bag:

I just wanted to observe that there’s at least two ways of looking at cost and benefits. And in terms of the benefits, there’s sort of the customer or consumer cost and benefits –that is sort of the cash flow to the to the consumer or the operator of the building. And that’s, you know, those are real numbers. Those are really important. But the other part as far as adding in a social cost of carbon or other social costs and social benefits — that’s really more of a programmatic level consideration in terms of, well, what do we want to incentivize and how much is the incentive worth…. In general, the Social Cost of Carbon is not something that the operator of a building or the homeowner is going to see. It doesn’t really calculate for them. [Emphasis added]

So, there you have it. There are “real numbers” and there are, well, not so real numbers. The oft-touted “savings” from the “Social Cost of Carbon” DO NOT benefit homeowners/building owners aka the people incurring the costs. In other words, THERE ARE NO SAVINGS for the people forced to “invest” their money in these programs.

This is a truth that opponents of these policies need to hammer home at every opportunity. Every time some witness (cough, cough Jared Duval) mentions the social cost of carbon, even in passing, someone needs to put the screws to him/her/they/them and force them to admit on the record that there is no Social Cost of Carbon payback benefit to the Vermont homeowner, building operator, or taxpayer/ratepayer forced to pick up the bill for these policies.

Every time one of these folks says “we’re going to save $2 billion (or whatever) in ten years (or whatever),” someone needs to challenge that with the question, “Okay, but what are the savings — if any — if you remove the social cost of carbon?” Because that is the honest number. The “real” number.

To be sure, Rep. Campbell is full on board with the far-Left climate agenda, but he does get kudos for at least being honest in this case about how we should be calculating the true costs of these programs and who is bearing those costs. Thanks for that.

Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com