Director of Global Warming Solutions Act calls transportation recommendations ‘unviable’

By Rob Roper

It has been nearly a year since the multi-state, New England/Mid Atlantic Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI-P) collapsed due to only one of the thirteen states (MA) actually signing onto the program, the rest taking a hard pass or offering a polite maybe later.  TCI-P was a carbon tax scheme on gasoline and diesel motor fuels designed to increase the cost of those products, discouraging their use, while simultaneously extracting hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from drivers for the participating states to spend.

Joining TCI-P was a key plank in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) put forward by the Climate Council in order to meet the greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reduction mandates under the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). When it failed, the Council’s task was to come up with something to replace it. They still haven’t, and it doesn’t look like they will or even can.

Speaking to the Council’s Transportation Task Force on October 17, 2022, Jane Lazorchak, the Director of Global Warming Solutions Act at the Agency of Natural Resources, stated what has been obvious to many observers for a long time, the kinds of programs necessary to curb emissions from Vermont’s transportation sector to the degree required by the law are “unviable” and “impossible”…….

Read more at Ethan Allen Institute blog

The author is a Stowe resident and member of the board of directors of the Ethan Allen Institute.

Categories: Environment

5 replies »

  1. Yet VT thought it was the greatest concept since mutilating underage minors, adopting socialism or Marxism, murdering babies in utero as fastidiously as humanly possible and legalizing prostitution. At least we have Article 22 set to inevitably pass via the herd of sheep who blindly follow socialist democrat ideologies over every cliff. Whew.

    • How about a quick survey of the legislators who wrote/sponsored/voted for this monstrosity with their comments NOW before November 8.

      • A tall order on short notice- H.688 passed the senate in June 2020 on a 22-6 vote.
        The house voted 102-45 on Sept. 9 2020. Under Covid rules.
        Scott vetoed, and both the house and senate override his veto in Sept. 2020.
        Under Covid rules.
        Some of the legislators overriding the veto are retired, gone or not seeking re-election. Getting out before the carnage hits? perhaps.

        Joe Benning deserves a plug- he warned us in 2020, explaining his No votes:

        Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, who voted against the measure, said that Vermont would not be able to meet the emissions mandates laid out in the bill unless it took “very draconian measures.”

        And he argued that because of Vermont’s small size, reducing the state’s carbon footprint will not have an impact on global climate change.

        “We have to be cognizant that we are using a tool that will not achieve global warming reduction, because that 50-foot hole cannot be dug with a toothpick,” he said.
        (VTDigger, Jun 25 20)

        The socialist cabal in the super-majority of Vermonts legislature, using all the hubris they can muster is determined to prove us and Joe wrong.
        That’s more than enough reason to get out and vote Nov 3rd, In Person and Very Carefully.

  2. Yes, and let’s think….

    HOW MUCH time and Vermont money has been devoted to this “unviable” initiative?

    HOW VIABLE are the other GWSA initiatives?

    WHO (legislators, lobbyists, etc.) thought this was a good idea?

  3. The Legislative Council on Administrative Rules (LCAR) must meet before the end of the year to adopt the California Emissions Standards. These standards will impose unknown but presumably enormous costs on Vermont taxpayers due to the subsidies that will be necessary to entice car manufacturers to build EV’s cheap enough ($20k is the magic number) for low income folks to buy them, thereby meeting California’s and therefore Vermont’s requirements for EV “equity”, a policy known as “Advanced Clean Cars II”. At the meeting one member of the committee said, perhaps in jest, that in the absence of hard numbers they could, “throw money at it”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNnNLeJxgEc&t=3518s

    Even with these “draconian measures”, the referenced video above shows that it will be impossible to transition enough people into EV’s to meet the 2030 emissions reduction goals, leaving Vermont and its taxpayers open to lawsuits from climate warriors.

    Interestingly, the proposal requires the Climate Council to “EXPLAIN HOW THE RULE IMPACTS THE CLIMATE IN THE STATE”. https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/anr/climatecouncil/Shared%20Documents/LEV_ZEV_rules_complete%20package_ICAR_signed.pdf

    When questioned at a legislative breakfast in 2016 about the relative impact of Vermont’s actions on the climate, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Chris Bray responded, “I’m not looking at the rest of the world, I just think its the responsible thing to reduce our use or fossil fuels in the state”. The cost did not seem to be a consideration then, or now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQQJVx-wFu4

Leave a Reply