by Robert Fireovid
The drive by Governor Scott, both aisles in the Vermont Legislature, and the Vermont Chamber of Commerce to drastically increase the number of housing units in Vermont is based on ridiculously false assumptions.
New England is an expensive place to live. The totality of taxes, government fees, and costs resulting from state government mandates is relatively high. In particular, the weather in Vermont is cold and harsh. The cost of fossil fuels and electrical energy is relatively high. The cost of construction labor and building materials are relatively high. The cost of disposing of and treating our wastes is relatively high.
Because the cost of living is relatively high, wages must be relatively high OR (since we’re in Vermont) publicly funded supplementary income and/or services must provide citizens with a minimal standard of living. Of course, such public support increases the tax burden on the rest of us.
Furthermore, because artificial intelligence will replace many if not most desk jobs, many white-collar workers, as well as others who provide these workers with goods and services, won’t earn enough to afford to live in Vermont.
Within 9 years, Vermont and the world are likely to start becoming drastically different than they are today. In contrast, this plan for insane increases in housing is based on a mindless fantasy that Vermont can and will grow ever more.
It seems that, based on current trends, Vermont faces a future in which only the rich and their servants can afford to live here.
The Growth Machine, led by developers, the construction industry, and Vermont’s state government, is depending on claims in Ezra Klein’s book Abundance to predict our future. But Klein’s predictions are a science fiction fantasy. For instance, Klein thinks nuclear energy will save us. But nuclear fuel is very expensive and is getting more so.
In addition, by no means does nuclear energy escape the dependency of solar cells and wind turbines on oil and coal for their manufacture. Deploying nuclear reactors, even the small modular variety, requires mining (diesel-powered), refining (coal-powered), long-distance transport (diesel-powered), not to mention cement and plastic.
And like solar panels and wind turbines, nuclear reactors must be decommissioned and rebuilt every 30-50 years. But nuclear has much more stringent requirements and expenses for decommissioning in large part because the used materials are radioactive.
Nuclear reactors aren’t being built in the U.S. because they are so expensive relative to fossil-fuel-based energy production, so praising nuclear energy is an admission that the production of fossil fuels-based energy will get much more expensive (i.e., peak). In addition, like solar and wind, nuclear only provides electricity, which is incapable of producing the high temperatures and pressures required of modern refining and manufacturing.
Get real. Our energy comes almost entirely from inexpensive and irreplaceable fossil fuels, which will become more expensive to acquire. Peak oil is real. Peak coal is real. Peak natural gas is real. And our entire economy is dependent on these fuels.
I was a federal energy expert for decades, and I (and many other experts) know that the human enterprise is on the brink of losing its cheap sources of energy. Our so-called “renewable” photovoltaic-based energy is not environmentally innocuous; and it’s certainly NOT a viable option for the overcast winters in Vermont. Going forward, only the lowest-cost states, i.e., those states with lower energy costs, will be able to support many businesses or well-paid workers. Vermont is not one of them.
As the cost of energy, wherever it comes from, to power civilization’s equipment continues to rise, there will be less equipment that can affordably be operated. The parts of our system that cannot find consumers who can afford them will shut down, and this contraction will expand as energy costs increase.
The realistic prognosis is that Vermont’s population is going to decrease.
Ultimately, if the powers that be successfully gaslight us about the invented “need” for 40,000 new housing units, taxpayers will invest in new public infrastructure that will be underutilized and will not generate a return on our investment. This means that money will be taken out of taxpayers’ pockets, given to developers to strip-mine Vermont, and regular Vermonters won’t get anything back.
This theft includes permanently converting productive farmland into buildings and concrete so that Vermonters are less able to feed themselves. This theft includes further limiting our access to potable water, especially during droughts, and increasing the level of pollution in the waters that are left. This includes taking away woodlands that could otherwise provide a low-cost source of heat energy – firewood.
Regular Vermonters will be losers.
Planning in Vermont must deal honestly with a likely future wherein less available critical resources FORCE (1) a lower population or (2) a lower average standard of living or (3) as is most likely, both. As currently written, the plans developed by our ruling class will make the inevitable decrease in our average standard of living even worse.