Reading Bruce Roy’s April 28 commentary entitled Climate Change Perspective instantly reminded me of my April 1, 2022, email that I sent to the members of the Vermont Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy regarding the Vermont Clean Heat Standard H.715.  At the time I also sent it to area newspapers as a Letter to the Editor and to the VDC, which they published.  My email to the VT Senate Committee members did no good…big surprise!  However, I did get some positive feedback from some readers.

That said, I was amazed 3 years ago that the fact that Vermont produces the least CO2 emissions compared to the rest of the US, 0.1%, was not striking a note with not only the VT legislators, but also with the VT news media and with my fellow Vermonters.  Three years later, almost to the date, I find once again disturbing that this fact still seems lost on everyone, except Bruce Roy and me.  Even more disturbing is the fact that Vermont’s fossil fuel burning CO2 emissions are only 34 % of Vermont’s total annual CO2 emissions., which is what the Vermont Clean Heat Standard H.715 is all about. This figure is per the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). That means that the Vermont Clean Heat Standard H.715, with all of its known and unknown ramifications, would if 100% effective reduce Vermont’s annual CO2 emissions by only 0.034%…34/1000 of 1%, thirty-four one thousandth of a percent!  You may fact check Vermont’s annual CO2 % of emissions here.

One would think that with the Vermont Clean Heat Standard operating at 100% reducing the total US annual CO2 emissions by only 0.034 % (Vermont’s share) vs. all the economic harm it will do to Vermonters that, it would be Dead on Arrival.  Why haven’t Vermont legislators picked up on this fact and ran with it during the last 3 years?  Why haven’t Vermont voters picked up on it and voted overwhelmingly to replace legislatorss supporting the Clean Heat Standard with new legislators promising to repeal the law?

It seems that this simple fact that 0.034% CO2 emissions reduction is not remotely offset by the negative ramifications that will be caused by this law is self-evident.  I have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but please tell me where I am going wrong with this statement.  Please tell me why there needs to be any more discussion on the issue…just appeal the CHS law and move on. 

Please shout out to the world that us Vermonters should not be held hostage to 0.034% of the total annual US CO2 emissions.  And while you are at it, shout out even louder to your Vermont legislators.  Politicians do listen to voters, especially if they are shouting out to them. – Dave Stahler, Sr., Lyndon Center

Democracy and Equality? Recently, I drove through my hometown of Wallingford, Vermont. At our one and only stop light, a group had gathered at the four corners in protest of Trump.

I assume anyone willing to give up a Saturday to hold up a sign in protest at something feels strongly about what they are there for! I was in a rush, but was able to read a few signs. One in particular stood out: “Democracy and equality.” The sign holder supported both democracy and equality, implying that Trump was antagonistic to both. I cannot help but wonder if the person holding the sign recognized the contradiction between equality and democracy.

Political equality cannot exist in a democracy. This sign holder was clearly upset, as he felt he was not receiving the equality that Trump supporters who desired his policy were getting, or perhaps that there were disenfranchised groups Trump was treating poorly. Yet, had this protester had his way, Trump supporters from Vermont would be crying foul over the very same issues. If Vermont gets its way, Texas does not, and vice versa.

Democracy is a system based on the survival of the fittest; only the strongest survive and get their way. It is not friendly; it is ugly, as minority and majority groups strive to control each other. It is the opposite of equality; it is a hierarchy of powerful political groups in D.C. imposing their unequal ways on us all. Every election, whoever wins or loses millions will suffer, and no one will have equality or self-government.

[Under Democracy], a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. -Lysander Spooner – Jeb Smith, Rupert

Defense of timeless principles – In today’s climate of heightened social pressure and public shaming, we are witnessing a profound test of character that reveals who truly has the conviction to stand for their conservative beliefs when faced with consequences. Including from those who ostracize them for not being conservative enough, or in the same way.

Throughout history, those who have stood firmly for timeless principles have often faced ridicule, ostracism, or worse. Yet it is precisely in these moments of trial that the strength of one’s convictions is revealed. As the 4th-century saint John Chrysostom wisely observed, “No one can harm the man who does not harm himself.” This profound truth reminds us that while others may attempt to silence us through cancellation, economic pressure, or social exclusion, they cannot truly harm our character or integrity unless we compromise our own principles.

The courage to speak truth despite consequences has always been rare. Today, when expressing traditional values or conservative viewpoints can result in lost opportunities, damaged reputations, or even threats to one’s livelihood, many choose the path of silence. But those who stand firm despite these challenges demonstrate a moral fortitude that transcends mere political alignment—they exemplify the timeless virtue of integrity.

Chrysostom’s wisdom speaks directly to our current moment. When we remain true to our beliefs in the face of adversity, we maintain something far more valuable than external validation or temporary comfort. We preserve our integrity and demonstrate that our convictions are not merely convenient opinions but deeply held truths worth defending.

The real test of one’s commitment to conservative principles comes not when speaking them is rewarded, but when it carries a cost. Those willing to bear that cost prove that their beliefs are not merely fashionable positions, but convictions rooted in something deeper than social approval.

I encourage all readers to consider: Do you hold your values firmly enough to stand by them when doing so becomes uncomfortable? The answer to that question reveals far more about one’s character than any political label ever could.

It is time to consider the sacrifices we are willing to make for truth. – Timothy Page, Barre