Climate change 'prosperity': who benefits?

(Republished from March 2020.)

Repeatedly in Vermont, those who advocate for sweeping government power to reverse global warming assert it will lead to a “more prosperous” Vermont future. In fact, what we see is calls for a “preposterous Vermont.” These measures will hurt rather than help the environment. Vermont will be less prosperous, while it pollutes more. To couch that in soaring language of salvation from doom is, indeed, preposterous — these plans are the doom.

Consider the $300,000,000 the Agency of Natural Resources estimates it will cost to resurface Rutland businesses under the “3-acre Rule,” a preposterous proposal to “help Rutland prosper” by imposing these costs on longstanding businesses. This plan mandates businesses retroactively install storm water drains to protect Lake Champlain. Disrupting businesses and imposing a huge economic burden on owners will hurt sales and threaten productive jobs. But the state of Vermont extols the huge economic boon this will be for engineers and construction companies.

This is short-term, non-productive waste. No goods sold; just costs of goods sold. There is no economic growth, only a government-mandated payday for one group of businesses by way of economic hardship on others. But more — and this is key — what is the environmental cost of excavating all that square acreage? How much diesel will be burned, asphalt heated and relaid, plastic pipes manufactured and installed, CO2 generated, in the transition to improved surface-water management? Can we afford those costs? Have state agencies calculated those costs? Nope. And that’s preposterous.

Consider EV vehicles. Aside from the question of their reliability, or long-term efficiency, are they not manufactured using fossil fuels? Is that manufacture carbon-neutral, as will be imposed on new business development under Act 250 in Vermont? These EV vehicles will not be manufactured in Vermont. So, these vehicles (like the diesel and equipment consumed resurfacing Rutland) will be produced outside of Vermont, a boon for those businesses: a massive loss of wealth and indirect consumption of fossil fuels in Vermont. Preposterous.

Solar panels. Ditto: manufactured using fossil fuels; of dubious long-term efficiency; costs imposed on ratepayers in Vermont to support foreign industry; affordable for the wealthy and not the poor. Regressive, polluting and zero economic benefits. Preposterous.

Mandating reinsulation of buildings (as some have advocated) — how much petroleum would be involved in manufacturing, trucking and installing these products in Vermont homes and businesses? Assuming this helped Vermont to achieve its fantastical and arbitrary “goals” of reducing 25% of our greenhouse gases by such-and-such imagined date — what are the externalized environmental costs of that production outside of Vermont? Have the “climate warriors” calculated those costs? Nope. The effect is a drag on the Vermont economy and an increase in net pollution. Preposterous.

What if Vermont imposed pollution-control requirements on lawnmowers? That would reduce emissions, and impose the costs directly on those who mow lawns. Yes, this is a federal issue, but why don’t the climate warriors tackle things that would actually help the ecosystem? Why are they interested in the preposterous but not the sensible?

How about banning fireworks displays? Fireworks hurt the environment, depend 99% on Chinese manufacture, and are shipped long distances. They offer no economic benefits to Vermont or its ecosystem. Why not ban them? Because progressive legislators want to give judges and special-interest, out-of-state, nonprofits the unilateral power to do that later, along with banning snowmobiles, ATVs and pick-up trucks. They seek to do through the back door that which they could never accomplish through the front.

What of mandating composting while advertising (with our tax dollars) that such laws won’t be enforced? Car idling laws requiring police to time your idle and then ticket you $10 (instead of fight opioid dealers)? How will the government ensure citizens don’t mow their lawn three times a week, burn a plastic bag in a fire, or pour used motor oil in the woods? Are more laws needed so Big Brother can hire car-driving enforcers to breathe down every neck? Preposterous.

Our forebears rightly opposed “taxation without representation.” Sweeping one-sided powers granted to government, and “renewable energy” initiatives which use more energy than they renew, favor certain industries and are net pollution creators which help neither the economy nor environment. These are totalitarian regulations masked in lies of prosperity and environmental benefit where neither exists.

“Regulation without representation” is “taxation without representation.” It’s time to revolt against this revolting subjugation of Vermonters. The answer to our problems is personal responsibility, not government rescue by corporations and special interests.

(Originally published March 7, 2020, in the Rutland Herald.)