The Vermont Republican Party and the two declared Republican candidates for governor have in the last week jumped all over a new carbon tax proposed by several Democratic and Progressive legislators.
There’s a wrinkle, though, which has gotten little attention. The tax isn’t happening. Not next year and perhaps not ever, unless other states do the same.
“Even those who are advocating for a carbon tax know this is a multi-year effort,” said Rep. Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier), chair of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, whose panel would have to approve the bill. “Whatever happens in the future, Vermont can’t go it alone.”
A recent article about the proposed tax on the news website VTDigger.org didn’t mention the bill’s prospects, but did emphasize that such a tax could raise gas prices by 88 cents a gallon.
Klein said legislative leaders have been clear with advocates of the tax that it would be premature for Vermont to pass the proposed legislation. If they do pass such a tax, the goal will be to lower other taxes by an equal amount, he said, with the intention of reducing people’s use of fossil fuels. No other states have such a tax, and Klein maintains Vermont could only manage it if neighboring states also adopted the tax.
The Digger article set off a firestorm of comments from Republicans, who are giving the impression the tax is on the fast track to passage. Whether the tax ever reaches a committee room for a hearing next year, Republicans have found an issue that’s resonating among their supporters, whose eyes widen at the prospect of an 88-cent per gallon increase in the price of gas.
Vermont Republican Party chair David Sunderland this week sent out two emails on the issue. The first, sent Wednesday to supporters, said, “Vermont Democrats are now rushing to develop a new, highly regressive (would hurt the poor and middle class the most) tax on gasoline that they plan to extend to other forms of energy like home heating fuels.”
A day later, Sunderland sent a news release calling on Democrats to denounce the tax. He noted that Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington), a candidate for lieutenant governor, is a sponsor of the carbon-tax legislation, but also called on candidates for governor to condemn the proposal.
Bruce Lisman, a Republican candidate for governor, followed up Thursday with a news release. “Vermont republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lisman today announced his strong opposition to the new carbon tax being proposed by Democrats in the Vermont Legislature,” the release said.
“This legislation is very bad for hard working Vermonters and their families. It would create higher taxes and greater economic uncertainty in the state by raising the tax on gasoline by a staggering 88-cents per gallon,” Lisman said.
Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, also a Republican candidate for governor, raised the issue on Facebook last Monday, asking supporters what they thought of the tax. Within four days, he got 222 responses, almost all of them slamming the tax.
Democrats, including Klein, have done little to defuse the carbon-tax bomb. A year ago, Klein announced he did plan to pass the carbon-tax legislation out of his committee and send it to the House floor for a vote in 2015. Klein noted this week that House Speaker Shap Smith, now a Democratic candidate for governor, quickly nixed that plan. “A year later, I think the subject is better known in Vermont with more support. Still, it has a long way to go before it’s ready for prime time,” he said.
Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, meanwhile, have been mum on the topic, just letting the misunderstanding grow around them.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Thanks for your essay. Please note my letter to the editor published on line today and in the papers in a couple of days– http://www.addison-eagle.com/news/2015/oct/30/letter-editor-david-sunderland/?blogs
Also, please note that Citizens’ Climate Lobby will be holding a regional conference with special sessions open at no cost to the public — Nashua, NH –featuring Dr. James Hansen, and REMI economist Scott Nystrom to discuss the economic impacts of a well-designed carbon fee system.
Please join us for the Nov 14 2 pm to 5 pm public teaching sessions http://www.tinyurl.com/CCLTeach-In.
or for the 2 day conference Nov 14-15 http://www.tinyurl.com/CCLNortheastConference
judy weiss, co-leader of the Boston chapter of citizens’ climate lobby
Oh paleez, let’s hope this legislation idea takes many many years or better yet, just goes away. Raising gas prices will not hurt folks with 6 figure incomes. It will devastate low and middle class folks just trying to go to work and back. It will crush small biz, whether it’s the guys who mow and plow, or the local Ma & Pa biz with a delivery vehicle or two, or the local contractor working out of a van. Just when gas prices level off, the last thing the economy needs is a ‘progressive’ tax on gasoline. Not everybody can bike, take the bus, or buy a Prius.
If you leave our teeny tiny State and head south, say around Boston, NYC or Jersey, you get a sense that if everybody in VT stopped driving today, given the magnitude of the big world, it wouldn’t make a difference.
So let’s do what we can — can we paleez focus on economic stuff, like better paying jobs and less taxes to pay! For a change, the Repubs are behind something good and I actually agree with them.
BTW, how can folks discuss the economic impacts of a ‘well-designed carbon fee system’ if a ‘well-designed carbon fee system’ has never been instituted?! Just askin’…
I recorded Scott Nostrum, M.A., Senior Economic Associate as he presented the REMI study, “The Economic, Fiscal, Emissions, and Demographic Implications from a Carbon Price Policy in Vermont” to the Vermont Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
It makes sense, to me, to actually understand the proposal before shooting it down simply because it has the word “tax” in it.
See for yourself – http://bobthegreenguy.com/vermont-natural-…
There are many misconceptions contained in this article that should be corrected, but I will stick to only two.
First, the 88 cent tax would be phased in over at least 10 years. By then, there would be time for Vermonters to lower their carbon use through weatherizing their homes, using alternative energy, driving more fuel efficient cars, and using public transportation. Revenue from the carbon pollution tax is designed to help them do just that.
Secondly, lower income Vermonters will be given special consideration so that they are not paying a disproportionate share of their income on fossil fuels. Many low-income advocacy groups are supporting the idea of a carbon pollution tax.
Finally, lets hear some ideas from the critics of this bill about how to meet the challenge of climate change. Perhaps they have a better plan. If so, I would love to see it!
For a clear, in-depth explanation of the carbon pollution tax, go to this website: http://www.energyindependentvt.org/
I encourage readers to really LOOK at this legislation closely before jumping to any conclusions. And for everyone’s sake (this means you too media!), please do not make this a platform for political games. The debate over putting a price on carbon pollution aims to address both the economic well-being of all Vermonters, and the very real matter of global warming; it is, without a doubt, a bipartisan matter. And an extremely important one at that!
The details of this legislation speak directly to the question of economics; 90% of the funds raised would go directly back to residents and businesses as rebates, making special provisions for low income households, and reducing the state’s sales tax by 1%. This is the VERY OPPOSITE of a regressive tax. The other 10% would go into a Clean Energy Fund, which would strengthen the state’s efforts toward energy efficiency, beginning with enhancing the state’s home weatherization program – which I’m told has up to a 4 year waiting list! Almost everyone I’ve talked to has either applied to, benefitted from, or knows someone who has benefitted from this program. This is not about lining a politician’s pocket with extra spending cash, it’s about smart economic and environmental policy. And for those who doubt its feasibility, do some research. (Energyindependentvermont.org is a great place to start)
I would be happy to pay $.09/gallon more at the pump to strengthen Vermont’s economy & clean energy goals! If one uses 10 gallons of gas/week, this equates to $.90/week, or roughly $50 year. In the current legislation (H412), the estimated rebate issued directly back to each resident amounts to more than that (approx. $60)!
So please, get clearer on the facts. What we need is intelligent policy making, not political posturing.