A sweeping climate change bill meant to force Vermont to hit its ambitious emission-reduction targets or else face lawsuits from citizens won preliminary approval in the House by a wide margin Thursday.
Legislators favored the Global Warming Solutions Act by a vote of 105 to 37 — a strong showing for a bill that Republican Gov. Phil Scott has warned would put the state in unnecessary legal jeopardy.
Supporters praised H.688 as leverage to ensure that the state meets emission-reduction targets that it has missed for years.
“(The bill) creates a strong and effective path to cut pollution and will increase climate resilience for all of our communities,” said Majority Leader Jill Krowinski (D-Burlington).
Some Republicans blasted the measure, saying it would hurt their constituents.
“I voted no because I will have no part of cheating my Northeast Kingdom constituents out of their hard-earned paychecks,” said Rep. Brian Smith (R- Derby).
Minority Leader Pattie McCoy (R-Poultney) said some Republicans who voted yes have serious reservations about the bill but are hoping the Senate will “massage” it into something they can support.
Democratic leaders have called the bill one of their top priorities this session, and it has enjoyed strong support from environmental organizations.
The bill would require the state to hit its climate-related emission-reduction targets or face lawsuits from citizens, much like the federal Clean Water Act allows Americans to sue those who pollute waterways.
The state would have to reduce its emissions to 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025; 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The state has already committed to those goals, but they don’t have the force of law. In 2017, when President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, Scott and 23 other governors vowed to keep their states on track to reach the agreement’s goals.
The latest estimates show Vermont’s emissions falling, but not fast enough to hit the 2025 target. Instead, the state is on a path for a 22 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2026.
That gives House Energy and Technology Committee chair Timothy Briglin (D-Thetford) some confidence that the state’s goals, while ambitious, are achievable.
“I’m not going to say we’re going to meet them, but I think we have a pretty good shot,” Briglin said.
The bill would create a 22-member Climate Council that would be responsible for ensuring target goals are met. Some legislators were hesitant to turn that responsibility over to a new body.
Some were also worried about what emission-reduction strategies or regulations could be spawned.
Rep. Jim Harrison (R-Chittenden) asked whether the Agency of Natural Resources could ban internal combustion engines in an effort to meet the goals.
Briglin said “the barriers would be significant” to such a regulation being passed, including possible violation of federal commerce rules. But he didn’t rule it out, either.
Under the bill, plaintiffs who sued Vermont over missed targets could not win damages, but the state could be forced to pay their legal costs.
Scott says he’s concerned the state could get sucked into costly legal battles, spending money that would be better put toward solutions such as weatherizing more homes and incentives for electric car purchases.
His budget address called for setting aside 25 percent of future budget surpluses to address climate change. But climate activists have said Scott’s plan isn’t bold enough for the scale of the crisis.
The bill would cost an estimated $972,000 over two years, mostly to fund new staff in the Agency of Natural Resources to track emissions.
Before the vote, members of religious groups urged legislators to pass the bill and other legislation addressing climate change.
“The crisis is real. The time for action is now. Please join us,” Rev. Thomas Ely, retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont, said during a Statehouse press conference.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Ready! Shoot! Aim. What a waste of tax dollars (from taxpayers already maxed out) to fund this initiative. Yes, sue the State if targets are missed.
VT should be proud of the progress being made in reducing carbon emmissions. This takes time and there are more than enough initiatives in place.
Send messages to your representatives that enough is enough!
Lately I have been reading “Strangers in their own Land” by Arlie Russell Hochschild. In it, this University of California sociologist attempts to understand the people of Lake Charles Louisiana and the paradox of their support of conservative policies that, in enabling chemical companies, are destroying the life they love.
It strikes me that here in Vermont we may be doing something similar, albeit from an opposite political perspective. That is seeking to enact impractical policies base on emotional responses to change. As in Louisiana this could well end up altering the land and culture we care about.
Surely we can do better than passing laws that allow us to sue ourselves for what we either are unwilling to do or can not reasonably accomplish.
Frankly these emotional legislative responses entirely miss the point. The climate is changing, and if money is to be spent it should be on adapting to it and growing strong into the future. Not spending money on symbolic gestures and capital expenditures on things with no measurable or proven impact.
Nothing says “patriotism and freedom” more than destroying and consuming your own habitat with no thought for the future.
The Right Wingers who deny the science of climate change and stand in the way of efforts to mitigate its effects on humanity hopefully will be the first ones to suffer from it. They are a burden we should no longer have to bear, more depraved and debauched than Caligula or Nero, they are a liability to future generations.
The issue for many of us is not that climate change is happening, but what is the most effective way to address it.
Unfortunately feel good legislation that sets up unrealistic future requirements reminds me of our pension crisis.
Past legislatures deliberately underfunded pensions in order to make things look good expecting future legislatures to deal with the problem. Well, we all know how well that worked out.
Surly we can do better than passing a law that allow us to sue ourselves for actions that we are now unwilling to take or our unable to achieve.
Well, Mr 4mervter, your statement would be great if indeed Vermont were on a forward track, but in reality our carbon emissions have INCREASED in recent times, not lessened. Not the example we seek. And Mr Rossi, aside from following the example set by Noah and his Ark, I am not sure what you would do to mitigate the eventual response Mother Earth is going to deliver to us. I simply dont want Vermont to be the straw on the camels back…not the last one, ANY one. Maybe with our action, your great grandchildren will be able to GO to a beach, not just read about one….
I voted YES….
Well Mr. Hooper, my main point is that this “initiative” will do little to practically reduce impacts of climate change.
To wit: “The bill would create a 22-member Climate Council that would be responsible for ensuring target goals are met. Some legislators were hesitant to turn that responsibility over to a new body.”
A 22 member “Climate Council” in and of itself couldn’t decide on what to order on pizzas for lunch. Plus, me thinks it would be loaded with climate activists who only have a one-sided view. As in not considering all consequences of their decisions.
I do believe that climate change is part man made. I do consider too that other States and Countries are far from doing their share. Ever see the gazillion trucking depots on I-78 and/or I-81 or I-80?
VT’s economy is fragile too. So I believe any and all actions need strict financial review/tax impacts.
My grandchildren and their’s will continue to enjoy the beaches.
4Mwevter, thanks for the follow up. your points are well taken, but there always IS a bottom line. In this case, I simply don”t want Vermont to be adding to the problem. I agree there are others who are not doing their part. I agree the issue is seemingly insurmountable. I have no choice but to believe WE are the problem and either WE are going to be part of the solution or Mother Earth is going to take care of the problem. My bet at this point is with the ant and cockroaches being the survivors, as the earth is also a living system and who knows what that system is capable of orchestrating!! We may not be the center of the universe, after all…..we could just be the short term virus this planet…..and it is reacting the same way WE do… I wish your grandchildren well.