As the Vermont legislature opened its new session Wednesday, several advocacy groups made their presence felt in the Statehouse.
About 50 members of No Carbon Tax Vermont, a new group opposed to carbon pricing as a way of combating climate change, gathered in the Statehouse for a rally featuring multiple speakers. Participants wore bright yellow safety vests, a visual echo of the orange-vested gun-rights supporters who were so prevalent during the 2018 gun legislation debate.
In fact, many leaders of that movement are now active in No Carbon Tax Vermont — such as the rally’s emcee, J.T. Dodge of Newbury, who is also cochair of the pro-gun Vermont Citizens Defense League. Dodge said the group’s get-up wasn’t inspired by protesters in France, who have also donned yellow vests.
Participants first gathered on the Statehouse steps but moved the rally indoors because of the wet, snowy weather. Dodge opened the proceedings by insisting that the group is nonpartisan — “It’s not about parties or politicians. It’s about us!” he said. But most of the speakers represented conservative interests and often criticized the left-leaning legislative majority. Dodge said that an unnamed Democratic lawmaker had been invited to speak but had declined.
“The carbon tax is a corrupt stew of bad politics and bad policy,” said Rob Roper, president of the conservative Ethan Allen Institute. “Despite that, it seems to come back every year.”
House and Senate leadership have expressed no interest in bringing any carbon-pricing legislation to a vote. But Dodge warned against complacency. “When I talk about a carbon tax, I mean all the proposals and tricks they’ll come up with,” he told the group.
The other side of the debate could be found at an early afternoon event held by the Vermont Youth Lobby, a group of teens focused primarily on climate change. Orielle Koliba, a senior at Harwood Union High School, said that “carbon pricing” is the group’s top priority, but it seeks wide-ranging action including development of renewable energy, weatherization programs for homeowners and electrification of vehicles.
“My family moved to Vermont for its natural beauty and progressive values,” said Hope Petraro, a junior at Montpelier High School. She urged lawmakers to protect the environment with progressive legislation.
Max Sabo, a senior at U-32 High School, pointed to the teen gun control activists of Parkland, Fla., as an inspiration for the Youth Lobby and an example that young people can make their voices heard.
Also on Wednesday, a number of progressive advocacy groups including Rights & Democracy, Migrant Justice, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and 350.org, came together for a People Power Lobby that included sessions on top legislative priorities and how people can make their voices heard. About 100 of them listened to talks by several freshman lawmakers who outlined their priorities and urged activists to stay engaged.
“We are only as good as the voices in this room and in our communities,” said Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (D-Brattleboro).
Her Windham County colleague, Rep. Nader Hashim (D-Dummerston), is a state trooper; his remarks focused on criminal justice reform and anti-poverty efforts. “The bail bond system needs to change,” he said. “We need to reduce the prison population.” He also said that he is sponsoring legislation to prohibit the construction of private prisons in Vermont — an idea that was mooted by Gov. Phil Scott last year as a way to expand and modernize the corrections system.
Newly installed Sen. Andrew Perchlik (D/P-Washington) spoke of being moved by hearing remarks in Spanish during the Senate’s opening session. “If our state is to prosper, we have to be more welcoming,” he said. As Perchlik spoke, two people in the front row of the audience offered whispered translation to two Spanish-speaking attendees.
All the groups that held gatherings Wednesday vowed to be back at the Statehouse promoting their agendas. “We’re here, asking Vermont to step up,” Dodge told his crowd. It was probably the only thing on which he and his progressive counterparts would agree.
Correction, January 10, 2019: A previous version of this story mischaracterized the political leanings of some members of No Carbon Tax Vermont.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I was among the speakers at the No Carbon Tax Rally, and stated at the outset that I am an independent who believes in the reality of climate change. My 15-minute talk dealt entirely with the lack of evidence that carbon taxes have ever decreased emissions in the countries where they have been enacted, and that since 2003, countries in Europe that do not tax carbon have seen their emissions decrease nearly twice as fast as those that do. I stated that carbon taxes are the most expensive and least effective climate initiative, and appear to actually be destructive of efforts to decrease emissions. At no point was I ever representing any “conservative interests” and I made that quite clear. I am somewhat confused by these claims as the author of this article was seated right next to me.
I also am not a Republican. I ran in the last election as an Independent. During the campaign I brought up issues including the clean up of Lake Champlain and a stop to the hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw sewage we allow municipalities to dump in the lake without being held accountable. I also strongly support a womans right to choose, have spoken out against workplace discrimination and have called for equal pay for equal work. I also advocated for the legalization of Marijuana. Not to mention the countless hours I have advocated for affordable child care…
To paint everyone there as having “conservative interests” is just bad Journalism. I do not support a carbon tax because the working families of Vermont are already over taxed. The cost of living here in tremendous, and a carbon tax only places a bigger financial burden on our elderly and disabled who are already on. a fixed income.
The guy in the pictures speech was almost entirely about slave Child labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo while mining rare earth for our luxury electronics… hardly a conservative position!
Shame on you for inaccurate Journalism!
Apparently my previous comment was deleted.
I was a speaker at this event. I have been an advocate for affordable child care, an end to workplace discrimination, equal pay for equal work, stopping the dumpage of sewage in lake champlain, treatment for vermont’s addicted population, and many more issues that are hardly conservative. I am staunchly an independent. The guy in the photo gave an address covering child labor in the Congo, and an investment into environmental friendly technologies instead of a carbon tax. I am against a carbon tax because it places a huge financial burden on struggling Vermont families. 28 thousand households on fuel assistance. A carbon tax would increase this number with the increased cost of heating fuel.
You need to understand Walters, the big noise from Ann Arbor.
You are from the far right if you: object to the blasting away of ridgelines for 500 foot turbines, have fun hunting and target shooting with anything more powerful than a BB gun, are against the carbon tax, or any other form of progressive nonsense. His mind set is with the progs, he doesn’t understand anything Vermont, if it is outside Chittenden or Washington Counties. He hangs with the longtime political elites, after all that is what he understands.
I think it is very admirable the children showed up to speak about their concerns of climate change in the state of Vermont.
In reality Vermont does not have much to do with climate change at all and penalizing us is absolutely ludicrous.
It would be nice if these children were armed with actual facts as to what we contribute to climate change and does taxation do anything to resolve the issue.
We had an excellent speaker who presented his facts after doing much research on the subject and everything he points out is taxation does absolutely nothing to reduce the problem and in some instances actually increases the problem.
I think if we are going to address the issue that these children that think taxing themselves to death without having actual knowledge of paying taxes need to become more informed.
I also think the media needs to become more middle-of-the-road on the issues so they present the actual facts from both sides.
I just want to be clear here I am an independent I am a lifelong vermonter and I will do whatever it takes to keep Vermont clean but it also needs to be livable for the people that have been here all of their lives fighting to make this state the beautiful state that everyone wants to invade now.
We are now being ruled by people that came to the state from other states because it was so beautiful…
Most of the new legislation imposing these disgusting laws on the people that have lived in this beautiful state and that are moving here because of our freedoms and our Beauty should hang their heads in shame..
Oh, to paraphrase those No Carbon Taxers:
a) we admire the youth, but they are foolish for wanting to live on this planet.
b) even if there’s a problem with global warming (there’s not, trust us) we’re just too small to do anything about it.
c) hey, these people in yellow safety vests, I remember them from our highly successful Take Back Vermont Campaign. good to see you guys again. Let’s get together and talk about the good ol’ days.
My opinion of the Carbon tax is its only use would be to make the ones proposal feel so good about themselves that the economic pain it will cause others is insignificant.
Take the residents of rural areas like the Kingdom: There are not very many good jobs, most are very low paying and they are not close to the jobs, or doctors or shopping and they have to drive 15-30 miles or more. Most cannot afford the more energy efficient vehicles and drive older vehicles that use more gas. The Carbon tax will mean it will cost more and reduce the amount of money they have to literally put food on the table and clothes for their children. The Proponents will sleep so well while these people are made to pay more taxes.
Also as for weatherization programs I feel there should be oversight on what is done and the quality of the work done. I remember growing up in the 60’s and 70’s and there were weatherization programs operating then. It always has made me wonder why some buildings were weatherized every year for a good sized chunk of money. My parents made sure things were done once not every year and when we bought our first house it was 150 years old and we did a lot of renovation on it, weatherization being an important part of it. We did not want to pay for it every year so we made sure we did it as we could afford if and did it right the first time so there was a return on our weatherization investment.
In reality Vermont does not have much to do with climate change
Apparently, Mr. Ley thinks that Vermont sh*t doesnt stink. But hes wrong. The reality is simple: burning fossil fuels is the problem and Vermont burns plenty.
It really doesnt matter though. We have a global problem, so everyone is now in the game. In any case, in the real world, Vermonters like inhabitants of other developed countries burn FAR more fossil fuels in every aspect of their lives than billions of people in the undeveloped worlds who can afford neither the fuels, the electricity they produce, nor the products produced with both.
We need large-scale solutions, and carbon taxes (putting a price on carbon) are among the LEAST painful. Americans in general and Vermonters in particular are accustomed to market solutions and Markets 101 tells us that when prices rise (enough), consumption falls (and vice versa).
Indeed, thats exactly why America has had a cheap energy policy for many decades (or longer): lowering the price of energy lowers the price of everything made with that energy and encourages consumption, which accounts for roughly 2/3 of the US economy. Carbon taxes are one (relatively gentle) way to reverse that. Effective alternatives include mandates and regulations (which most Americans despise) or rationing (even worse). Of course, we could all adopt third world lifestyles.
It is tiresome to hear folks like Mr. Ley refuse to recognize the problem or, when they grudgingly do so, refuse to consider ANY solutions to it. The time for action passed long ago: the game is now in overtime.
Concerned Vermonter writes: Take the residents of rural areas like the Kingdom: There are not very many good jobs, most are very low paying and they are not close to the jobs, or doctors or shopping and they have to drive 15-30 miles or more. The Carbon tax will mean it will cost more and reduce the amount of money they have to literally put food on the table and clothes for their children.
By and large, thats precisely correct, but it ignores a major consideration. Every carbon tax proposal made in Vermont (and there are quite a few now) returns the money to consumers in a different form: either through electric rates (ESSEX) or through other taxes.
Those making this argument like to pretend that on the one hand, their taxes are way too high, but on the other, they dont pay any other taxes, so offsetting those other taxes wont do them any good. Both cant be true.
Considering the carbon tax only as a tax (and not any often included other programs like low-income weatherization, etc.), the fact is that there is no reason why carbon taxes cannot be strictly revenue neutral. Moreover, there is no reason why the mechanism for returning the money cant favor low-income Vermonters. Indeed, it absolutely should.
Put positively then, a properly imposed carbon tax can actually relieve the tax burden of low-income (and rural) Vermonters, while at the same time discouraging consumption of fossil fuels. There is NO contradiction whatsoever in those 2 propositions.
If Vermont did not have other fiscal issues to confront, I would propose that carbon taxes be imposed while offsetting other taxes to such an extent that the total tax burden of Vermonters actually falls. Its theoretically possible, just not practical in todays world.
As snowmobile season opens, I have a few thoughts on Vermont’s carbon footprint.
The powers in Montpelier will fall all over themselves to pave the state with solar installations, and destroy our ridgelines with industrial wind.
Meanwhile we are being overrun with snowmobiles and ATV’s that spew carbon at a rate far higher than cars.
Have any studies been done to determine how much these RECREATIONAL vehicles add to Vermont’s carbon footprint? As “sportsman’s” groups lobby to create more and more trail systems, their carbon emissions are sure to increase, while at the same time the state wants to create a carbon tax that will seriously impact rural workers who simply want to drive to work to support their families.
In addition, elderly and low income Vermonters struggle to heat their homes, and live in fear of a carbon tax on home heating fuel.
If we are serious about climate change, these RECREATIONAL vehicles should either be banned, or their vehicle registrations should accurately reflect their damage in our efforts to become 90% carbon emissions free by 2050.
For the state to do anything less would be serious hypocrisy.
These recreational vehicles are low-hanging fruit in our common interest to reduce Vermont’s contribution to climate change.
I would ask you to take a serious look at these carbon spewing machines in the next legislative session.
Ban recreation. You heard it here first.