Commentary: Climate Resolution Is A Farce Upon A Farce

By Rob RoperRob Roper

The last thing the Vermont House of Representatives did before leaving town was pass H.R. 15, a resolution “strongly opposing the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement… and recognizing Governor Phil Scott’s enrolling Vermont in the U.S. Climate Alliance.” It passed 105-31. Hey, look at us! We love the environment unlike those knuckle draggers in D.C.! This is, of course, a total crock.

The U.S. Climate Alliance, to which Governor Scott pledged allegiance, is a group of states “committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement,” and accepting “… the full responsibility of climate action on states and cities throughout our nation.”

To be clear, this is a non-binding pledge to adhere to a non-binding agreement that, from the United States’ perspective, no longer exists. A farce upon a farce. But we Vermonters really mean it, right? Because we care.

Well, one of the responsibilities our legislators assumed, if they are serious, is a commitment of $3 billion dollars to the international “Green Climate Fund.” H.R. 15 references this specifically in its fifth “whereas” clause. Vermont’s share of this would be an estimated $20 million (about $32 per person or $128 for a family of four). So, how do the supporters of this resolution and the Governor intend to pay for this thing they have resolved to do?

Answer: They don’t.

Nobody’s going to make any payment to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, the one action our legislators took before passing the resolution was to remove the word “funding” from the resolved section. So, they are resolved to do everything the Paris Agreement set out to do… except those things we would have to pay for. Which is, pretty much, all of them. Breathe easy, taxpayers, you’re off the hook.

Beyond the financial commitment, our representatives resolved to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 (less than a decade away).

This is a similar challenge to Vermont’s Act 168 of 2006, which bound us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (principally carbon dioxide) to 25% below 1990 levels by January 1, 2012. Consider that Vermont — for all the weatherization projects, efficiency mandates, renewable energy subsidies, and developing our ridgelines with industrial windmills, etc. — did not come close to meeting this self-imposed 2012 milestone.

According to the state’s report, Vermont’s 1990 GHG emissions amounted to 8.11 million metric tons, was 9.03 mmt in 2006, and 8.27 mmt in 2012 — nowhere near the 6.1 million metric ton target. We can conclude from this that meeting our obligations under the Paris Agreement and H.R. 15 will require significant measures and sacrifices far beyond what we have been doing and are doing as a state today.

What are those measures and sacrifices? A carbon tax? The governor (to his credit and good sense) has pledged to veto that. More industrial ridgeline wind development? Vermonters oppose it vehemently wherever it pops up. More tax or ratepayer subsidies for solar projects? That would require “funding.” So, what exactly is it that you resolved to do differently?

Be honest: nothing.

After all, the legislature just proudly passed a budget with no new taxes or fees. And they should be proud. It was a tremendous accomplishment on all sides and a good first step toward lowering the cost of living and doing business in Vermont. This was the Governor’s theme, pledge, and goal for the legislative session. Mission accomplished! So, why in your next breath after passing that budget would you resolve to comply with an agreement that would require massive taxes, fees, and costly regulations?

Sadly, this vote will undoubtedly appear in 2018 campaign literature. Those who voted for this farce upon a farce will use it as a way to pat themselves on the back before their constituents. Those who were honest enough to vote against what is so obviously a steaming pile of insincere political theater will be attacked – unfairly – for “insufficient caring” about the planet. Don’t fall for it.

Before the next election there will be another legislative session, and time for those who voted for H.R.15 to put our money where their mouths are. Show us your real plan for meeting our obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. Tell us what taxes you will raise and what regulations you will enforce, and put that to a vote. I’m betting that bill, should it ever be allowed to see the light of day, won’t find 105 supporters (in the state, let alone the legislature) or the governor’s endorsement, and it shouldn’t. In an honest world, neither should have H.R. 15.

- Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. He lives in Stowe.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Willem Post June 30, 2017 at 12:24 pm

A total of 193 countries signed on to COP-21, but that means nothing, unless they agree to do something, to undertake pain. The majority of these countries are underdeveloped and developing countries. They signed on to COP-21 in expectation of payments from the Green Climate Fund. Only a few countries have made financial contributions to the Green Climate Fund. See below URLs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreem

The Fund is administered by the UN. As of 17 May 2017, a total of $10.3 billion had been pledged to the Fund.

– EU member states pledged $4.7 billion (UK $1.2 b; France $1.0 b; Germany $1.0 b; Others $1.5 b)
– US $3.0 billion; already paid $1 billion.
– Rest of World $2.6 billion (Japan $1.5 b; China $0; India $0; Others $1.1 b). See table in URL.

The Fund’s initial goal is to distribute to recipient countries $100 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. The US, about 20% of gross world product, likely would be hit up for $20 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. That Fund likely would become the mother of all boondoggles.

No. Thank you, said Trump. He was not about to let the UN do boondoggle projects with US taxpayer money, especially when considering the insufficient outcomes of almost all prior COP events.
http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized

If the world is making so little progress towards RE, then the US, “doing its RE part” by staying with COP-21, would be engaging in an expensive exercise in futility.

The RE movement is primarily driven by Europe, Japan and others, because they have insufficient domestic energy resources. Europe, Japan and others want the US to stay with COP-21, as a big source of cash for future financing of the Green Climate Fund, and because they would become less competitive versus the US, if they increased investments in RE and the US did not.

Reply

Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Don’t Make the Internet Safe for Monopolies

by Tom Evslin Last month I went to Washington to argue against regulating Internet access as if it were phone service. Twenty years ago I was there for the...

NASA asteroid busting

by John McClaughry A month or so ago I discussed four problems that mankind badly needs to solve. One was U.S. insolvency, one was electromagnetic pulse protection, one...

Vermont Ranks “Below Average” for Fiscal Condition

by Rob Roper The Mercatus Center released its annual study, “Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition.” Vermont landed in the “Below Average” category with an overall raking of...

The Ill-Conceived Housing bond

by John McClaughry Reporter Lou Varricchio of True North Reports has just finished a four part series on affordable housing, in particular, the $35 million housing bond included...

Missouri To CUT Minimum Wage

by Rob Roper Looks like the Show Me State was shown! Missouri is, according to news reports, lowering its state minimum wage from $10/hr. to $7.70. This follows...

Video