Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jeffrey Reel, a writer/lecturer living in Lyndon Center, and general manager of Natural Provisions, in St. Johnsbury. He was previously sustainability manager at the Omega Center for Holistic Studies in Rhinebeck, New York.
[T]his is in response to John McClaughry’s commentary (“What the Essex Carbon Tax Would Do For Vermont”).
McClaughry writes that “climate activists firmly believe that carbon dioxide released by humans burning fossil fuels – gasoline, diesel, heating oil, natural gas, and propane – will cause catastrophic climate change a century down the road.”
No, not a century down the road. Now, and going forward at an accelerated pace. Read up on Cape Town, South Africa – home to about 4 million people – on track to run out of water and cut off its taps in May. McClaughry lives in relative comfort, and his tap runs generously, but the evidence is all around us, and irrefutable. And concern about the effects of climate change is not limited to “climate activists.” Virtually everyone today acknowledges the reality on the ground. This is an attempt at making the concerns of “climate activists” seem premature, if not irrelevant. I tend to read these columns with a dispassionate eye until a writer intentionally misrepresents another’s point of view for the sole purpose of advancing his own. A strong argument doesn’t require it.
McClaughry writes that “… driving out fossil fuels will require the electric utilities to find lots more power to meet the increased demand. The Plan expects this additional electricity to come from sources – wind towers, solar farms, and net metering – that are much more expensive than present grid power.”
Although there can be an honest debate over whether the cost of renewable energy is competitive without subsidies, the cost has been dropping for decades with increased technology efficiencies, and that trend will continue. Let’s also not forget that over the past century, the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous tax breaks. What’s good for the goose …
McClaughry continues: “More cheap, renewable Hydro-Quebec power would ease this problem, but the ESSEX Plan coalition has demanded that ‘energy independent Vermont’ reduce its reliance on HQ to force the utilities to buy more power from wind, solar, and (limited) biomass.”
Perhaps we can over time reduce dependency on Hydro-Quebec, as technology allows, but HQ will indeed ease the transition in the near future. No one is advocating cutting this valuable source of power off tomorrow. No one is advocating that we sever that source as long as there remains an inadequate supply of local renewables.
Mr. McClaughry expresses concern that “The increased reliance on wind and solar … introduces serious problems of maintaining the power grid in the face of intermittent and unpredictable wind and solar supply.”
No one is suggesting that we become reliant on “intermittent and unpredictable” sources of power. We are transitioning to a variety of renewables. The change we are experiencing is unprecedented. There will be challenges with rapidly advancing technologies. There always are. That’s never been a reason to turn back the clock on progress. Critics of renewable energy like to fall back on the mantra: “The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.” But with advances in technology, including battery, we can capitalize on the fact that the sun is always shining somewhere, and the wind is always blowing somewhere. It no longer has to be in our own backyard. This vision requires foresight. Opponents of embracing new clean technologies (and McClaughry insists, perhaps rightly so, that he is not among them) are of the Old School that continues to see a world based upon a vertical power structure, with antiquated energy production being controlled and distributed solely at the top by centralized power companies. The beauty of renewable energy sources is that we are beginning to include a horizontal, across-the-board, power structure, with increased energy independence at both the local and personal levels: “Power to the people” in a very literal sense. We will enjoy a healthy mix of centralized and decentralized energy generation.
McClaughry concludes by writing: “If imposing an ever-increasing carbon tax on Vermonters would save the planet from climate catastrophe, perhaps Vermont’s sacrifices would be bearable. But no Vermont carbon tax, however painful, will ever produce any detectable effect on climate change …”
There’s no indication of an “ever-increasing” carbon tax. Another scare tactic without foundation. And McClaughry underestimates Vermont and its citizens when it comes to their ability to influence policy at the national level. There is precedent for it.
The Northeast Organic Farming Association was founded in Putney in 1971, making it one of the oldest organic farming associations in the United States. Vermont, along with Oregon and California, pioneered organic food standards, which inspired other states to follow, leading to national organic food standards. Too small to make a difference?
Back in 2000, the nation’s most sweeping gay rights legislation took effect in Vermont, extending more than 300 benefits normally associated with marriage to gay and lesbian couples. This paved the way for the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage codified in federal law, which the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed. Too small to make a difference?
Just last year, Vermont became the first state in the nation to pass a law that provides first responders with workers’ compensation coverage for mental illnesses. Given the level of stress and trauma firefighters and police can routinely experience, this common-sense legislation will surely inspire other states to follow. Too small to make a difference?
Vermont led, it did not follow. Of course it began at the state level. Most groundbreaking legislation does. The same will be said for sustainable initiatives. The spirit of innovation is alive and well in Vermont.
