This commentary is by Alison Despathy, a resident of Danville.
At the Statehouse this past session, a majority of legislators took a brazen step away from representative government toward technocracy — rule based on an elite of “technical experts.”
Despite many Vermonters’ warranted opposition to S.5 (the Affordable Heat Act), legislators ignored their constituents’ pleas. Concerns were trivialized and excuses were made to justify S.5, a bill plagued by special interests, discrimination, and a lack of transparency.
This technocratic trend has gained traction and should concern all. It is well known that legislators rely on advice, guidance and the creation of legislation by lobbyists and nongovernmental organizations. Analyzing this situation and assessing special interest priorities in relation to the needs and rights of the people is necessary, and epitomizes the complexity of creating sound ethical policy. Legislators hold a duty to serve and protect their constituents while simultaneously solving problems.
Regarding S.5, many legislators ignored their oaths and chose technocratic “expert rule” and the highly coordinated Energy Action Network players — including industry bound to sales and NGOs with agendas — as their primary guide. Regardless of intention, S.5 lacks the balance found in sound policy where issues are addressed and people’s rights, livelihoods, and cost of living are protected and intact. Working to achieve environmental justice while bringing social injustice to Vermonters is not ethical policy.
The crux of S.5 is the policy design and funding structure, which is not surprising, given that the Clean Heat Working Group consisting of Energy Action Network members wrote this legislation and holds stake in its passage.
S.5 is not partisan legislation in the sense of winners or losers; it is more specifically the failure of legislators to design a functional implementation plan that does not bring collateral damage, increased costs and a stranglehold on the heating sector that is integral to the safety and welfare of Vermont.
The emphasis on technocratic “expert guidance” as the primary driver for policy creation over the needs and best interests of the people shifts Vermont away from a constitutional republic based on representative democracy. Instead, the technocratic framework prevails and cherry-picked data, “experts” and social engineering become the driving forces for legislation. The focus on policy designed by special interest groups claiming to hold data and truth trumps common-sense discussion by and for the people, as intended.
The Lancet published an article by Richard Horton titled “Offline — The Coming Technocracy.” He stated, “Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments.”
This constant crisis mode triggers legislators to overstep boundaries as they are swept up in propaganda and fear related to the current crisis. Decisions are made that compromise the guaranteed rights of the people. Fear interferes with clarity and critical thinking. This vicious cycle erodes our constitutional republic and free society as crises are used to manipulate policy and people.
Politicized science in the form of “consensus science” is also used to justify impulsive and heavily debated legislation driven by fear and fueled by propaganda. Regardless of opinion on the climate crisis, make no mistake, this situation is abused by many and results in government overreach and risk to the people. Industry and NGOs utilize crisis, consensus science and propaganda to impose their goals, which are not oriented toward representation or service of the people.
Vermont has just lived through this with the passage of S.5. Despite its initial study phase, there is no acceptable S.5 outcome — it charges more for a product that is essential for many, dangerously limits options by exacting fees and coerces the thermal sector into the highly gamed carbon market.
Daniel Sarewitz, emeritus professor at Arizona University and co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, known for his expertise on the influence of scientific research on policy decisions and social outcomes, wrote in the journal Nature: “The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenge to the current state of always imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice. … The commitment to consensus therefore comes at a high price: the elimination of proposals and alternatives that might be valuable for decision makers dealing with complex problems.”
It is these proposals and alternatives presented by constituents that were ignored by legislators captivated by the Energy Action Network. Discussion and debate were shut down because the Clean Heat Standard was accepted — no questions asked — as the answer to the problem. This interfered with the ability to find real solutions to achieve Vermont’s environmental and energy goals while simultaneously ensuring that Vermonters were supported and had access to a wide array of options to fit their specific needs.
Energy independence and affordability are goals that make sense. Taking the advice of scientists from a variety of fields and perspectives to inform decisions is an integral part of the conversation in the creation of policy. However, this information must be tempered with common sense and reality offered by the legislators in service to the people.
This technocratic pattern has broken trust, violates the people by those sworn to serve them and resulted in an intense groundswell activation of Vermonters. The Energy Action Network is a private, highly coordinated partnership of stakeholders working together for their own special interests, not for the people of Vermont.
Securing our constitutional republic based on democratic representation will be a priority for Vermonters as the supermajority chooses technocracy, propagandized mob mentality and an elite class of “experts” to heavily influence policy that compromises the very foundation and intention of our country.
We are witnessing a failure of our line of defense — the failure of our elected legislators tasked with representing and protecting Vermonters. This past session, many legislators chose agendas, industry and technocracy over the people of Vermont and democracy. Hopefully this trend of the supermajority does not continue.
Edited for length.
