McClaughry: A new front in the endless battle against climate change
The Long Range Transportation Plan of 1995 reaffirmed as the highest priority the maintenance and improvement of Vermont's highways and bridges. Hardly anyone disagreed. But beginning in earnest in 2006, climate change activists have succeeded in progressively shifting the emphasis of transportation policy toward reducing CO2 emissions and defeating climate change.
Gasoline and diesel fueled-transportation contributes 43 percent of Vermont's carbon dioxide emissions. This year's transportation bill announces this controlling policy:
"This act includes the State's fiscal year 2020 transportation investments intended to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, reduce fossil fuel use, and save Vermont households money in furtherance of the goals of the Comprehensive Energy Plan, and to satisfy the Executive and Legislative Branches' commitments to the Paris Agreement climate goals."
The Paris Agreement established CO2 emission quotas for 195 countries, and obliged developed countries like the U.S. to collectively hand over $100 billion a year to persuade the others to pretend to comply. It was signed by President Obama in 2015 but never sent to the Senate for ratification. President Trump bailed the U.S. out in 2017, and after four years only seven of those 195 countries are actually on track to comply. Under pressure from enviros, Gov. Scott announced in 2017 that Vermont will, in a gesture of climate solidarity, drive down our emissions to our pro-rated share of the U.S. contribution.
Most of the $286 million (plus federal funds) in the fiscal 2020 transportation bill will of course continue to pay for highway and bridge maintenance, but a trip through the transportation bill shows how the emphasis has shifted.
The climate activists urgently believe that Vermonters must be lured or taxed out of their gasoline and diesel vehicles in favor of electric cars. Thus the bill offers more plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) purchase and lease incentives "to help all Vermonters to benefit from electric driving, including [of course!] Vermont's most vulnerable." If your family has under 160 percent of the five-year average median household income, you can qualify for subsidies to allow you to buy a PEV that costs up to $40,000.
After three studies, the legislature has still not figured out how to make PEV drivers pay anything at all for using the public highways. The present bill does allow state agencies to set fees for the electricity downloaded from state charging stations, which is an improvement over the present practice of just giving it away.
Of special interest is the 17 percent increase in public transportation spending, which includes $1.884 million (!) to pay for two (!) electric transit buses for the Burlington area, and $480,000 for two electric shuttle buses for the Montpelier area. Other new "low-carbon spending initiatives" include 77 bike/pedestrian projects and increasing the number of electric vehicles in the 734-vehicle state fleet from 54 to 367.
The bill mandates a study of a "feebate" program, whereby persons who buy larger and safer but less fuel-efficient cars are charged a "fee" (aka "tax"), and the proceeds are rebated to the purchasers of smaller, less safe, more fuel efficient, and more electrified vehicles.
Then there's the eternal passenger rail fantasy. The bill assigns $5.2 million to upgrade the Rutland to Burlington track for future passenger traffic. The memory of Gov. Dean's $28 million Champlain Flyer boondoggle seems to have vanished beyond recovery, along with a million dollars' worth of improvements pocketed by the owner of the Burlington train station.
Particularly interesting is the requirement of a study to support a seven-mile (!) Barre to Montpelier commuter rail project. This was urged upon legislators by wind and solar mogul David Blittersdorf, who bought five elderly self-propelled Budd cars and wants to convert them from museum pieces into income-producing assets.
Finally, the bill endorses the Scott Administration's participation in the group designing the Transportation Climate Initiative. This will be a multistate cap-and-trade plan regulating and taxing the transportation use of fossil fuels. Each state would use the windfall proceeds to pay for "low-carbon and more resilient transportation infrastructure."
When Democratic candidate Sue Minter proposed a TCI in a 2016 campaign debate, Scott immediately and correctly labelled it a carbon tax. Why he is actively supporting TCI development now remains a mystery.
There are some useful provisions in the bill, notably excusing 16-year-old vehicles from computerized inspection failures that have nothing to do with safe operation. But overall the bill illustrates how defeating climate change and suppressing CO2 emissions have come to overshadow the basic function of AoT — to preserve and maintain a network of highways to meet the transportation needs of the Vermonters who are paying the bills.
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute. The opinions expressed by columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of the Brattleboro Reformer.
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.