Since 2021, Vermont lawmakers have dedicated close to $300 million in state taxpayer dollars toward climate initiatives tied to the Global Warming Solutions Act. Those appropriations—$46 million in fiscal year 2021 and another $250 million over the following three years—were billed as essential investments in reducing emissions and making Vermont more resilient to climate change.

During that same period, however, Vermont lost at least 875 residents to opioid overdoses from 2021–24, with the total topping 1,000 when stimulants and other drugs are included. State health department data show at least 875 opioid-related deaths from 2021 through 2024, plus dozens more tied to stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine. The annual totals peaked in 2022 at 243 opioid deaths and remained above 180 in 2024, despite signs of progress.

Though no program can eliminate drugs entirely, a targeted interdiction campaign—highway and parcel choke points, border coordination, wastewater-triggered surge ops, and jail-based MAT—could realistically cut the flow into Vermont by about half within a year, with deeper reductions as the system matures.

The juxtaposition raises an uncomfortable question: what if the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on climate programs had instead been invested in a comprehensive, statewide effort to cut off the flow of illicit drugs into Vermont?

A Price Tag Comparison

Vermont could establish a robust drug interdiction operation for a fraction of what has been spent on climate initiatives in recent years. The blueprint would include:

• Two full highway interdiction teams with K-9 units dedicated to I-91, I-89, and other key corridors.
• License plate reader technology at major choke points.
• Expanded parcel and postal inspections through cooperation with carriers.
• Wastewater drug testing in a dozen towns to detect spikes in fentanyl use in real time.
• Digitized prison mail and body scanners to prevent contraband smuggling into corrections facilities.
• A witness protection and relocation fund to secure cooperation against mid- and upper-level traffickers.

The cost of standing up such a system is estimated at $7–9 million annually, plus $1–2 million in one-time startup equipment—just over one-tenth of one percent of the state’s $8 billion budget. By comparison, Vermont has already spent nearly $300 million in state dollars on climate programs over the past five years, not counting the larger pool of federal funding earmarked for the same purpose.

Lives Saved vs. Lives Lost

The impact of Vermont’s climate investments is difficult to quantify in terms of lives saved. Between 2021 and 2024, extreme weather events in Vermont, including the July 2023 floods and several major winter storms, led to 3 fatalities according to NOAA/NWS. Advocates argue that investments in flood resilience, weatherization, and emissions reductions will reduce future risks and long-term costs.

By contrast, the toll from drug overdoses has been immediate and staggering—averaging more than 200 deaths per year in Vermont over the same span. Public health experts note that opioids are implicated in nearly 90 percent of cases, though cocaine, methamphetamine, alcohol, and benzodiazepines also play a role.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

The human cost extends beyond fatalities. Illicit drug use is closely tied to property crime, homelessness, and child welfare cases. Law enforcement leaders say that reducing the supply of fentanyl and counterfeit pills would likely cut associated crime and social disruption.

This raises another question: if the scale of spending affects the number of lives that can be saved, where should Vermont’s priorities lie?

Legislative Tools Still Needed

Even with funding, Vermont’s current laws leave gaps that traffickers exploit. Policymakers could consider measures such as:

• Requiring registration and tracking of pill presses.
• Granting emergency scheduling authority to rapidly classify fentanyl analogs and drugs like xylazine.
• Establishing a specific offense for delivery of drugs resulting in death.
• Expanding state wiretap and racketeering authority to include fentanyl trafficking and parcel smuggling.
• Imposing stronger penalties for counterfeit prescription pill production.

These legal changes carry little fiscal cost but could give prosecutors sharper tools to dismantle networks rather than repeatedly charging low-level couriers.

Predictive Impact: What Vermont Could Expect

Based on operational comparisons from other states and the cost model outlined here, the following outcomes are realistic if the plan were fully funded and implemented:

• 12–18 months:
  • In-state drug availability ↓ 40–60%
  • Street prices ↑ 30–70%; purity ↓ 20–40%
  • Overdose deaths ↓ 15–30%
  • Property crime ↓ 10–20%
  • Juvenile exposure to counterfeit pills ↓ 20–30%
• 24 months (with steady enforcement and updated laws):
  • Drug availability ↓ 50–70%
  • Overdose deaths ↓ 25–40%
  • Property crime ↓ 15–25%

These numbers are predictive estimates, not certainties. The key conditions for achieving them would include a unified command structure, two highway interdiction teams with K-9 units, parcel carrier cooperation, wastewater testing for fentanyl spikes, digitized prison mail and MAT expansion, plus legal changes such as pill-press registration, emergency scheduling, and expanded racketeering authority.

A Broader Impact on Quality of Life?

While the climate debate often centers on long-term benefits and global responsibilities, drug interdiction offers immediate, local results. Beyond overdose prevention, a successful crackdown could mean fewer burglaries, reduced pressure on emergency rooms, safer public spaces, and fewer children exposed to drugs in their homes and communities.

Would that kind of impact produce a greater improvement in the quality of life for Vermonters today than additional subsidies for electric vehicles or expanded weatherization programs? Or are the long-term climate benefits—though harder to measure—worth the higher investment?

The Policy Crossroads

Vermont has chosen to spend heavily on climate mitigation, with more than a quarter-billion dollars in state funds committed over just a few years. Meanwhile, a comprehensive anti-drug strategy could likely be sustained for decades at the same price.

The question for lawmakers, then, is not only how much Vermont can afford to spend, but how those dollars should be directed. Should the state double down on ambitious climate goals, or should it redirect some resources to the here-and-now crisis of drug overdoses and the ripple effects they create?

It is not a choice that will come easily. But as the toll of overdoses continues to outpace weather-related deaths by a factor of nearly 100 to 1, a contrast likely to grow harder for policymakers—and taxpayers—to ignore.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #Vermont #ClimateSpending #OpioidCrisis

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!