Vermont likes to call itself a leader in combating climate change, but leadership implies setting an example others want to follow. Instead, Vermont is becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when ideology trumps practicality. The result? A state struggling under the weight of policies that deliver the opposite of what they promise.

The Latest Target: Your Firewood

Lobbyists and environmental groups are quietly pushing to sideline firewood as a heating option, arguing it contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and local air quality issues. Through proposals like the Clean Heat Standard (CHS), they’re urging regulators to exclude firewood from Vermont’s approved heating methods.

This effort comes despite wood heat being a lifeline for generations of Vermonters. It’s renewable, locally sourced, and dependable—especially during the state’s brutal winters and frequent power outages. Yet, in the name of reducing Vermont’s already infinitesimal global greenhouse gas contribution (0.015%), policymakers risk driving up costs, eliminating options, and leaving rural Vermonters out in the cold.

Regulatory Signals Against Wood Heat

Recent discussions at a Vermont Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting reveal growing skepticism about wood heat. Concerns focused on emissions from cordwood stoves and boilers, with some participants labeling them “high-emitting” and inconsistent with public health and climate goals.

Nora Travis of NESCAUM stated, “Cordwood boilers are, in fact, quite high-emitting—to the effect even of more concern than stoves.” Similarly, Brian Woods of the Agency of Natural Resources questioned wood’s carbon neutrality, asking, “It’s hard to understand how a negative carbon intensity for RNG or wood fuels wouldn’t distort the program.” The discussion also emphasized electrification, with Ken Jones cautioning, “Wood fuels shouldn’t skew the credit system away from electrification.”

While advanced wood heating systems may still have a place, the trend is clear: traditional wood-burning appliances like cordwood stoves are being pushed to the margins. The PUC’s cautious tone reflects a broader shift driven by emissions concerns, public health arguments, and doubts about wood’s carbon neutrality. Watch the TAG meeting discussion and read the transcript here.

A Pattern of Overreach

Killington Mountain isn’t the only slippery slope in the state. The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) requires Vermont to adopt regulations like California’s Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) standards, mandating that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035. This effectively phases out the sale of combustion vehicles. Now, the same ideologically driven approach is targeting wood heat, another essential tool for surviving rural Vermont winters.

The financial fallout is undeniable. Replacing wood stoves with electric systems or retrofitting homes for “clean” heating methods is prohibitively expensive for working- and middle-class families. Wealthier residents might qualify for subsidies or absorb the costs, but for most, these policies represent a financial strain with little practical benefit. Compounding the issue, Vermont’s electric grid is unreliable, regularly failing during storms. Heat pumps and electric systems can’t keep homes warm without power, but wood stoves can.

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

The Irony of “Leadership”

Vermont’s aggressive push to be a “climate leader” is proving to be the opposite. Instead of offering a model for sustainability, the state is showcasing the economic harm and alienation that result from prioritizing symbolic policies over practical solutions. What’s green about policies that:

• Increase costs for heating and transportation?
• Undermine locally sourced, sustainable practices like wood heat?
• Push rural residents to rely on an unprepared electric grid?

This kind of “leadership” alienates the very people it claims to help, leaving them less resilient and more financially strained.

A Better Way Forward

If Vermont truly wants to combat climate change, it should focus on solutions that balance environmental goals with practicality. Here’s what real leadership could look like:

• Flood Management: Invest in infrastructure to address Vermont’s natural flooding risks, instead of pretending local carbon cuts will stop rivers from rising.
• Energy Resilience: Strengthen the electric grid and diversify energy sources before mandating widespread electrification. Vermont’s current infrastructure isn’t ready for such a transition.
• Support Local Solutions: Promote responsibly managed forests and high-efficiency wood stoves. Firewood is renewable, local, and well-suited to Vermont’s rural realities.

What’s Really At Stake

This isn’t just about firewood—it’s about freedom. Freedom to heat your home without interference from policymakers and lobbyists who seem disconnected from the realities of rural life. Vermonters deserve policies that reflect their values: independence, resilience, and practicality.

Recent policies already phase out combustion vehicles, and now firewood is in the crosshairs. What’s next? Vermont’s environmental policies, while well-intentioned, are proving to be an alarming example of what happens when going green becomes an ideological crusade rather than a balanced strategy.

If Montpelier doesn’t rethink its approach, it risks driving out the very people who make Vermont what it is. Let’s hope lawmakers understand what’s truly worth preserving before it’s too late.

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 | Instagram

#fyivt #VermontClimate #WoodHeat #EnergyFreedom

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!