It’s Alarming
Vermont’s legislature is often hailed as a national leader on climate action, enacting stringent policies and calling on residents to make significant sacrifices to curb greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is a stark disconnect between the dire climate warnings voiced by legislators and their own actions and choices. If the climate emergency is as severe as they claim, you would expect more radical changes in their behaviors—both personally and professionally. Instead, their actions often contradict the urgency they communicate, raising questions about their true commitment to addressing climate change. They need to either start acting with the seriousness that such a crisis demands or stop using alarmist rhetoric to scare the citizenry while avoiding substantive action.
Big Rhetoric, Small Sacrifices
One of the clearest examples of this inconsistency is the Vermont legislature’s continued reliance on in-person sessions, even during the colder months when heating the Statehouse requires significant energy. If the climate crisis were as pressing as claimed, an immediate step would be to transition to remote video conferencing, especially during the winter. This would not only cut down on travel-related emissions but also reduce the energy required to keep the building heated. Such a simple shift would reflect the values they champion, showing leadership by example.
Additionally, the legislature has not reconsidered the timing of their sessions, which could be shifted to warmer months to reduce the need for heating the Statehouse. The lack of such basic adjustments calls into question the depth of their commitment to reducing emissions.
A Call for Public Accountability
A more meaningful and transparent approach could involve publicly available carbon and income audits for each legislator. Such audits would reveal how seriously lawmakers take the challenge of reducing their own carbon footprints while advocating for costly sacrifices from their constituents. By examining their home energy use, travel habits, and lifestyle choices, citizens could see whether legislators are “walking the talk” or merely pushing the burden onto others.
An audit of their income would also shed light on whether those advocating for drastic measures are in a financial position to absorb the costs of these policies. It would be a fairer representation of their true commitment to climate action and how it compares to the sacrifices they ask of ordinary Vermonters.
The Ski Industry: An Untouchable Sector?
One of the clearest examples of selective climate policy is the ski industry, a cornerstone of Vermont’s tourism economy but also a significant carbon emitter. Ski resorts are highly dependent on energy-intensive snowmaking, especially as winters become less reliable. Despite this, the ski industry has not faced the same scrutiny or regulatory pressure as ordinary Vermonters. While resorts like Jay Peak and Killington have made moves toward reducing their carbon footprints—installing electric snowmaking systems and solar panels—the reality is that these operations remain fundamentally carbon-heavy(Ski Vermont).
Furthermore, ski tourism involves extensive travel, with many skiers driving or flying long distances to Vermont. This adds to the carbon footprint of the industry, yet there is little talk from lawmakers about restricting or regulating this high-emission sector. The economic importance of the ski industry likely plays a role in this lack of action, but it points to a double standard in how emissions reductions are approached(Knight Frank).
Ben & Jerry’s: A Sweet Problem
Similarly, Ben & Jerry’s represents another paradox in Vermont’s climate efforts. As a global brand that markets itself as environmentally conscious, Ben & Jerry’s contributes significantly to emissions, particularly through dairy production, which accounts for over half of the company’s carbon footprint(Ben & Jerry)(Ben & Jerry). Dairy farming, frequently criticized by climate groups for its methane emissions, remains central to Ben & Jerry’s production of a luxury item that offers minimal nutritional benefit yet imposes a notable environmental cost.
The company has received praise for its activism, including its participation in climate marches and advocacy for systemic change. However, there has been little discussion about the global distribution of its ice cream, which involves significant emissions from transportation, contributing to 7% of their overall carbon footprint(Ben & Jerry). If climate change truly demands urgent and drastic measures, then why hasn’t the state taken a harder look at industries like Ben & Jerry’s, which produce luxury, non-essential goods?
Vermont’s Unwillingness to Make Hard Choices
To be clear, these criticisms are not aimed at attacking the ski industry or Ben & Jerry’s, both of which contribute greatly to Vermont’s economy. Rather, the goal is to highlight the lack of urgency shown by the legislature when it comes to these industries. While average Vermonters are being asked to shoulder new costs and make sacrifices, these sectors remain largely unregulated or encouraged to adopt only minor environmental reforms.
If Vermont’s climate situation is truly as dire as legislators claim, harder choices should be made across all sectors. These could include:
- Reducing or regulating high-emission industries like skiing and Ben & Jerry’s.
- Transitioning the legislature to remote work during colder months to reduce the Statehouse’s carbon footprint.
- Encouraging more significant reductions in travel emissions, both personal and governmental.
- Prioritizing local food production and consumption over exporting luxury goods, like ice cream.
Without taking such steps, the focus remains on shifting costs onto ordinary Vermonters, which does little to convince skeptics that the climate crisis is being handled equitably or effectively.
Conclusion
Vermont legislators who support “climate action” and climate legislation, while sincere in their desire to address climate change, often fail to reflect their rhetoric in their actions. Rather than taking the lead in reducing emissions through personal sacrifice or placing stricter regulations on large industries, they continue to pass the cost onto Vermonters who are least able to absorb these changes. If climate change is the emergency they describe, then lawmakers must lead by example and make difficult but necessary changes across all sectors—not just demand sacrifices from those least able to afford them. Their actions would indicate it is not that big of a threat.
A public audit of legislators’ carbon footprints and financial capacities would bring transparency and accountability, ensuring that Vermont’s climate policies are more than just political talking points. Their actions suggest that they may not personally perceive the threat as urgent as their public rhetoric suggests.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt)
#fyivt #ClimateAccountability #VermontLeadership #FiscalResponsibility #VTLegislature
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!
Leave a Reply