Vermont is often celebrated as a leader in climate action, boasting ambitious emissions-reduction targets and vocal commitments to the Paris Climate Accord. But for all its self-congratulations, Vermont’s climate leadership demands significant economic sacrifices from its residents while delivering negligible global impact. The recent Seven Days article criticizing Governor Phil Scott perfectly illustrates this dynamic, unfairly framing his measured approach as a failure. Behind the rhetoric lies a deeper question: Why is Vermont, which contributes a mere 0.13% of U.S. GHG emissions, being forced to bear outsized economic burdens for policies that won’t change the global climate trajectory?

The Absurd Framing of Governor Scott

The Seven Days article begins with the claim that Vermont is “not on track to meet its 2030 climate emission-reduction commitment, but instead of accelerating to reach that mile marker, Gov. Phil Scott wants lawmakers to let him throttle back.” This framing paints Scott as a climate villain, ignoring his responsibility to balance Vermont’s economic realities with environmental goals.

Scott’s critics, many of whom seem more concerned with ideological purity than practical governance, conveniently overlook the fact that Vermont’s emissions are microscopic on a global scale. Even if Vermont eliminated all emissions tomorrow, the impact on global climate trends would be imperceptible. Meanwhile, the cost of accelerating these goals—higher taxes, skyrocketing energy bills, and unaffordable mandates—would disproportionately harm rural and low-income Vermonters. The critique of Scott reflects a broader problem: prioritizing unattainable ideals over achievable progress.

The Paris Accord: Vermont’s “Nigerian Prince” Scam

To understand the absurdity of Vermont’s climate policies, consider the classic Nigerian prince email scam:

“The sender, pretending to be a wealthy prince, claims to need help moving a large sum of money out of the country. In exchange for covering upfront fees, the recipient is promised a significant share of the fortune. The scam is notorious for its obvious absurdity, yet it continues to deceive because of the allure of a windfall.”

Vermont’s alignment with the Paris Climate Accord mirrors this scam:

• The “Fee”: Vermont agrees to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, imposing costly mandates on its residents, crippling its economy, and raising the cost of living.
• The “Fortune”: The supposed reward is global environmental progress—a promise that’s as enticing as it is unrealistic.
• The Reality: Meanwhile, major polluters like China and India continue to expand coal-fired power plants unabated, prioritizing economic growth over emissions reductions. Vermont’s sacrifices will have no measurable impact on global emissions, rendering the promised rewards as illusory as a Nigerian prince’s fortune.

Instead of questioning this inequity, Vermont’s leadership blindly adheres to the accord, imposing its terms on the state with naïve compliance. It’s a deal so absurd that it should raise questions about Vermont’s role in the accord—but instead, it’s defended by climate activists as “necessary leadership.”

Vermont’s 0.13% Reality

Vermont’s total greenhouse gas emissions contribute just 0.13% to the U.S. total. To put that in perspective, Vermont’s emissions are a rounding error compared to those of major industrialized states, let alone global powers like China and India. Despite this, Vermont has committed to drastic reductions, placing symbolism over substance in its climate efforts.

Moreover, Vermont’s extensive forests act as a natural carbon sink, offsetting a significant portion of the state’s emissions. Yet instead of acknowledging this built-in advantage, policymakers push costly mandates that disproportionately harm residents. The reality is clear: Vermont’s emissions are already among the lowest in the nation, and its contribution to global climate change is negligible.

Support FYIVT Today – Choose Your Impact! Name Your Own Price to Help Us Keep Fighting for Truth and Transparency. Every Contribution Makes a Difference!

The Economic Toll of Mandates

Under the current climate regime, Vermonters face steep economic burdens:

• Aggressive renewable energy mandates force residents to adopt expensive technologies and retrofit homes, costs that disproportionately affect rural and low-income families.
• Rising energy costs and transportation mandates make living in Vermont increasingly unaffordable.

Legislators like Rep. Laura Sibilia and Sen. Anne Watson defend these policies as necessary to “protect ratepayers from volatile fossil fuel costs.” But this logic doesn’t hold up. Stabilizing prices at unaffordable levels is not protection—it’s economic harm disguised as progress. Even more concerning, despite recent election results that appeared to signal voter dissatisfaction with these aggressive climate mandates, both Sibilia and Watson seem determined to ignore the electorate’s voice. Their refusal to acknowledge voter discontent shows a troubling disconnect between Vermont’s leadership and its people, as they push forward with policies that voters clearly rejected.

A Missed Opportunity: The Nuclear Solution

If Vermont is serious about addressing climate change while maintaining economic stability, it needs to reconsider its approach. One solution stands out: nuclear power. A new nuclear power plant, comparable to the retired Vermont Yankee, could:

• Eliminate electricity-related GHG emissions entirely, making Vermont the cleanest energy state in the nation.
• Create thousands of high-paying jobs, revitalizing the local economy.
• Provide long-term energy stability, reducing dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets.
• Generate surplus electricity for export, creating a new revenue stream for the state.

Vermont Yankee once supplied over 70% of the state’s electricity with near-zero emissions. Reintroducing nuclear power would allow Vermont to achieve its climate goals without relying on distorted REC accounting or imposing costly retrofits and mandates on residents. More importantly, it would position Vermont as a leader in clean energy innovation, showing that environmental progress doesn’t have to come at the expense of economic prosperity.

Conclusion

The Seven Days article, and the broader climate movement it represents, underscores the troubling disconnect between Vermont’s leadership and its residents. By focusing on symbolic actions with negligible impact, the state’s policymakers are burdening Vermonters with policies that do more harm than good. It’s time for Vermont to rethink its approach, embracing pragmatic solutions like nuclear power and localized climate initiatives that balance environmental progress with economic sustainability. Only then can the state truly lead—not by empty gestures, but by example.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

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

#fyivt #ClimateJustice #VermontEconomy #SustainableEnergy

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!