GREG DENNIS

This has been a brutal year for many Vermonters, with waves of extreme weather driven by climate change. In June the air was full of smoke from Canadian wildfires. Then came the summer floods, with many towns, businesses and families literally underwater. This month has brought more destructive flooding.

Farmers are struggling amid unfamiliar climate conditions. Many Vermonters are still awaiting help to restore homes and businesses.

This is not normal weather and these are not normal times. So where does Vermont go from here? 

We are among the many Vermonters who see the possibility of a strong and resilient state adapting to climate change. A state that lives up to its “green” reputation and — in a just transition to clean energy — leaves no Vermonter behind as we substantially reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

But there’s a lot of work to be done before we get there. Starting with an accurate assessment of where we stand and who will control future decision-making.

Overriding repeated vetoes from Gov. Phil Scott, the legislature has on the surface made some progress: It approved a Global Warming Solutions Act and then a Climate Action Plan, with legal commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

There’s new movement toward divesting state funds out of fossil fuel companies. Also on the table are bills to protect ratepayers and promote geothermal networks and carbon sequestration.

But in reality, Vermont still relies on false climate solutions. The planet is in a climate emergency. We can’t afford to do business as usual. 

Vermont should be a leader on climate resiliency, yet our state has New England’s second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per-capita. We are the worst in the region at reducing emissions over the past 15 years.

Why should Vermonters care? Because even our small state needs to do its part. And because the decisions being made now will affect how our homes, businesses and schools are heated, cooled and lit — and how clean and climate-friendly they will be.

A key shortcoming is that Vermont’s accounting on climate emissions is dishonest. That in turn has misled legislators and others into thinking the state is doing well at confronting the climate crisis. 

Take the claim that we have clean electricity. Over 24% of it comes directly from Hydro-Quebec by way of Green Mountain Power. That number rises to 52% counting “renewable energy credits.” 

But those credits rarely create new renewable energy. And among New England states, only Vermont counts large-scale hydroelectric as emission-free. The reality is that the flooding of vast Canadian forests (by hydro dams) continues to release carbon dioxide and methane gas.

Even legislation supported by many environmentalists — such as the Affordable Heat Act — contains loopholes that were crafted by and benefit large corporations rather than average Vermonters.

After lobbying by Vermont Gas Systems, the act contains a big loophole: It incentivizes biofuels as “clean heat” even though these fuels (including “renewable” natural gas, or RNG) do essentially nothing to cut greenhouse gases. 

It’s obvious that in the face of the climate emergency, many of the same old power structures and decision makers remain in place. When it comes to climate policies, our state continues to grant an overly large voice to self-interested corporations.

We’re concerned that the process of relying on false solutions is again being played out in Montpelier. For example, nearly half of a legislative working group established to find ways to improve the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) consisted of corporate and utility special interests.

It is gratifying, however, to see that the RES working group’s new report includes some steps to meet the climate emergency. Now the General Assembly and governor need to take bold steps in the coming legislative session.

We need a new energy standard because the existing RES contains strong elements of greenwashing. It currently provides a way for utilities to meet state standards — but not by building cleaner energy facilities such as wind, solar, batteries and geothermal. Instead, utilities can buy their way out, by purchasing “renewable energy credits” from already existing energy sources. One result: a loss of green jobs as our solar industry shrinks.

Another shortcoming is that the working group did not address the important issue of environmental justice for low-income people, indigenous Vermonters and people of color. 

It’s also time for Vermont to be honest about what forms of energy are in fact renewable and low-emission. These terms should not be applied to biomass, hydrogen, “renewable” gas or Hydro-Quebec. 

Will we get a better Renewable Energy Standard? That depends on whether or not Vermonters let their elected leaders know they want a standard that requires utilities to create more — and appropriately sited — green energy within Vermont and the region.

Unless we nurture even more participation to elevate the voices of ordinary citizens who want clean energy, it will be that much harder to create a better climate future for Vermont. One characterized by a sustainable economy that fosters green jobs with livable wages; protects ratepayers; promotes regional food systems; and preserves biological diversity.

—————

Greg Dennis of Cornwall and Liz Steel, who lives in Greensboro, are active volunteers working on Vermont climate issues. This piece was adapted from a VTDigger opinion column.