Steve Thurston’s recent letter, which you titled “Clean Standard Act called expensive, ineffective,” restated a number of the talking points the fossil fuel industry has inundated Vermonters with for years. But that doesn’t mean his remarks weren’t personally heartfelt. For that reason I want to thank him for his continuing interest in climate change policy and to name a few things I don’t get about his position.

To be fair, I recognize that he was writing in the context of the current political campaign. We expect candidates and critics to play loose with the truth about the complexity of every major issue they are asked about. Hence, no need to critique him for saying not a soul would be living in Vermont without fossil fuels when history tells us plenty of souls were for thousands of years and that European colonizers found Vermont an attractive destination long before they had coal stoves and then oil or gas power. His set-up question — “Where would Vermont be today without fossil fuels?” — is important, albeit tangential to the real issues of climate change.

Here, though, are two major things I don’t get about his position: 1) How is regulating the fossil fuel industry to operate with massive government subsidies, including allowing it not to be charged with the damages related to climate change driven by fossil fuel consumption, not a problem? Somehow, that’s his implied position. In contradiction, he holds that legislation seeking to alter the accuracy of the price signals to truthfully favor renewables is somehow an impossible way to influence energy markets for the common good.

2) Where does he get the idea that the standard for good legislation is “solving” climate change? Everyone seriously looking at the issue is talking about “addressing” climate change. We win — or rather lose less — by minimizing the sizable and rapidly mounting dangers going forward. Surely we can agree it’s ridiculous to make solving such a global crisis a talking point.

I would like to suggest it should be taken for granted that any significant legislation on an issue this complex will prove to be flawed. I wish we could agree that the measure of good legislation is whether it is a plausible attempt to move us more quickly in the direction of reducing fossil fuel emissions and to justly/humanely treat those who are most vulnerable to change. The latter includes not just fellow citizens who lack resources to invest in clean energy and withstand climate disasters, but also workers in fossil fuel industries who need support in transitioning to new work.

Another important goal is building resilience to climate disasters. It is here that fossil fuels could have an important back-up role for the foreseeable future, even in the best imaginable transition. But that doesn’t mean that the investments to maintain that capability shouldn’t be altered to generate more funds for transition. It’s damaging to continue funneling the profits to fossil fuel investors at unregulated market rates, as if business as usual is fine.

For all that, the single scariest thing to me in Mr. Thurston’s letter and so many like it is the idea that Vermont is free to do anything it wants to avoid contributing to addressing climate change because we can have no measurable impact on global climate. Speaking as a minister, I see this as a morally bankrupt position, no matter what your religion or non-religion may be. Not bankrupt in the sense of worthless but, like most business bankruptcies, a situation where the accumulated debts can’t be repaid with business as usual. The past way of doing things needs to be thoroughly reorganized. Anything less smacks of fraud. Some religions (not mine) might say sin.

To see the lack of moral clarity here, imagine someone who believes abortion is murder being asked to accept the argument “But Vermonters are free to do it because we can’t possibly abort enough babies for it to be noticeable in the world’s population.” OK … that’s way over the top, in the style of current politics. But ask this, “Is it OK for me not to pay taxes because I make no visible impact on Vermont’s ability to balance its budget?”

The moral issue is one of simply pulling one’s weight as an individual and a citizen of this state, however small, as we confront the greatest global justice and compassion issue in the history of humankind. The argument that we are too small to count denies the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.

As for the specifics of this legislation, the related question for Mr. Thurston is not whether he is a Vermonter but whether he is an American. In our nation, a lot of responsibility for who we are is delegated to the states. We get the same number of aenators as California and Texas because size isn’t the only measure of the importance of statehood. We can be a beacon to others, and at times have been.

If Mr. Thurston is a citizen of this nation that has contributed more to the emissions changing climate than any other — and has benefited throughout his life from the wealth and power we accumulated doing so — surely he is needed to contribute as best he can to making flawed legislation like this work. I hope most of my fellow Vermonters agree that simply waving the “There’s nothing to see here — we’re too small” card is not a way forward worthy of Vermont.

Rev. Barnaby Feder

Middlebury