Vermont Governor Phil Scott has a track record of opposing progressive climate policies brought forth by the Democrats in the state Legislature. Now that the Democrats have lost a veto-proof supermajority, Gov. Scott is finally showing us his true colors on climate.

As of Feb. 20, we are finally able to see the governor’s own proposal on climate actions. Touted as “an act relating to affordable climate initiatives,” Bill H.289 was introduced by five Republicans in the Vermont Statehouse on Thursday. It proposes sweeping changes that eliminate the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements and opens up the possibility of nuclear power generation in the state. He also proposes to switch the method Vermont uses to calculate emissions from the gross network to a net accounting system. Finally, he wants to eliminate the authority of the Vermont Climate Council, the body that is responsible for keeping Vermont on track to meet the emission requirements outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act.

In 2017, Gov. Scott criticized President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. Now, he is calling for the departure from the very same goals he vowed to support, the goals he committed to when he became the governor, the commitment that won his governorship.

At a time when the federal government is rolling back on climate, along with every aspect of normality in the federal government and policies — a decision Vermonters overwhelmingly voted against — we need leadership from the governor to navigate through this crisis. The governor is doing the opposite.

Bill H.289 is dubbed the governor’s climate omnibus bill. But it’s much more a “kill the climate” bill than a genuine solution to our climate crisis. Touted to deliver “affordable climate initiatives,” the governor claims that the bill is aimed to address the affordability issue with Vermont climate actions. However, it is very clear that the Governor’s plan to address the issue is to completely kill the GWSA. This bill would remove the pathway for citizens to sue the state for failure to meet the climate requirements, a notable feature of the GWSA which enables citizens to file suits against the state for failing to follow the requirements set into law, including the emissions requirements. The state is already facing its first lawsuit under the GWSA, filed by the Conservation Law Foundation for failing to meet its 2025 emission requirement.

In addition, the bill will switch the way Vermont calculates emissions from calculating the total human-caused emissions produced in the state to an accounting system that takes into account the amount of carbon offset by existing forests, which make up 71% of Vermont’s landscape. Under this scheme, Vermont would become “net zero” on carbon emissions by 2035.The bill also rebranded the current renewable energy standard to a clean energy standard, allowing the possibility of nuclear energy to be incorporated into the state’s energy plan addressing climate.

The bill proposes to make the Vermont Climate Council’s power advisory, eliminating any authority given to the Council. It also gave the Agency of Natural Resources power over the Council, the very same government arm that the Council was responsible for holding accountable.

The Council would also lose its mandate to accurately measure the state’s progress toward the emission requirements, climate resiliency, and effectiveness of its environmental policies. Shifting the state from a science-driven policy framework to one that is more “don’t ask don’t tell” on climate.

This is a time when we need leadership, as the governor displayed during COVID-19. Instead, the governor has apparently decided to sell out the state to Trump and Elon. In a Feb. 4 press release, the governor states: “But we should be fair and take time to understand what problem the president intends to solve, the results he expects to get, and the risks he’s willing to take, before we cast judgement… While the president’s tariffs would undoubtedly be very disruptive, and the risk of higher prices has been well reported, I have directed my team to weigh the outcomes fairly and objectively.”

While our federal government is in the midst of its biggest crisis since the Civil War, our governor seems more concerned about “weighing the outcomes fairly and objectively” instead of responding aggressively to the impact caused by the Trump administration, from cancelled grants that support research and Vermont non-profits, to fired employees who previously worked in federal jobs and NGOs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that Trump’s action will have a long-lasting, devastating impact on the state. We elected the governor to protect us, and we need him to do it now.

Our way of life, our economy, our livelihoods, land, houses, roads, people — everything is on the line due to the warming climate. Here are two paths we can take: either do nothing and keep letting our home get destroyed, our neighbors getting swept away in flood water, and our mountains unleashing mudslides and floods year after year, or we can step up and at least try to give us, not just our children, us, a better future, in the places we love. In 2026, when Scott is up for re-election, think about the two paths we can take in our state’s future.

Rick Walker

Student

Middlebury College