1- The Global Warming Solutions Act was passed over the Governor’s veto and mandates unrealistic GHG reduction requirements resulting in policies that unnecessarily increase the costs of heating and fuel for Vermonters. If these reductions in our cold rural state which requires heat and transportation to live, are not met then we are sued and waste taxpayer dollars as policies are developed to attack Vermonters with regressive laws that increase basic living expenses with no benefit. We have already been sued once by Conservation Law Foundation. GWSA drives the clean heat standard and transportation cap and invest programs. There are two bills that will be reintroduced to fix the GWSA- one is a full repeal and one is an amend to change these requirements to goals and remove the lawsuit provision.

Do you support these bills to fix the GWSA and stop harming Vermonters with higher costs on basic living expenses? If you don’t know, please take the time to review so you can provide an answer. These are critical aspects to Vermont’s affordability issue and voters need answers.

2- The Renewable Energy Standard passed by the Democrat supermajority over the Governor’s veto - this will significantly increase Vermonters electric rates with zero tangible benefits. Costs for Vermonters are estimated at ~$500 million- $1 billion over the next 10 years. Vermonters already pay efficiency Vermont charges on our electric bills and we have the cleanest electricity portfolio. This is a law which prioritizes renewable energy developers over Vermonters and our small local utilities. There are also two bills to repeal or amend this RES that will be reintroduced.

Do you support the bills to fix this problem looming over Vt and about to ramp up costs? If you don’t know, please take the time to review so you can provide an answer. These are also critical aspects to Vermont’s affordability issue and voters need answers.

3-Do you support a foundation formula in education to budget schools and start to cost control education spending and skyrocketing education property taxes? And do you support school choice?

4- Do you understand what Act 181 actually was and did to Vermonters, rural Vermonters in particular and property owners? Please explain why this was bad policy and should NEVER happen again.

Act 59 -aka- 30x30, 50x50 poses a real threat to Vermont, property owners, working lands, and Vermont’s future land access and development. Carbon credits and other “Wall Street environmentalism” schemes are fueled in this law- serving corporate goals over Vermonters prosperity and posterity

Do you understand this law, the risks it brings to VT and do you support a full repeal or the passing of a bill like last session’s H.70 to fulfill Act 59 goals by plugging in Vermont’s current use program enrolled lands to meet these requirements?

5- Do you believe Vermonters should be able to choose what kind of car they drive and not have electric vehicles forced on them via increased fees for fuel such as those in the recently proposed cap and invest policies?

6- Do you support structural changes in healthcare policy from the past decades of Democratic leadership that have chased out dozens of insurers since 1992. A silver plan in VT is ~$1300/month compared to ~$450 in NH due to VT policies that are an outlier from all other states except NY. We have the highest insurance costs due to these policies- more than twice the national average - Do you support these changes and do you understand what Governor Scott’s recent healthcare Executive Order does to start this process because the legislature has failed to make any meaningful changes. This is critical because as we all know these costs drive property taxes and increased education costs on top of the high healthcare costs for all.

7- What regulations would you amend to support our working lands economy such as farming and forestry. They are many existing policies that interfere with the success and viability of these businesses. How would you specifically fix this problem.

Also - would you take a moment to fill out this survey from the Vermont Natural Rights Project? Thank you so much for your time. Vermonters need real information on actual policy and existing laws to help inform them on candidates and action that can make a difference. 🙏

https://www.naturalrightsproject.org/candidate-questionnaire#CandidateQuestionnaire

Dear Vermont Representatives

There seems to be confusion on H.545. Respectfully I share a few thoughts for consideration.

There is no issue with procuring vaccines and ensuring there are cost savings and insurance coverage of vaccines. H.545 is not mandating vaccines and hopefully people are doing their research. These aspects of H.545 are not controversial.

However, as H.545 stands, this bill is highly irresponsible in that it also creates a liability shield and offers immunity to healthcare providers for, “immunization-caused adverse events.” .

How can one offer a liability shield for healthcare providers administering a product that holds risks and has caused injury, harm and death without ensuring informed consent to patients?

$5,530,623,153.83

This is the amount paid since 1988 to those who have been injured by or lost loved ones because of a vaccine. This is paid by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program, established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

HRSA Data and Statistics 09012025

Vermont has existing informed consent laws yet there is no standard process, training or paperwork to guarantee that this critical practice of informed consent occurs.

This was the entire point of the Burtt amendment. It balanced the transaction between provider and patient in H.545 by guaranteeing informed consent.

The Burtt amendment required a process involving written information regarding benefits and risks of immunizations to be discussed between provider and patient. This can easily be a vaccine package insert which contains the clinical trial research and adverse events in section 6, as mandated by federal law. It also included a disclosure statement for the patient to understand that the provider offering the immunizations was shielded from liability. Finally, the patient would sign a form attesting that they received informed consent prior to their decision to refuse or accept the immunization.

If immunity is offered to providers, then how is the patient protected or supported in this relationship? Currently in H.545, THEY ARE NOT. This is deeply troubling, irresponsible and unaccountable legislation.

This is not how you take care of the people of Vermont. The misinformed advice offered and the false narrative created around existing informed consent laws does not rectify the inherent inequity in H.545.

This is not partisan or political, it is about acknowledging the reality of vaccine injury and creating an opportunity for honest transparency and best possible outcomes for both parties. H.545 does not pass the test.

How many times have you been told vaccines are “safe and effective”?

Do you receive informed consent at the Doctor’s when you receive a vaccine? Do they explain the benefits and risks prior to administering vaccine?

Are you told that flu vaccines have mercury, a known neurotoxin, in them?

Let’s look at the issues around Recombivax Hepatitis B vaccine routinely given to babies on the first day of life.

Recombivax was licensed in 1986 by the Food and Drug Administration after pharmaceutical companies were granted immunity from any harms, death and damage caused by their vaccines in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Yes- Big Pharma was shielded and has no liability for the safety of their vaccine products. No other product has this protection.

First genetically modified virus used in a vaccine

Contains 250mcg of aluminum, a known neurotoxin, at a level 14 times higher than the allowable amount of aluminum in intravenous parenteral nutrition for an 8-pound baby.

Studied for 5 days with 147 children up to 10 years of age prior to licensure.

October 12, 2017- Informed Consent Action Network sent a letter to HHS requesting the Hepatitis B safety data ICAN-HHS-Notice-1.pdf

January 18, 2018 received a letter from HHS and FDA which failed to provide further clinical trial safety data Review-Copy.pdf

Two more letters were submitted requesting the safety data. ICAN-Reply-1.pdf and ignored

ICAN submitted a FOIA demanding a copy of the clinical trials relied upon to license Recombivax HB

Received a 1264 page document confirming the vaccine was only reviewed for a few days post injection

FDA has refused to respond to further requested clinical trials data

On September 4, 2020, Informed Consent Action Network filed a petition to the FDA “demanding that the licensure of the Hepatitis B vaccines be revoked or suspended until their safety, as required by law, is determined in a properly designed clinical trial of sufficient duration.” Petition-Hep-B-FINAL.pdf

ICAN FILES FORMAL PETITION DEMANDING THAT THE FDA WITHDRAW ITS LICENSURE OF HEPATITIS B VACCINES - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

Duration of Pediatric Clinical Trials Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration - PMC

There is a real reason the current vaccine schedule is being reevaluated.

The Burtt amendment was essential to complete the circle of justice and transparency. It offered a higher standard of health policy to be codified in statute

Also, you should meet Kaylynne Matten but sadly she died at the age of 7 from myocarditis triggered by a Fluzone vaccine containing mercury, at a “wellness visit”. Kaylynne’s Mom, Nicole Matten shared testimony in 2015 stating

“I was not told that vaccines can cause injuries or death, I was only told the shot would keep her healthy—but that was not the case.”

“Pediatricians are denying that these things happen and if you ask me, doctors need to be better educated on adverse reactions of vaccines. They should also have to accept liability if the shot they give causes harm like it did for Kaylynne. They would give better information if they had to be responsible for their recommendations.”

“Any and all vaccines should be subject to informed consent and full disclosure and exemptions (the right to say no) should always be available, since there is a risk.”

Full Testimony Linked here

More than a decade later, Nicole Matten received the highest payout of $250,000 from the special vaccine court for the death of her child. Can you imagine? Heartbreaking

The American Academy of Pediatrics mentions sharing Vaccine Information Statement (VISs) to provide informed consent.

For decades the CDC has stated,

“People sometimes use the term “informed consent” loosely when referring to VISs. VISs are written to fulfill the information requirements of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, not as informed consent forms.”

“Some states have informed consent laws, covering either procedural requirements (e.g., whether consent may be oral or must be written) or substantive requirements (e.g., types of information required).”

VIS Frequently Asked Questions | Vaccines & Immunizations | CDC

Vaccine Information Statement: Hepatitis B Vaccine - What you need to know

Vermont needs informed consent laws with procedural requirements and substantive requirements

H.545 should be remanded back to committee to fix the inequality that pervades this legislation. It is unfair to all Vermonters to let it pass as is.

Of note is that the American Academy of Pediatrics is being sued. Children’s Health Defense filed suit on January 21, 2026, stating

“This complaint is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), against the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) for its central role in an enterprise that has defrauded American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule for several decades.”

“The fraud set out hereinafter affects the U.S. childhood vaccine market, which one estimate puts at $15.08 billion in 2024. The vaccine schedule has expanded from 11 doses targeting four diseases in 1983, to over 72 doses targeting 18 diseases (until recent action by the government discussed below). This expansion dramatically accelerated after the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 granted manufacturers immunity from liability, allowing unfettered growth of the childhood immunization schedule, and transforming AAP into a co-beneficiary of the vaccine enterprise.”

Legislators must fix H545 and demand a process to ensure a meaningful and substantial procedure for informed consent for all patients, especially if providers are receiving a liability shield for any harms caused by these products.

Respectfully and gratefully

Alison Despathy

For further information -

My full testimony is linked here

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/House%20Human%20Services/Bills/H.545/Witness%20Documents/H.545~Alison%20Despathy~Testimony%20Presentation~1-13-2026.pdf

The Vermont climate propagandists strike again. Playbook: set the stage, fine tune the messaging, ignore the glaring dangers of the current Vermont climate policy and pretend the Vermont Republicans' attempts to fix the policy and protect Vermonters never happened. Vermonters deserve better

The Earth Day press conference at the State House held zero mention of the well understood issues related to Vermont's current climate policy. Key speakers included Attorney General Charity Clark, Senate President Pro Tem Baruth, and Lauren Hierl of Vermont Natural Resources Council. The stifling echo chamber was in full force as the speakers offered up heaping piles of propaganda and misinformation.

What was missing from this entire charade was reality and the fact that:

1. The Clean Heat Standard--the pride and joy of the supermajority climate policy--would undoubtedly raise the price of heating fuel and hurt hard working Vermonters as well as our businesses. Raising the price of this basic necessity is cruel, bordering on criminal and despite all the numbers and the Public Utilities Commission report warning this is not the right fit for Vermont, the Democratic leaders who hold the authority to repeal this once and for all have not acted.

2. Reports indicate that only approximately 30% of Vermont homes can effectively take a heat pump at this time and many need weatherization before installation. Heat pumps do not often result in reduced energy consumption, instead these can increase energy demands as they are used for cooling and are only supplemental in most homes. Electric upgrades to a 220-volt supply are often required and all of this costs money that many do not have. The majority of Vermonters would pay more for heating fuel with a Clean Heat Standard.

3. The Clean Heat Standard promotes biofuels which are destroying the Amazon as corporate investors clear land to plant genetically modified sugar beets dependent on heavy pesticides which contaminate the lands, water and ecosystems of South America. They are not cleaner than other fuels but are falsely sold as the better option. Add to this, the Internet of Forests in the Amazon and elsewhere, where corporate investors --recently including President Trump's Department of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick-- use satellites and sensors to surveil the forests and pretend to measure biodiversity and carbon credits to sell. The scam is utterly disturbing, and Vermonters should not be forced to scale this fraudulent carbon credit market for corporate environmental 'solutions.'

4. In the Senate Finance committee, VT Public Utilities Commissioner, Margaret Cheney offered the best, on record summary of the Clean Heat Standard stating, “It was overly complicated and overly expensive and would have had consequences on everyday Vermonters... that I don't think we could sustain. It was a bureaucratic, bureaucracy heavy, administratively costly solution to what should really be deployment of work, directing services...”, which Vermont is already successfully doing. The Climate Council and Democratic leadership must move on from this failed policy and acknowledge it would harm Vermont. Short term caps on cost and rolling the clean heat standard out more slowly, as recommended in the newly proposed Climate Action Plan, does not change the fact that it is still everything Commissioner Cheney has shared a/k/a- the wrong approach.

5. The Renewable Energy Standard, referred to as “groundbreaking” by Senator Baruth at the press conference, will cost Vermonters anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars – $1 billion in the next years and mandates that utilities buy renewable energy that is expensive, unreliable and requires increased costs in transmission and distribution. This financial burden is borne by Vermont ratepayers while out of state renewable energy investors take advantage of this RES and the windfall profits and high-priced renewable energy credits that await them. As Vermont forces further electrification and leaves efficiency measures behind, costs are ever increasing and high-level risks due to power outages are real. H.289 would help correct the RES and protect Vermont ratepayers, yet Democratic leadership is not taking action.

Senator Baruth also praised the Global Warming Solutions Act, which is the root cause of Vermont's dangerous climate policy. The GWSA is focused on emission reductions as the primary goal, emissions are not Vermont's issue. Vermont has some of the lowest levels of emissions, mostly for necessities of warmth and transportation in our cold, rural state. There are programs in place to help reduce consumption. Vermonters already pay a percentage of their electric bill to drive efficiency measures. Weatherization is happening and has an established funding source, also paid for by Vermonters. Vermont is doing the work to reduce consumption and costs. The aggressive and forced Democratic squeeze is not helping yet the tunnel vision is intense, and most Democrats cannot break free or lead Vermont out of the climate policy quagmire.

Cleaning up our water, addressing wastewater contamination, reducing toxins, protecting biodiversity, strengthening flood and storm resiliency and protecting our fields and forests from greedy renewable energy developers are the real, tangible goals that will protect our natural resources and support our environment.

At the press conference, Lauren Hierl of VNRC, attempted to accuse those in opposition to Vermont's misguided climate policy as supporting corporations that ““maximize their profits at the expense of our health and our communities.” Hierl failed to recognize that here in Vermont, the special interest renewable energy industry and carbon credit investors are set to do exactly that with climate policy VNRC supports. But it's OK, don't worry, these are her friends, they are the 'right corporations', so it's all good.

Attorney General Clark also stated, “There is no national energy emergency, and in fact, American energy is at an all-time high. State laws are not a threat to American energy.” Vermont state laws may not be a threat to American energy; however, Vermont's state laws are certainly a threat to Vermont's economic security and energy stability. The fact that this is missed by those hosting the press conference should concern all Vermonters. Energy consumption continues to rise, and the amount of energy consumed by data centers, crypto mining, semiconductor production and AI is surging. MIT reported that a single data center can consume the equivalent electricity of 50,000 homes.

Polytechnique insights reports that AI like ChatGPT could consume ten times more electricity than a basic google search and AI use and dependency are experiencing exponential growth. The increase in electricity consumption by data centers, AI, semiconductors manufacturers and cryptocurrencies between 2022 and 2026 is estimated to be equivalent to the electricity consumption of entire countries. Add to this an unimaginable amount of water to cool and process these technologies as well as their toxic byproducts and pollution and the environmental burden is beyond comprehension.

Meanwhile, Vermonters are being asked to pay more to use energy for basic necessities such as heat and transportation due to the GWSA, also hailed by Senator Baruth as groundbreaking. The GWSA is indeed breaking, economically breaking for Vermonters, a fact that is in direct conflict with its mandate to be cost effective.

Besides the absolute need for VT to move on from destructive and punitive climate policy, A fundamental question emerges. As a state, should Vermont at least limit these energy guzzling technologies of data centers, cloud storage, and AI? Currently the state is contracting upgrades for digital services that include these high energy demanding and expensive tools. Maybe the starting place should be to consciously limit the use of this environmentally devastating tech, a move which would reduce energy consumption, keep jobs within state and limit the financial burden on Vermont taxpayers instead of punishing and charging us more for keeping ourselves warm and driving to work. An honest and meaningful conversation on Earth Day would have been welcome, instead the usual suspects spewed more propaganda and ignored reality at the expense of Vermonters- again.

https://eanvt.org/2024-annual-report/

Dear Chair James and Respected Representatives of the Energy and Digital infrastructure committee.

Thank you all so much for your hard work and dedication to try and solve some of the problems VT faces at this time. I have attended many of your meetings this session and met most of you at this point. I have been closely watching the Affordable Heat Act legislation for years and I appreciate your efforts and conversations.

I especially appreciate the thoughtful conversation today prompted by Representative Sibilia regarding the economics of meeting the current GWSA mandates, supporting low and moderate income Vermonters and moving VT in the right direction. As this came up today during Duval’s testimony, it was refreshing to hear this honest conversation that hits at the heart of the struggle.

I wanted to add a few pieces for consideration if you don’t mind. I have now read all of Energy Action Network’s (EAN’s) reports through the years. I appreciate their work and passion, however as we all know data is malleable and often many factors, variables and realities are left out of the conclusions. This became apparent today with the helpful questions and points shared by members of your committee.

I have attached an analysis of EAN’s report that I had done for 2023. All of the information shared here still stands true today. I specifically focussed on the problem with per capita emissions measurements in VT as well as the work VT had done prior to ‘counting’- in that we were already way ahead of the other states which has made VT look like we are now trailing behind -when in fact we are a leader and states like Maine are scrambling to catch up and have made recent moves which launch them farther ahead when just considering the last several years.

https://vermontdailychronicle.com/public-not-welcome-but-lawmakers-are-vermont-energy-summit/

Jared also uses sector-based accounting versus consumption-based accounting which significantly alters his data presentation and makes Vermont look like a slacker when in fact we are anything but. The following article explains this difference in greater detail and how it is especially relevant in VT.

https://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/columnists/commentary-gorelick-cooking-the-climate-books/article_487f615c-a03a-11ee-a9b0-b7546bf37a4b.html

I hope you can please take these perspectives and clarifications into account as you develop your opinions and plan of action. It is also important to note that Jared represents the energy industry who are members of Energy Action Network. A significant portion of his members are in the Renewable energy industry and benefit from the GWSA and all of the legislation that is rooted in it such as the Affordable heat act. I am not sure if he is registered as a lobbyist (I do not think he is?) and I understand that his data may be useful and helpful but he still has a vested interest that should be noted.

As I discussed with Representaitve Sibilia today. A key question is of course -are emissions the best metric for progress? Over the last several years - since the GWSA- emissions reductions have sucked all the air out of the room and have cost Vermont taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts, lawyers, program design, modeling, data collection, new positions, and more.

Could we consider a Vermont specific metric that looks at actual real world improvements and shifts towards goals that help Vermonters and the environment? Meaning how many homes and buildings are being weatherized, how many installs are happening that have reduced costs and energy burdens for Vermonters etc. ANR and DPS are already tracking this and the numbers continue to increase.

This approach would allow money to be shifted towards actual progress instead of more reports, studies, models, program development, contracts etc which are holding up action and eating money. I implore you to consider this option so we can continue to make progress in this realm.

Of course this would require a shift in the GWSA from requirements to goals and/or a change in benchmarks and removing the provision allowing anyone to sue VT. However it would also facilitate actual progress made versus continued potential program development and all of its associated costs.

Regarding the money - PUC Chair McNamara offered some realistic alternatives today for raising funds to help escalate this transition. Increasing the fossil fuel tax has been presented by many through the years as a reasonable and effective option.

I have written extensively over the past several years about the known and unknown issues associated with the Affordable heat act. Here is another article that addresses concerns such as biofuels.

https://vtdigger.org/2023/04/11/alison-despathy-14-significant-reasons-s-5-would-be-destructive/

Thank you so much for your time and work.

Gratefully and Respectfully

Please keep in mind that I am an Independent, I am not bound to a party, agenda or 'leadership'. I simply want to see Vermont set on a right track for all who call Vermont home. At this time, the Democratic/Progressive supermajority is an absolute threat to Vermont, and hopefully more are waking up to this reality. After several years of regular attendance at the State House, I have shared many observations about my literal shock and sadness at how the supermajority is conducting business and placing Vermonters in harm's way.

Vermont Democratic Representative Jay Hooper recently shared in an interview with Vermont Daily Chronicle that,

“Fewer than ten people are making decisions.” in the Vermont State House.

This is a danger to democratic representation of the people by their elected officials. It has always been the case that many will do whatever it takes to retain a position and power even if it means compromising those they were elected to represent. Based on human nature and the whole of human history, I cannot imagine this fact will ever change. It is critical we elect representatives who will stand up for their constituents and buffer the constant attacks by those who attempt to use government for their own gain at the expense of the people. The manipulation is constant, the abuse is real, and it is the people who suffer.

The insane Clean Heat Standard (CHS) cost analysis has surfaced and as a result, many Democratic representatives are twisting their stories to assure their voting base that they only passed a study to assess the feasibility of this legislation. This has been apparent in local papers across the state as the supermajority attempts to defend their votes. However, this political manipulation is NOT true,

The supermajority representatives voted this CHS (a-k-a 'Affordable Heat Act') through the House with most not understanding the bill AND with NO study in place. Meaning as it left the House, its intention was enactment of this economy-crushing, special interest-favored, monopoly-building, expensive, fraudulent carbon credit scheme. Supermajority legislators repeatedly misrepresented this bill using the deceptive name 'Affordable Heat Act' and mocked Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, Julie Moore's, honest attempt to apply a number to the increased cost in heating fuel because no one in the House was taking this initiative.

Bottom line the legislators--the Democratic Supermajority to be precise--fell for this abusive special interest legislation. Blindly trusting leadership, following along with special interest wishes, and choosing not to represent and hear constituents is the real story behind this “Affordable Heat Act.”

As the most unprogressive of all the 'progressive' bills, this legislation forces small business closure and greatly contributes to the consolidation and monopolization of the thermal sector. Big Win for Big Business. There are already small fossil fuel dealers, serving their communities for generations who closed specifically because of the threat of this law. Consolidation and monopolization are big money corporate goals, and it is these larger entities that will be able to afford and actually thrive on this fraudulent carbon trading scheme paid for by Vermonters. Green Mountain Power, Vermont Gas Systems and large fossil fuel dealers all pushed for this legislation because it crushes their competition: the small Vermont businesses providing reliable heating services to Vermonters.

There is an old Hungarian saying which translates to “Big fish eat little fish.” This will always be the case. Larger companies and those on top will attempt to gather up resources, secure their foothold and implode the competition.

This monopolization of sectors is a common pattern, and it destroys small businesses and competition which are fundamental to maintaining quality services, products and affordability. We see this dangerous trend in all sectors including education, healthcare, insurance, farming etc., as larger entities work to centralize and position themselves as the only solution. Propaganda, marketing, skewed data, and fear tactics are all employed in their quest. Options, specifically local community options, are key for humanity and the people will continue to innovate to solve problems. Vermont needs legislators who will support this path and let the people do what they do best: create, improve, find solutions and serve their communities.

Democrats and Progressives are supposed to stand up for the people and the environment and fight corporate abuse. Isn't this what they proclaim to do? Here in Vermont, Democrats are enacting legislation that hurts the people and our environments that sustain us. The CHS is a special interest dream that feeds another manipulated commodity on the corporate market—Carbon. The most disturbingly ironic aspect of this legislation is the fact that it does not help the environment, and it economically hurts the people and businesses of Vermont which are at the base of affordability, stewardship, and the ability to thrive in today's world.

Further commodification of nature for profit potential is the current supermajority trajectory. This is evident in their legislative support of 'ecosystem services', the Global Warming Solutions Act, the Clean Heat Standard, and conservation through carbon credits which are opposed by grassroots Vermont conservation groups and small farmers who understand their predatory and destructive outcomes. These fuel the corporate, global carbon credit 'solution' which is fraudulent and continues to be taken advantage of by 'for profit--nonprofits' and special interests who have secured the Vermont supermajority's support.

This support appears to be based on ignorance as the supermajority are desperate for solutions and have fallen into the special interest trap to monopolize and financially burden Vermonters. Carbon markets bring zero benefit to the protection and stewardship of Vermont's natural resources, but they do create windfall profit streams for those who have positioned themselves to gain from this latest get rich quick scheme.

Full reliance on the grid for heat is not realistic or smart. Extreme weather events easily knockout these systems thus endangering lives, homes and businesses. Vermont homes need weatherization, integrated, diverse, efficient systems and a focus on actual energy independence versus further layers of dependency such as that offered by the grid. These programs are already in place and are making a difference.

After the floods hit the Northeast Kingdom, in my many conversations with those struggling, the recurring theme was that people needed petroleum products. This was the reality as they were vital to repairing and rebuilding communities, roads and homes. Machines, trucks, generators all required this still essential commodity. To think that we will eliminate these products at this time is delusional. Unnecessarily charging more for them only exacerbates the costs and hurts Vermonters.

Using carbon as a tradable commodity to provide faux solutions that can be measured for return on investments is the Global Warming Solutions Act reality. Carbon is the base element of all life, and the carbon credit rules allow for profit over the environment and people. Some believe a fair carbon credit market can be created but that is naive. This carbon game was built by global corporations, and the rules have been designed to serve these entities by mandating all are counting and tracking carbon. Industry funded, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and nonprofits are put in place to secure these mandates and laws. This allows those playing to receive their profit returns regardless of the actual impact on the environment and people who actually pay for this. The fact that Vermont's Democrats and Progressives do not understand this reality is deeply upsetting for many as they witness in real time the supermajority's move to lock Vermont into this abusive, expensive carbon game paid for by the people.

When this 'Affordable Heat Act”, hit the Senate, these glaring issues were identified by those few who understood this twisted legislation and its heavy collateral damage, and the Senate turned this into a 'study'. Granted they could have killed the bill, saved millions of dollars and much agony and instead increased the fossil fuel tax which any of the heating fuel dealers would have gladly accepted over the CHS nightmare. This would have easily achieved their desired revenue to help low-income Vermonters access 'clean energy'. But they didn't and now this approach is one recommendation the Public Utilities Commission has offered after attempting to design the CHS and finding it unworkable and unrealistic.

With big wig lobbyists using their endorsement power and funding to push for legislation that serves their interests over that of Vermonters, you can start to understand the problem with elected representatives not representing. This must be flipped this November. Supporting candidates who are willing to understand bills and their impacts and take action and hold strong against destructive legislation fueled by special interest will be key. It is even more difficult when the leadership has fallen for these 'solutions' and applies heavy pressure, shame and threats to party members to vote in lock step.

Bypassing endorsement and funding from special interests who will only come knocking for payback is best practice but rare as many seek approval from these powerful special interests such as: Vermont National Education Association, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), Renewable Energy Vermont (REV), and Planned Parenthood. These entities then expect full support on their favored legislation which continually compromises Vermonters and brings financial burdens. Ultimately this robs the people and limits their options as they work to afford living expenses, improve their situations, do what is best for their families and make decisions that align with their values and world views.

With your vote this year, please work to ensure that your candidates understand this polluted reality of the Vermont State House so that they may hold strong against party pressure and lobbyist influence and instead work to choose avenues that support Vermonters, our local economy and our precious natural resources and environment which we all care deeply about.

Scott Campbell's recent letter, Climate Costs published in the Caledonian Record, attempted to justify his voting record and call out those who raise legitimate concerns. It was filled with too much rhetoric to ignore. This is not personal, Scott Campbell is a kind man but he is politically insane and this brings harm. There is no place for zealotry in the statehouse, representatives represent and seek balance, they should not punish, penalize and sacrifice Vermonters and the environment.

Despite holding good intentions, the fact that Campbell believes he has the answer for everyone and that his industry sponsored, expensive version of a renewable energy 'utopia” should be forced on all Vermonters epitomizes his megalomania and extremism. This 'savior' omniscient mentality is indicative of a social engineer not a representative and it brings risk and destruction to Vermont. Bobby Farlice Rubio also falls into this category as reflected by his voting record.

Experimenting with people's livelihoods, financial situations, and personal choices is not the intention of government. Massive intrusion into people's homes, bank accounts and the economy and energy sector by the legislature is a step too far. Allowing industry free reign to push the limits, make the laws and experiment on Vermonters is even worse. With massive inflation, the decreasing value of the dollar due to rampant printing of new money and surging costs for living expenses, the last thing Vermonters need is increased financial burden for basic necessities implemented by their own elected officials.

Not sure if Campbell actually read Annette Smith's recent commentary but it was specifically about environmental impacts and land use NOT costs. Annette Smith, Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, has dedicated her life to the health of Vermonters and our environment. Smith clearly pointed out the problem with Vermont's supermajority obsession with carbon while our state's environment and natural resources are increasingly ignored and set to be preyed upon by developers and industry.

Millions of gallons of raw sewage regularly dump into our waters. Dealing with these issues is high priority yet this is ignored because the supermajority favors the renewable energy lobbyists' wishes and carbon obsession, while the actual Vermont environment is neglected and placed in harms' way. Supermajority laws set up the carbon markets and demand carbon taxes are put in place to serve corporate interests that have positioned themselves as the answer.

Climate change has claimed all the attention while water quality, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems are compromised in the name of 'saving the earth'. This demented irony is sadly lost on many legislators with tunnel vision who choose their favored industries and agendas over the people in Vermont who are working to live lightly and create healthy sustainable relationships with their environment.

Vermont will literally pay the price. But Vermonters are told it is just 'a little bit.' A little bit more for heating fuel and electricity, just a little bit from your paycheck, a bit more for DMV and health insurance costs, and utter upheaval for the energy sector which intersects with the entire economy.

Oh and a lot more for property taxes because the supermajority refuses to place cost containment in the education spending. And wait until next year with carbon taxes on gas and diesel and underhanded coercion to electric vehicles which many cannot afford, cannot use due to where they live or their work, the insurance costs are through the roof and we don't have the grid capacity or infrastructure to support this. But you will pay more anyway. More intrusion and overreach by legislators acting as overlords instead of representatives.

Don't forget the collateral damage of increased costs for all services and products due to these carbon taxes placed on businesses. Add it all together and you have a nightmare, created by our public servants. Yes, some may afford all of this just fine but most will struggle regardless of how hard they work. People should not be forced to move or seek assistance because of over-taxation, intrusive government, and poor, impulsive decisions made by our elected officials.

Smith's commentary also sheds light on the reality of fear mongering employed by Campbell and those who “know best” and ignore any research that questions the trajectory in order to justify their 'at all costs' mentality. “Crush Vermonters, who cares about the economic and environmental impacts or the global South and mass exploitation of people and resources to decarbonize Vermont, the country, the world. Ignore it, accept it, We will deal with that later. We must act, we must do this now, no matter the repercussions.” Impulsive, frenzied legislation is destructive for all involved. How much environmental, social and economic damage will accrue with this approach? A lot is the answer.

Historically empire is obvious, today it is well branded and cloaked in propaganda to manipulate people. When those in positions of power fall prey to this messaging and choose industry and party agendas over people and the environment, then we have a problem, a major problem. Campbell, Farlice Rubio and the supermajority have fallen and Vermont will continue to struggle until we move away from partisan politics and work together to support each other and our environment.

John McClaughry and Rob Roper are two highly experienced policy analysts. Their work to prevent government overreach is valuable and demands consideration, not disregard. Their arguments are valid, respecting their opinions is crucial for the future of Vermont and creating sound policy.

The supermajority legislators voting for increased costs and carbon taxes continue to ignore the limitations and risk of the electrification of Vermont. Renewable energy is intermittent and supplemental. It is weather dependent, a variable that is innately unreliable, it is exposed to the elements which immediately entails risk.

We must be realistic and cost conscious when determining the energy future of Vermont. ISO, New England, a not-for-profit independent system operator working to, ”Harness the power of competition and advanced technologies to reliably plan and operate the grid as the region transitions to clean energy.” offers helpful data on total grid loads, and solar and wind output.

For example, between January 23-January 28, there was practically zero solar and wind output due to no sun and no wind. It does not matter how much solar and wind comes on line, there will be many stretches like this especially in Vermont when it is common to have a small handful of sunny days through the winter. Careful attention to baseload power is a top priority

Widespread distribution of storage batteries holds cost projections ranging from billions to trillions of dollars. Batteries offer approximately 10 hours of backup and require minerals extracted through the exploitation of environments and people in order for wealthier countries to reach their 'net zero' goals. They often require apps to use thus more technology, more minerals, more power.

Follow the life cycle analysis of any renewable energy technology and you easily find the 'net zero' claim is completely false. These technologies are not only dependent on fossil fuel for their existence but also destroy ecosystems and human health as biofuels, minerals and resource demands increase and wind turbines and industrial solar arrays disrupt and invade precious natural spaces.

Mapping out a realistic plan and providing access is one thing, forcing 'clean energy' on Vermonters, especially when the tech and infrastructure are still in development is an abuse of government. We must have common sense when approaching energy policy and how renewable energy is incorporated into Vermont. This is a mere glimpse into the complexities of this conversation.

History repeats itself and most understand that corporate influence and predation on governments, media and minds in order to secure favorable laws and funding is commonplace, business as usual. Industries and investors spend tremendous money on public relations to influence opinion and shape behaviors. Books are written, documentaries paid for, a flood of ads funded and nonprofits put in place to push agendas.

So here we are again contending with mass abuse of people and earth in order for 'progress and technology' to save us. Same story, different technology and time This is not partisan, all parties, industries and ideologies take part in this approach. It is up to the people and our legislators to recognize the pattern in order to navigate a clear path.

My hope is that Scott Campbell, Bobby Farlice Rubio, and the supermajority wake up to the reality of their votes and stop falling for the lobbyist agendas that compromise Vermonters. Please stop spewing more rhetoric and false talking points. Vermonters deserve the truth and real representation.

On another note, many thanks to local Representatives Beck, Williams, Quimby, and Pearl and all of the Republican Representatives for their votes to uphold the Governor's vetoes. Thank you for seeing through the clouds of industry propaganda and voting for the people and environment of Vermont. Thank you for looking out for Vermonters, not experimenting on us and helping to ensure that we continue to have options that make sense for our unique situations as we work hard to make a living and afford to live in this state we love and call home.  

On the schedule for September 28th, at 9:20am is the unveiling of EAN's 2023 Annual Progress Report. This will be led by Jared Duval, Executive Director at EAN. A sampling of the report's Key Findings include:

Key Finding #1-“Vermont has a responsibility to do our part. Vermont has the second highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in all of New England behind only New Hampshire... Looking globally, Vermont's per capita climate pollution (about 14 tons of carbon equivalent, or CO2e) is more than twice as high as the global average and significantly higher than from residents of many other countries including China and India.”

After reading this, I suffered flashbacks to my biostatistics course and its required reading of the book, How to Lie With Statistics. Using per capita comparisons is deceptive and does not take into account differences in weather, industries, employment, baselines, total populations, rural versus urban living, energy infrastructure and heating needs in relation to other states and countries such as India and China.

Vermont has the lowest population of all of the New England states, significantly lower. If this is considered with EAN's charts and graphs, it is clearly evident that Vermont's GHG emissions are the lowest in New England and many other areas. As a hypothetical example of actual numbers, Massachusetts has an estimated population of 6.97 million which when factored with the report's noted 10.4 per capita GHG emissions for MA would bring their total GHG emissions to 72,488,000 metric tons of CO2. Compared to Vermont with an estimated population of 649,150 and a 14.1 per capita GHG emissions bringing Vermont's total GHG emissions to 9,153,015 metric tons of CO2. In their report, EAN states that “Vermont's emissions stood at 7.99 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020.” In 2019, the Boston Community of MA alone emitted 6.2 million metric tons of GHG.

With this perspective and significant difference, Vermont quickly and drastically moves to the bottom of the list regarding GHG emissions. This also doesn't include the fact that Vermont is 75% forested thus holding a natural and massive carbon sequestering sink. Also, many Vermonters are in right relationship with the environment and work hard to achieve sustainable living practices.

In the report, EAN states, “Vermont has made the least progress toward the Paris Climate Accord targets of any state in the region. That said, each state started from a different baseline presenting different opportunities for progress. For instance, a significant factor in Maine's emission decline has been reductions in high carbon fossil fuel use in their electricity sector. Vermont has less opportunity to achieve reductions in the same way, because our electricity portfolio was much less carbon intensive to begin with.”

In essence, Vermont was way ahead of the game to begin with, had already made significant impacts and shifts but sorry- these don't count. So, while Maine has surpassed the Paris Climate Accord targets, destructive burdens and unrealistic demands are placed on Vermonters by their elected officials who heed orders from a global entity not focused on Vermont's specific situation and unable to determine what would work best and is supportive to both the people and the environment of Vermont.

This entire scenario begs the question of whether GHG emissions are the best indicator of sustainability, progress and the health of humans and the environment. GHG emissions are merely a metric that can be utilized for politicized science and by those who intend to fundamentally alter energy policy regardless of collateral damage. GHG emissions offer no indication of the actual health of land, water, air or humans within an area. GHG reductions in Vermont bring no known meaningful impacts but can be measured, regulated, exchanged and traded in today's booming carbon and data markets. This is not a real solution and certainly does not serve Vermont.

EAN's Key Finding #5 states, “Vermonters with low incomes are disproportionately burdened by energy costs.”

However, it is not discussed that S.5 will lead to even greater energy costs for many who cannot take on the approved eligible measures for a wide variety of reasons. Some Vermonters simply do not want help from the state because they work hard and are fiercely independent, many currently use old sweaters, jeans, and newspapers to help insulate their homes, they harvest their own firewood and prioritize self-sufficiency. Continuing efforts in weatherization and efficiency are key and will actually make a difference in reducing energy burden and cost. When renewable energy products have shown their effectiveness, worth on the market and are affordable and not ethically compromised, people will jump on board. Adding to the already existing burden of energy costs by increasing the price for a basic necessity such as heating fuel is cruel and runs contrary to the deceptively named S.5 “Affordable” Heat Act.

Next up on the schedule at 10:50am is a Q and A Panel focused on Climate and Energy Leadership in Vermont, moderated by Gabrielle Stebbins, of the House Energy and Environment Committee and Co-Chair of the Climate Solutions Caucus. The panel itself will consist of:

Secretary of State- Sarah Copeland Hanzas and Lauren Hibbert

Attorney General Charity Clark

State Treasurer- Mike Pieciak

Lieutenant Governor- David Zuckerman

Senator Christopher Bray- Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy

Representative Sarah Coffey- Chair, House Transportation

Representative Amy Sheldon- Chair, House environment and Energy

Members of this panel are referred to as Vermont climate and energy leaders. They are elected public servants who have taken an oath to serve the people and ensure sound policy. Is it possible to be a climate leader and a public servant? Which priority will take precedent? Will the people be sacrificed as the climate leaders impulsively enact burdens and unrealistic and unknown costs on the people, as is the case with S.5 legislation. There is an inherent conflict here. This ethical dilemma compromises legislator’s agency and ability to independently assess and create legislation. Will they choose the people or destructive agendas as climate and energy leaders enmeshed in climate hysteria? What will they discuss and what impacts or policy ideas will develop here? People deserve to know, yet they won't.

Welcome to stakeholder capitalism where the public and private sectors join forces and the people are locked out, pay the price and lose their voice and representation. Of particular note is the participation of Sarah Coffey, Chair of House Transportation. With the Global Warming Solutions Act mandates, Vermont's transportation sector is next on the chopping block. Many Vermonters are deeply concerned that the transportation sector will be compromised in a similar fashion as the heating sector via S.5.

The next panel focuses on Funding Climate Action in Vermont. An awfully important question considering the fact that if enacted, S.5 will be funded by Vermonters, most of whom are struggling to pay basic expenses and survive rampant inflation.

US Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water development asked David Turk, the Department of Energy Deputy Secretary how much it will cost American taxpayers to make the US carbon neutral. Turk agreed this could cost trillions, even as much as $50 trillion dollars. Kennedy did not stop there, he then asked Turk, “If we spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the USA, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Turk did not have an answer because as the United Nations own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated,

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

The EAN report also notes the challenges with existing workforce shortages. With S.5, people will be paying more for heating fuel while they quite possibly wait years to have work done that may or may not work in their home or have any level of an impact on their heating fuel use.

Supportive measures such as continued weatherization and ensuring that those who want to take part have access to Inflation Reduction Act subsidies and supplemental funding via affordable loans would be the carrot approach. Instead, legislators have run with the stick approach of increased costs and limited options. Many will take a beating and feel the pain.

It seems Energy Action Network is facilitating fascism/corporatism. On a local level we are witnessing public private partnerships that circumvent a transparent public process and step away from representation of the people and civic engagement.

Vermonters deserve an honest public process regarding legislation and policy in Vermont. These meetings at Energy Action Network interfere and thwart the ability of the people to engage in this process. Accountability and transparency are non-existent in these public private partnerships developed via Energy Action Network. The people most affected by these decisions are kept out of the process. Instead of the legislators acting as independent agents, critically assessing industry driven agendas and proposals, they are fully embedded with the players, and all of this is happening out of the public's eye and behind closed doors.

There will always be agendas, industry driven campaigns and propaganda. Throughout time, the question will always remain the same- can a government created by and for the people remain true to its promise? Will the legislators represent their constituents even as top dollar public relations marketing campaigns driven by for-profit entities gain traction and take hold of the media and minds of the people. 

Lobbyists are paid beaucoup bucks to parrot this messaging and ensure their industry comes out on top, even at the expense of the people. When propaganda is embedded in culture and even our public servants fall prey to the pervasive narratives, will the people be represented? Will our legislators see through the smoke show and hold true in their service to the people? Do they have the capacity? This is the dilemma Vermont faces today. 

Yesterday, the Republican representatives carried through on their promise to represent the people and ensure that the voice of Vermont was heard. The Renewable Energy Standard (H.289) hit the House floor and deliberation carried on for hours. The Republicans mounted an impressive and comprehensive response to this dangerous, ineffective and cost burdensome bill. 

In sync with the Governor and the Department of Public Service (DPS), Vermonters should be proud of the Republicans for their efforts to shed light on the inconsistencies, significant financial burdens and failure of H.289 to achieve any meaningful goals. They demanded the truth and all was laid bare for the House to witness. 

Their efforts as a team were admirable, their research apparent and anyone with an ounce of common sense would heed their call and vote down H.289. Unfortunately our supermajority does not operate on common sense. Instead hypnotic buzz words, trigger phrases and pipe dreams are the order of the day and as a result Vermonters will be coerced to shoulder the cost of this impulsive--overly complex for no justifiable reason--Renewable Energy Standard 

Reporting for the House Committee on Environment and Energy, Representative Sibilia (I-Windham-2) kicked off the debate with her explanation of the RES and its perceived benefits. Interestingly, last year Sibilia was also the reporter for S.5, the Unaffordable Heat Act (Act 18). For both the RES and S.5, Sibilia noted these would not make a difference for climate change yet she wholeheartedly urged the legislative body to support them despite their negative economic impact on Vermonters. 

Both S.5 and the RES are lobbyist driven legislation that will greatly serve the environmental industry in Vermont and abroad. Vermonter's ability to afford Vermont continues to be hacked. Industry serving legislators are willing to literally make Vermonters pay for this forced “energy transition” which is neither affordable or reliable and requires Vermonters cough up more money to ‘save the planet’-- but not really. 

The supermajority calls it leadership when in reality it is theft by a core group of legislators who believe it is their right to command and control Vermont's economy and their constituents' money. They will choose the winners and the losers. They will make the rules and pretend it is equitable, just and inclusive. They have officially abandoned the people in their relentless desire to turn Vermont into a renewable energy playground, creating a test bed for compromised legislation that favors the environmental industry, negates the needs of the people and brings actual harm. 

Fortunately, the Republicans prioritized actual Vermonters NOT the environmental industry represented by fake environmental groups who pretend to care for the earth and use this to push their agenda. Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), Vermont Policy Interest Research Group (VPIRG), and Renewable Energy Vermont (REV) worked in unison with Green Mountain Power and Vermont Gas Systems to move H.289 forward. This was also the same team who pushed through the Unaffordable Heat Act. 

It should also be noted, in a classic 'Do as I say, Not as I Do Move', Peter Sterling of Renewable Energy of Vermont had a 'hot mic moment' during a Climate Council meeting where he revealed his ski trip to France. I am typically, “A live and let live person--try your best, don't hurt others and respect the differences.” However, when there is a lobbyist using the climate change narrative to push their agenda at the expense of the people by crying, “The sky is falling” chicken-little style, the hypocrisy must be identified. Do as you will but don't come back after flying to France to ski and then jump in to advocate for higher costs to Vermonters to stop climate change and 'save the planet.' Unbelievable really, yet this is commonplace for many Vermont environmental industry lobbyists who jet around the world yet demand hard working Vermonters pay more to 'do our part'. 

Like Amazon, Sterling could buy bogus carbon offsets from the Nature Conservancy to justify his trip This is big business for the Nature Conservancy as people consider leveraging their land to sell carbon credits in order to afford their taxes. Talk about a fraudulent carbon game but the market is booming as carbon trading is imposed on all of society in order to serve corporations and promote profitable agendas. Both the UNaffordable heat act and the Renewable Energy Standard feed this beast with Vermonters footing the bill. 

Representative Walker (R- Franklin-4) began the interrogation of Representative Sibilia and H.289. He did not hold back and took plenty of time to point out the major inconsistencies and cost concerns of this RES. From clarification of renewable energy and what counts here as well as the rigged game of renewable energy credits to claim renewable energy, Walker's list was thorough and struck at the heart of the RES problem. Representative Sibilia had to take multiple breaks to check her facts during his questioning and for anyone actually listening, the problems with this bill were clear. 

Deliberation continued full bore from the Republicans. Representative Galfetti (R- Washington-Orange) drove home the fact that ratepayers would be demanded to carry the cost of the Renewable Energy Credits as utilities seek to create a renewable energy portfolio on paper versus reality due to the demands of the RES.

Representative Higley (R- Orleans- Lamoille) emphasized the cumulative costs and resulting financial stress that already struggling Vermonters are up against due to this proposed RES, Act 18 (the UNafforable heat act), the payroll tax, increased property taxes and living expenses. Rightly so, he expressed real concerns for his rural constituents. 

Representative Donahue (R-Washington -1) used the current Joint Fiscal note to explain the proposed cost impact on Vermont households. Representative Labor (R- Essex-Orleans) demanded clarification of the net metering situation. Representative McCoy (R- Rutland-1) discussed the options presented by the Department of Public Service and the irresponsible lack of cost analysis by all three House committees that the RES passed through. Both Representative Goslant (R- Washington-1) and Representative Williams (R-Essex-Caledonia) spoke in opposition to this bill on behalf of their constituents and the unrealistic cost burden. 

Vermont has a common sense base of Republicans asking the right questions and ensuring that these 'emperor has no clothes bills' like the RES are fully visible for all to see. It often takes a bit for people to realize they are being hoodwinked by those who wish to profit off of them. This is that moment and the Republicans worked hard to shine a light on this reality of the supermajority's Renewable Energy Standard. Despite their best efforts, H.289 passed the House.  

Similar to Act 18 (Unaffordable Heat Act) with its increased cost of heating fuels, the RES will undoubtedly result in massive collateral damage as costs of services, products, basic expenses, rentals, and housing will all increase due to increased electric rates. The ripple effect will be profound and is yet one more layer on the 'Vermonters will pay more cake' that the supermajority is serving up. Hopefully Vermonters will see through this charade.

The need for independent spirit, representation and bravery

17. The statehouse is in a constant battle between special interests and lobbyists paid well to fight hard for their agenda VERSUS the people, environment and natural resources of Vermont. Vermonters are struggling for a voice as the supermajority of ELECTED legislators choose special interests versus representation of their constituents. 

18. Special interests are the predators and Vermonters and Vermont's environment and natural resources are the prey. Without legislators in the statehouse working as a line of defense and serving the people, we will continue to be taken advantage of by these predators. More fees, taxes, reduced options, and a form of local protectionism in which certain industries are heavily favored will intensify and harm the people and economy. We are way past overreach, and we must draw a line.

19. Every day the legislators and lobbyists go to work together at the statehouse. There are no clear boundaries. Many are friends, they move in the same circles, work in the same place or industry. They hold history and relationships outside of the statehouse. When you are day in and day out with another human- connecting, sharing time and space there is bound to be a relationship that develops. How do lobbyists manipulate this relationship? Does this bond override the trust and promise between a legislator and their constituents? Does it make it easier to believe that lobbyists have Vermont as a priority versus their agenda or employers? Is it easy to ignore actual Vermonters when they are not coordinated and funded to be in the statehouse every day. This is the job of the representatives and if this past session tells us anything, it is that the supermajority is failing. 

20. It is also quite common to see conflict of interest and ethics issues arise. For example, Representatives Dara Torre (D) and Gabrielle Stebbins (D) both sit on the House Committee for Environment and Energy. Torre is Program Coordinator of the Regulatory Assistance Project with Richard Cowart, the primary architect of S.5- the Unaffordable Heat Act. Stebbins is a Managing Consultant at the Energy Futures Group “committed to transforming our energy system” and she was also involved in the Clean Heat Working Group, responsible for writing S.5 legislation. It does not appear that these conflicts of interest were transparently discussed during the committee sessions regarding S.5. Both Torre and Stebbins voted Yes on S.5 in committee. There are also numerous legislators who directly benefit from the passage of S.5: Representatives Mike McCarthy (D), Kari Dolan (D), and Caleb Elder (D) are three examples. There is clearly vested interest for both lobbyists and legislators in the passing of S.5. 

21. Legislators must remember who they work for and not usher in destructive legislation. They must understand the struggles and work to ensure Vermonters have options to decide what is best for themselves and their families. Historically, when a reigning party gains too much control, is swamped by special interests and does not recognize their overreach, the people must help swing the pendulum back to center. Does the supermajority realize that they are throwing Vermonters under the bus with their votes? The financial burdens, unconstitutional legislation and the limitations placed on the people of Vermont this past session are devastating. If legislators who have fallen for special interest agendas cloaked in propaganda cannot open their eyes and represent, if balance is not restored, Vermont will continue to suffer. 

22. Overall, the most important lesson I learned from my time spent at the statehouse this past session is that there actually is a machine in place. Special interests including industries, institutions, professions and causes are intensely vying for attention and funding. There is a constant struggle for opportunity to utilize the government and legislation to exert a favored action. 

23. Many lobbyists and activists are attempting to strike the right balance and protect their professions, fight for worthy causes, and ensure revenue for industry and institutions. However, others abuse the system and try to exert control and create situations in which their industry or agenda alone can thrive and dominate. S.5 is a prime example of this situation. The people squashed, certain industries greatly favored, no beneficial impact yet increased costs and a real risk for Vermonters. S.5 is a punch to the Vermont people and businesses. What makes S.5 an even greater insult and slap in the face is the fact that it hides behind a lie promising social and environmental justice. 

24. Whomever has the ear of the leadership and thus the supermajority determines action. Special interests and lobbyists are doing exactly what they are paid to do and if we do not have legislators recognize this situation, choose representation of Vermonters and ensure right direction then Vermont will continue to be taken advantage of and abused. At this time, it seems most of the supermajority has been gobbled up by the machine itself versus keeping an eye, protecting the people and making sure Vermont stands on solid ground now and into the future. 

Bottom line- We need statesmen not politicians. In his book, Are We Good Enough for Liberty, Lawrence Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education, states, 

“Within government, character is what separates a politician from a statesman. Statesmen don't seek public office for personal gain or attention. They often are people who take time out from productive careers to temporarily serve the public. They don't have to work for government because that's all they know how to do. They stand for a principled vision, not what they think citizens will fall for. When a statesman gets elected, he doesn't forget the public-spirited citizens who sent him to office, becoming a mouthpiece for the permanent bureaucracy or some special interest that greased his campaign. 

Because they seek truth, statesmen are more likely to do what is right than what may be politically popular at the moment. You know where they stand, because they say what they mean, and they mean what they say. They do not engage in class warfare, race-baiting, or other divisive or partisan tactics that pull people apart. They do not buy votes with tax dollars. They don't make promises they can't keep or intend to break. They take responsibility for their actions. A statesman doesn't try to pull himself up by dragging somebody else down, and he doesn't try to convince people that their victims so he can posture as their savior.

When it comes to managing public finances, statesmen prioritize. They don't behave as though government deserves an endlessly larger share of other people's money. They exhibit the courage to cut less important expenses to make way for more pressing ones. They don't try to build empires. Instead, they keep government within its proper bounds and trust in what free and enterprising people can accomplish. Politicians think that they're smart enough to plan other people's lives; statesmen are wise enough to understand what utter folly such arrogant attitudes really are. Statesmen in other words, possess a level of character that an ordinary politician does not.”

Echo Chambers, Social Engineering and Legal Plunder

9. The polarization and imbalance in the statehouse are severely problematic. Necessary debate and conversation are desperately lacking. Many go through motions in committee because the supermajority has the numbers, and a high percentage will vote lockstep party line regardless of their constituents wants and needs. Maybe a little tweak here or there to a bill but movement is essentially guaranteed. The steamroll over Vermonters is in full effect. 

10. Many are well aware of the situation we face in Vermont. The statehouse is currently an echo chamber greatly suffering from a lack of thought diversity, critical thinking and independent spirit. Legislators outside of the ruling party are trying hard to hold the line and protect Vermonters from the dangerous wave of the supermajority but without the numbers, it is futile. 

11. Hands down, the Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Government Operations were the worst echo chambers. No real debate or research came through here. Senate Natural Resources was 100% Democrats, the only real thinking came from those testifying in committee which was easily shut down and ignored. I hold sympathy for Senator Robert Norris(R) in the Senate Committee on Government Operations surrounded by Senators Ruth Hardy, Becca White, Tanya Vyhovsky, Alison Clarkson and Anne Watson. A group think committee if I ever saw one. These were difficult committee rooms to visit, I had to bite my tongue often. Pulitzer Prize Winner Walter Lippmann's quote often surfaced in my mind while in these committees, “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” 

12. Some legislators would run from me when I attempted respectful debate or offered alternative ideas. Minds were made up; pressure was on, and actual processing was nil. I am not sure what happened to collaboration, open minds and good old-fashioned arguing. Politics is organized arguing and without real debate, we will not get there. How dare anyone question the plan or attempt to offer another avenue. I was a wrench in the gears, and many did not want to slow down the machine. They were making “progress.” The supermajority collective hive mind brings harm. Can these legislators think and act independently? Can they create legislation that serves instead of burdens and infringes?

13. A high percentage of the supermajority “big bills” emphasized restrictions and a loss of options. For example, school options were severely blocked by a bill intended to eliminate public funding for the majority of private and independent schools. This was softened due to a successful counter campaign; however, issues and limitations still exist. Senator Ruth Hardy told me they were working to eliminate discrimination in schools. Essentially this bill used the excuse of preventing discrimination to invoke its justification of cutting funding to schools outside the public school system. Monopolized education by the public school system does not serve the children of Vermont. Again, we have lobbyist legislation working to secure their special interests at the expense of Vermonters.

14. Additional roadblocks and limitations came in the form of restricting options for heating systems, childcare and pregnancy care. More are on the way for transportation, building, and fuel. To think that there is a one size fits all answer for Vermonters is naive and tyrannical. This mentality reflects a myopic move by social engineers who believe they hold the answers and should make decisions for everyone. Access and education are the key, not coercion and limitations. We are not robots to be trained up by the supermajority or poked and prodded down the path the legislators determine is best. People can make their own decisions.

15. Many Legislators rely on lobbyists and special interest groups to write legislation. Many legislators are dependent on the lobbyists 'solving' the problems and doing legislators' work. Will this special interest generated legislation hold the people and state of Vermont at the forefront? Of course not. Many times, legislators will support these bills crafted by special interests when they are dressed up in faux environmental or social justice language or messaging- Affordable Heat Act, Childcare for All, Suicide Prevention. These bills are wolves in sheep's clothing. 

16. The payroll tax (Act 76) for childcare is in a class of its own. Besides the S.5 invasion into your home and wallet, one of the most egregious moves by the supermajority, Act 76 determines how we spend our hard-earned money beyond the taxes already paid. This attempt at a redistribution of wealth is wrong and doesn't work when most in Vermont do not have wealth. There are options for those struggling to afford childcare. This burden to Vermont citizens and businesses will be hard felt as many struggle to pay loans from covid lockdowns, flooding, increased expenses and inflation. How many businesses will close due to this added expense? 

17. This payroll tax should tell Vermonters all they need to know about the supermajority- they believe they can spend your money best. It doesn't matter if you are trying to save for retirement, pay healthcare bills, cover groceries, or do not have children. Money will be taken from you, but it's only 'a little bit'. It does not matter how worthy the cause, Act 76 shelters its theft behind social justice. There is a phrase for this form of taxation, it is called legal plunder as best explained by Fredric Bastiat in his book The Law. 

    Out of control is the best way to describe this past legislative session. Already two laws have been contested as unconstitutional- Act 45 and Act 15. With the supermajority in place, many Vermonters are actually afraid when the legislative session begins. What will they do next? How many more fees, taxes and price increases will be implemented? Will Vermonters be able to continue to afford to live in Vermont? How will businesses take a hit? Vermonters should not suffer anxiety attacks when the session begins. Elected legislators are there to serve the people so why do so many Vermonters feel attacked, ambushed and abused during the legislative session. 

ReplyReply allForward

Observations From the Statehouse – Part 1 -

Party Pressure, Propaganda and Emerge

I am the oldest of four girls. My Dad always said he could teach women studies better than anyone, he's probably right. He had three lines he would repeatedly use with my sisters and I. “Have fun, nothing stupid”, “Shape up or ship out” and then when we really tested him, it was “Try that again and you'll be on the outside looking in”.  Maybe it was fate because this last line sums up my experience at the statehouse this past session. I am not a legislator or a paid lobbyist --I was definitely on the outside looking in.

As a concerned citizen of Vermont, mother of three children and new grandmother who cares deeply for people and the future of Vermont, I decided I was going to visit the statehouse weekly; Check out the scene, attempt conversations and see how the “sausage was made” so to speak. I share my humble experience and observations here with the hope that for those Vermonters not paying attention, please wake up, it's time, Vermont needs you. 

1. The statehouse is a microcosm, a little planet with a big impact. Every decision has tremendous influence on the lives of Vermonters. We know this, we feel it and see it. Literally, it is a 'make it or break it' situation. Every day is intense and dramatic due to the nature of the work. Some take it seriously and put in the time and energy, others are along for the ride, and some simply have no idea. Multiple conversations revealed that I understood some bills up for vote better than some legislators. This is a problem.

2. With a supermajority in place, many Democratic legislators stated that if a bill made it through committee, then they trusted it was solid. What if members in the committee do not understand the bills? S.5 was a prime example, many legislators cannot explain this bill. In Senate Natural Resources, Senators McCormick and MacDonald often voiced confusion without resolution. I attended a zoom call with three legislators, Rep. Bobby Farlice-Rubio (D), Rep. Monique Priestly (D), and Rep. Carl Demrow (D). Due to the convoluted and controversial nature of the bill, they had lobbyists in full support of this bill briefly explain and answer questions from their constituents. Talk about a biased conversation. I attempted to contribute but was shut down. 

3. As legislators it is their job to understand both the intention AND details of the bill. It cannot simply be a matter of catchy sound bytes. To not hold a clear picture of the impacts on constituents is a disservice. If you don't do details, you shouldn't be there. This coupled with party line voting and massive propaganda campaigns is why this past session was exceptionally destructive. 

4. When you have been intensely pressured by supermajority leadership to vote a certain way, what will you do? Can you stand up to party pressure? Lobbyists aggressively work the legislators day in and day out, often marketing their agendas behind a false narrative of preventing discrimination or achieving environmental or social justice 'solutions'. Can legislators identify special interest propaganda and remember they serve their constituents? 

5. Regarding S.5, thousands of constituents reached out to their legislators in opposition and were ignored. They were told “They don't understand” or “The fossil fuel dealers are lying”. They were given the “Trust me I know what I am doing” line. Senator Ruth Hardy showed me a massive stack of messages left with the Sergeant at Arms from her constituents urging a No vote on S.5. This was on top of hundreds of emails, yet she still voted yes on S.5, along with over one hundred Democrats and Progressives. Do that many legislators really think that S.5 is a good idea? How many letters would it actually take for legislators to listen to and respect their constituents? Vermont is losing representative government due to a super majority of drones who are now blatantly ignoring their constituents and falling prey to special interests.

6. Behaviors differed greatly between the Democratic supermajority and the Republican, Independent and Libertarian legislators. All legislators care for their constituents, they are public servants, but on the whole it was the Republicans and the lone Libertarian, Jarrod Sammis who regularly acted on this concern. Their questions, floor speeches and attempted amendments were geared at protections of Vermonters' livelihoods and constitutional rights and supporting economic viability and access to a wide variety of options to serve all Vermonters. 

7. Most Democrats fell in lockstep party line with their votes thus failing to represent the people and bringing harm to Vermonters. There were several noteworthy exceptions to this pattern. Rep. Joseph Andriano had the strength to buck party line voting multiple times in service to his constituents when voting No for S.5 and Act 45. Senator Starr and Rep. Jed Lipsky also chose their constituents in their S.5 No vote. In the House Committee on Environment and Energy, Rep. Christi Morris asked key questions on the S.5 funding structure and economic impacts. With no clear answers offered, he voted No on S.5. Representative Dennis Labounty held steady on his S.5 No vote despite intense pressure from leadership and lobbyists. Senator Kitchel took action in the Senate Appropriation committee to move S.5 to a study. This offered some time and scrutiny but sadly didn't kill the bill with its guaranteed outcome to increase heating fuel costs, waste taxpayer money and interfere with home heating options. There are a handful of Democrats who voted for their constituents and conscience over the Democratic party demands. There are just not enough.

8. Why is there an intensely coordinated voting pattern in the supermajority? In part it is pressure from majority leadership and special interest propaganda but then I learned about Emerge. Former Governor Madeleine Kunin began this program with intentions to help support women in politics. However, it appears to have devolved into a Democratic party indoctrination camp with candidates trained in group think and cookie cutter campaign messaging and talking points. They join a party tribe while their constituents suffer. Emerge graduates are heavily focused on environmental and social justice causes. Real answers to these issues we face are critical. Special interest versions run rampant in the statehouse and many, really all Emerge graduates latch onto these fake and destructive solutions. A sampling of Emerge graduates includes: Senator Becca White, Representative Gabrielle Stebbins, Attorney General Charity Clark, Senator Martine Gulick, and US Senator Becca Balint. For anyone tuned in; enough said, I think this list speaks for itself. Mono-cropped thought is dangerous and prone to exploitation by predators. This is currently part of the problem in the statehouse. 

Recognizing that no party is immune to special interest propaganda is key. Right now, the Democrats are in deep and don't even realize it. Instead, many believe they are actually achieving environmental and social justice. This is delusional. They have fallen for industry driven agendas and will literally make the people pay. Party line voting is void of representation and holds loyalty to a party versus the people. It chooses agendas over constructive ideas, ideology over service, and sacrifice over solutions. At this time, it is ironic and hypocritical to hear the Democratic party scream about holding onto democracy, yet right here in Vermont the Democratic supermajority has stepped away from the representative aspect of our constitutional republic, fallen for propaganda campaigns and chosen special interests over Vermonters. 

For months, opposition to masking was voiced at school board meetings. Many shared evidence of known harms related to masks including compromised gas exchange and body systems, especially those directly responsible for regulating oxygen levels such as the cardiovascular, respiratory, and nervous systems. Masks trigger the stress response due to reduced oxygen and the demand for increased and stronger inhalations regulated by the central nervous system. The impacts of chronic masking in children and the long-term effects are unknown yet neurologists warn of harms due to reduced oxygen intake, especially in children. It is unethical to perform these types of studies on children, yet schools across America have participated in this experimentation.

It was shared multiple times that masks are not approved medical devices for infection control. Masks only hold an Emergency Use Authorization due to the lack of evidence supporting safe or effective use of masks for this purpose. Offering a false sense of security and a pretense of taking action does not justify this policy. Children were placed at risk and experienced compromised learning with the mask mandate at Newark Street School last year. They missed school due to mask issues and struggled with skin rashes and headaches. Alternatives to support all students were presented and ignored. This is a dangerous and unethical precedent.

Recently, Newark families received the following message in their Back-to-School Newsletter

“I first want to thank all of you for masking as required for the past several years. I can't begin to explain how appreciative and meaningful your effort as a community has been. The overwhelming majority of this community masked without complaints and without questions. Many of you did this with compassion and without having comprehension of why. Compassion without comprehension might be one of the strongest mindsets of humanity. And so many of you found your way to that place. I am in awe of those who did.

“You don't need to comprehend in order to have compassion.” ALOK

“With that said, I would like to share with you that the Newark Street School will not be requiring masks to start the school year. We will remain a mask friendly environment, but not required.”

It is great news for the sake of the children that there will be no masking this year. However, this recent message is a gross manipulation of people and their innate goodness. It is this mentality of 'compassion without comprehension' that results in the abuses of people by those in positions of power who demand full compliance without question.

Can you imagine your child masked in school all day long for years? This is unethical and cruel. This message from the Newark School shames and silently berates concerned parents for questioning the mask policy. It expresses gratitude to those who didn't ask questions or demand evidence of safety or efficacy. This response encourages obedience at all costs even when it relates to the safety and welfare of your children.

 It is a parent's duty to protect their children. Demanding answers and caring enough to be engaged and informed is both responsible and compassionate.  The strongest mindset of humanity is critical thinking and the ability to speak up and take action when necessary.  To ignore injustice and abuse is criminal, to play along destroys character.        

ReplyForward

Is it Stockholm syndrome? Maybe a burning need for a solution even if it’s false?  How many times can a federal regulating agency claim, “safe and effective” and be wrong yet still hold faith with followers? Is it a three strikes out rule?  If that is the case the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have been gone eons ago. 

A read through chapter 14 of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair grotesquely demonstrated the original need and intention for the FDA at that time. Corporate abuses were unrestrained and unchecked. The need for some level of regulation to ensure consumer safety, human rights and worker protections was demanded. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed after President Teddy Roosevelt read The Jungle, investigated the situation and worked with Dr. Harvey Wiley--Head of the Bureau of Chemistry- most well-known for his Poison Squad experiments. 

However, soon after its inception, the FDA became impotent in its mission. On average annually, 45% of the FDA funding comes from the industry it is intended to regulate. Controversial revolving door policies are standard practice--from FDA Commissioner Michael Taylor to Scott Gottlieb-- the revolving door issue is alive and well. Several US Senators tried to change this policy after Pfizer hired Scott Gottlieb less than 90 days after leaving the FDA. Gottlieb was responsible for weakening regulatory procedures in favor of industry and holds strong ties to Big Pharma. 

There have been multiple Congressional reports about the money paid by industry to the scientists who staff these agencies. Yet- no action or recourse has developed. 

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson led to the creation of the EPA in 1970 after her book brought to light the dangers of DDT and lead and arsenic sprays used for insect control. More corporate abuse and experimentation marketed as safe and effective—“DDT is good for me-e-e!” was the promo or more accurately the propaganda. Linda Fisher is probably the most egregious when it comes to the EPA revolving door. From PCBs to PFAS (forever chemicals), fluoride, glyphosate, paraquat, chlorpyrifos- Who do these regulating agencies actually work for and why after continual abuse, blatant corruption and experimentation is there still a high level of blind faith and trust in these agencies who have failed the American Public repeatedly for decades.

What toxic compounds will the next lawsuit take on since the federal regulating agencies are failing miserably? There are three bills in the Vermont Statehouse that would regulate PFAS and there will most likely be a lawsuit down the road. My money is on statin medication. It will take decades, but I bet will happen at some point. Thank goodness US Health authorities were not successful in their push to add statins to the water supply. 

There is currently a federal lawsuit against the EPA after their refusal to take action on a citizen petition to remove fluoride from drinking water. For decades, activists have tried to have fluoride removed from the water supply.  Finally, the federal courts are listening as a large body of research demonstrates lowered IQ due to prenatal and early life fluoride exposures. 

The chemical industry is an incestuous crew that has undergone antitrust lawsuits and holds ties to Hitler and chemical warfare. In 2018, Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 million. The name Monsanto is infamous and makes many shutter due to their heinous track record of toxins: aspartame, glyphosate, genetically modified food, dioxins, Agent Orange and DDT.  Monsanto needed to rebrand desperately after the bad press and lawsuits. Who other than their historical partner in crime Bayer to take them under their wing. 

Bayer and Monsanto have been business partners before. In 1954, they had a joint venture known as MOBAY.  Agent Orange ingredients were one of the many chemicals created and produced through MOBAY.  In 1967, this partnership was forced to separate due to antitrust violations; apparently that does not matter anymore. Bayer AG was part of Hitler's IG Farben conglomerate. Nazi war criminals held leadership and board positions at Bayer.  Monsanto shielded the German Bayer company when the Allies won WWII and now Bayer offers Monsanto refuge and a new name to go undercover and heal their wounds, all the while continuing to create toxic chemicals. 

It was Stefan Oelrick, the President of Bayer's Pharmaceutical division, who announced at the World Health Summit in Berlin in 2021, “mRNA vaccines are an example of that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say if we had surveyed two years ago in the public would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate.” 

But as the pattern goes- Instill fear, slap an intensely controversial, ethically questionable, high risk and ultimately meaningless FDA approval on these “safe and effective”, experimental, gene therapy drugs, combine with propaganda and a massive marketing campaign vastly accelerated via internet and social media, and voila you have a recipe for disaster. Swine flu vaccine roll out on steroids. 

This resulted in a high majority of institutions justifying covid injection mandates thus creating widespread experimentation on the people including our youth. Keeping in mind due to both the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the PREP Act that Big Pharma cannot be held liable for any damages, death or negligence related to these vaccines. They are fully protected - no market forces, no accountability, no incentive to make safe and effective products in this case. The ultimate guaranteed profit stream. And this was relentlessly forced onto the people— speechless. 

We need regulating agencies to actually do their job and not give corporations and industry a free pass to experiment on people and the earth. And then after making billions say- oops we are so sorry- we didn't know that this new chemical causes cancer, strokes, heart attacks, Parkinson's, and contaminates water or kills pollinators or birds. Holding our regulating agencies accountable in their duty to protect people and the environment must be a top priority.  Sadly and honestly, I question the reality of this goal based on existing corruption and the fact that for so many - money talks. 

In 2022, Vermont successfully litigated an opioid lawsuit and will receive over $100 million. Back in 2018, a lawsuit against tobacco companies brought in $59 million to VT.  Attorney General Clark will most likely be successful in her mission to sue Monsanto over PCBs due to the legal precedent set by Oregon. No doubt this will bring money to help rectify the situation in Vermont schools and who would say no to money from uber-wealthy, destructive corporations. However, aside from the money, real resolution would be to dissolve the corrupt and captured federal regulating agencies and attempt to build a trustworthy entity focused on actual oversight of toxic compounds and protection of the people and the earth from corporate abuse. Breaking this vicious cycle is the real issue and until this is resolved, humans and the earth will continue to withstand rampant abuse by corporations and industry whose heartless bottom line is plain and simple- profit over people any day. We are mere expendable commodities, and it should not take lawsuits to force the federal regulating agencies to do their job. 

On July 7, Vermont's Attorney General Charity Clark explained why she is suing Monsanto and holding them accountable for the manufacture and sale of highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which contaminate the water, wildlife, schools and people of Vermont. If successful, Vermont will join rank with the state of Oregon who received a historic $698 million settlement from Monsanto in December 2022 to resolve their PCB contamination issue.

No doubt a win would help Vermont access funds to remediate the problem but is this action enough? The deeper issue lies in the fact that global corporations and industry have been poisoning people and the earth for centuries. Most disturbing is that this abusive situation is not a rare event; this is a pattern, a vicious cycle of experimentation on the earth and humans that has led to the death and injury of millions. It is more than apparent that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as federal regulating agencies have NOT successfully fulfilled their mission of protecting the people and the environment from corporate abuse and toxic products. For decades, the American people have borne the brunt from their abysmal failure.

Sadly, there are many examples. I have taught in the Vermont State College Systems and have had a nutrition practice for almost 25 years, and I have tried desperately through this entire time to spread the word about artificial trans fats and their connection with heart disease—the number one killer in the US. Artificial trans fats, also known as hydrogenated oils, were prevalent in margarine, processed food and fast food. A CDC briefing from 2019 states “Every year, more than half a million deaths from coronary artery disease worldwide may be attributable to high intakes of trans fatty acids.” 

I have painfully watched people continue to eat artificial trans fats because the FDA failed for over 100 years to do the right thing. Why were they ever approved in the first place is the real question. One of my favorite scientists- Dr. Kummerow literally worked for 60 years to ban artificial trans fats. He had all the evidence, tried all the routes and was ignored. Finally in 2013, he sued the FDA. Three months later the FDA announced that due to an inability to ensure the safety of artificial trans-fat, steps would be taken over several years to remove them from the food supply. So, Crisco- a tub of artificial trans-fat hit the market for the first time in 1911 and it literally took over a century—despite tremendous evidence-- for the FDA to take action and do their job of protecting the food supply and consumers. This is beyond destructive.

Our federal regulatory agencies have been under corporate capture for decades. They have failed miserably and as a consequence, humans and the earth have suffered immeasurably. 

In order for humans and the earth to be protected from corporate abuse, we need functional and trustworthy regulating agencies which we do NOT have. The only level of defense is an informed, educated populace to try and avoid abuse and ensure that industry and the blind drive for profit does not run rampant at the expense of humans and the earth. Literally millions of Americans have been killed and maimed from toxic products that have hit the market due to highly compromised regulatory policies and procedures- Vioxx, Opioids, mercury and aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, diethylstilbestrol (DES), Paraquat, Chlorpyrifos, Glyphosate--the pattern is entrenched, the list is endless, and the damage is massive. Breaking this vicious cycle and establishing sound policy will be critical to the health of humanity and the earth. It should not take decades of abuse, death, injury and finally lawsuits to ban toxic products--yet this is the current paradigm. 

There is essentially an open-door policy within the FDA and EPA that exists for new products. An “innocent until proven guilty approach” -- which is guaranteed and constitutional for people accused of a crime-- but absolutely should not be the case for new, experimental, patented chemicals released into humans and the environment. Instead of independent proof of product safety, the federal regulating agency policy at this time is “we trust the safety studies from industry” and then when the damage ensues, it shifts to “prove they are unsafe and maybe if you sue us, we will ban them”. 

Excuses and delays used by regulating agencies and industry rely on the continuous call for more research and evidence to prove harm. This goes on for decades while damage accrues and then finally the lawsuits are filed which is a painstakingly slow process to force action. 

Just this past week in typical fashion, the World Health Organization announced that the artificial sweetener aspartame is a possible carcinogen, “while safety is not a major concern at the doses which are commonly used, potential side effects have been described that need to be investigated by more and better studies.”  Yet decades ago, Mike Wallace, reporting for 60 Minutes, discussed the risks of aspartame and brain cancer, the revolving door issues within the FDA and the realities of manipulated, industry-sponsored research-- all of which fully warrant the removal of aspartame from the food supply. I have shown this video to my students for years, it is a prime example of the fundamental issues within the regulating agencies. 

_______________________________________________________________

The FDA began with a solid intention and need. All one has to do is read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to realize the abuses that were happening within industries and thus the need for regulation to ensure consumer safety, human rights and worker protections. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed after President Teddy Roosevelt read The Jungle, investigated the situation and worked with Dr. Harvey Wiley--Head of the Bureau of Chemistry- most well-known for his Poison Squad experiments. 

Soon after its inception, the FDA became impotent in its mission. On average annually, 45% of the FDA funding comes from the industry it is intended to regulate. Controversial revolving door policies are standard practice--from FDA Commissioner Michael Taylor to Scott Gottlieb-- the revolving door issue is alive and well. US Senators tried to change this policy after Pfizer hired Scott Gottlieb less than 90 days after leaving the FDA. Gottlieb was responsible for weakening regulatory procedures in favor of industry and holds strong ties to Big Pharma. 

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson clearly illustrates the need for the EPA which was created in 1970 after her book brought to light the dangers of DDT and lead and arsenic sprays used for insect control. Linda Fisher is probably the most egregious when it comes to the EPA revolving door. From PCBs to PFAS (forever chemicals), fluoride, glyphosate, paraquat, chlorpyrifos- Who do these regulating agencies actually work for and why after continual abuse and experimentation is there still a high level of blind faith and trust in these agencies who have failed the American Public repeatedly for decades.

What toxic compounds will the next lawsuit take on since the federal regulating agencies are failing miserably? There are three bills in the Vermont Statehouse that would regulate PFAS and there will most likely be a lawsuit down the road. There is currently a federal lawsuit against the EPA, after their refusal to take action on a citizen petition to remove fluoride from drinking water. For decades, activists have tried to have fluoride removed from the water supply and now the federal courts are listening as a large body of research demonstrates lower IQ due to prenatal and early life fluoride exposures. 

The chemical industry is an incestuous crew, and many have undergone antitrust lawsuits and hold ties to Hitler and chemical warfare. In 2018, Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 million. The name Monsanto is infamous and makes many shutter due to their heinous track record of toxins: aspartame, glyphosate, genetically modified food, dioxins, Agent Orange and DDT. Monsanto needed to rebrand desperately after the bad press and lawsuits. Who other than their historical partner in crime Bayer to take them under their wing. 

Bayer and Monsanto have been business partners before. In 1954, they had a joint venture known as MOBAY.  Agent Orange was one of many chemicals created and produced through MOBAY.  In 1967, this partnership was forced to separate due to antitrust violations, apparently that does not matter anymore. Bayer AG was part of Hitler's IG Farben conglomerate, Nazi war criminals held leadership and board position at Bayer.  Monsanto shielded the German Bayer company when the Allies won WWII and now Bayer offers Monsanto refuge and a new name to go under cover and heal their wounds, all the while continuing to create toxic chemicals. 

It was Stefan Oelrick, the President of Bayer's Pharmaceutical division, who announced at the World Health Summit in Berlin in 2021, “mRNA vaccines are an example of that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say if we had surveyed two years ago in the public would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate.” 

But as the pattern goes- Instill fear, slap an intensely controversial, ethically questionable, high risk and ultimately meaningless FDA approval on these experimental gene therapy drugs, combine with propaganda and a massive marketing campaign vastly accelerated via internet and social media, and voila you have a recipe for disaster. Swine flu vaccine roll out on steroids. This resulted in a high majority of institutions justifying covid injection mandates thus creating widespread experimentation on the people including our youth. 

We need regulating agencies to actually do their job and not give corporations and industry a free pass to experiment on people and the earth. And then after making billions say- oops we are so sorry- we didn't know that this new chemical causes cancer, strokes, heart attacks, Parkinson's, and contaminates water or kills pollinators or birds. Holding our regulating agencies accountable in their duty to protect people and the environment must be a top priority for the earth and humanity. 

In 2022, Vermont successfully litigated an opioid lawsuit and will receive over $100 million. Back in 2018, a lawsuit against tobacco companies brought in $59 million to VT. Attorney General Clark will most likely be successful in her mission to sue Monsanto due to the legal precedent set by Oregon. No doubt this will bring money to help rectify the situation in Vermont schools and who would say no to money from uber-wealthy, destructive corporations. However, aside from the money, real resolution would be to dissolve the corrupt and captured federal regulating agencies and build a trustworthy entity focused on actual oversight and protection of the people and the earth from toxic compounds and corporate abuse. Breaking this vicious cycle is the real issue and until this is resolved, humans and the earth will continue to withstand rampant abuse by corporations and industry whose heartless bottom line is plain and simple- profit over people any day. We are mere expendable commodities, and it should not take lawsuits to force the federal regulating agencies to do their job.    

At the statehouse this past session, a majority of legislators took a brazen step away from representative government towards technocracy--rule based on an elite of “technical experts.” Despite Vermonters' warranted opposition to S.5, legislators ignored their constituents' pleas. Concerns were trivialized and excuses were made to justify S.5--a bill plagued by special interests, discrimination, and a lack of transparency.

This technocratic trend has gained traction and should concern all. It is well known that legislators rely on advice, guidance and the creation of legislation by lobbyists and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Analyzing this situation and assessing special interest priorities in relation to the needs and rights of the people is necessary and epitomizes the complexity of creating sound ethical policy. Legislators hold a duty to serve and protect their constituents while simultaneously solving problems.

Regarding S.5, many legislators ignored their oaths and chose technocratic “expert rule” and the highly coordinated Energy Action Network players—including industry bound to sales and NGOs with agendas-- as their primary guide. Regardless of intention, S.5 lacks the balance found in sound policy where issues are addressed and people's rights, livelihoods, and cost of living are protected and intact. Working to achieve environmental justice while bringing social injustice to Vermonters is not ethical policy.

The crux of S.5 is the policy design and funding structure which is not surprising given the Clean Heat Working Group consisting of Energy Action Network members wrote this legislation and holds stake in its passage. S.5 is not partisan legislation in the sense of winners or losers, it is more specifically the failure of legislators to design a functional implementation plan that does not bring collateral damage, increased costs and a stranglehold on the heating sector which is integral to the safety and welfare of Vermont.

The emphasis on technocratic “expert guidance” as the primary driver for policy creation over the needs and best interests of the people shifts Vermont away from a Constitutional Republic based on representative democracy. Instead, the technocratic framework prevails and cherry-picked data, 'experts' and social engineering become the driving forces for legislation. The focus on policy designed by special interest groups claiming to hold data and truth trumps common sense discussion by and for the people as intended.

In the Lancet, Richard Horton published an article entitled, Offline- The Coming Technocracy, He stated, “Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments.”

This constant crisis mode triggers legislators to overstep boundaries as they are swept up in propaganda and fear related to the current crisis. Decisions are made that compromise the guaranteed rights of the people. Fear interferes with clarity and critical thinking. This vicious cycle erodes our Constitutional Republic and free society as crises are used to manipulate policy and people.

Politicized science in the form of “consensus science” is also used to justify impulsive and heavily debated legislation driven by fear and fueled by propaganda. Regardless of opinion on the climate crisis, make no mistake, this situation is abused by many and results in government overreach and risk to the people. Industry and NGOs utilize crisis, consensus science and propaganda to impose their goals which are NOT oriented towards representation or service of the people. Vermont has just lived through this with the passage of S.5. Despite its initial study phase, there is no acceptable S.5 outcome-- it charges more for a product that is essential for many, dangerously limits options by exacting fees and coerces the thermal sector into the highly gamed carbon market.

Daniel Sarewitz, Emeritus Professor at Arizona University and Co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, known for his expertise on the influence of scientific research on policy decisions and social outcomes, wrote in the journal Nature,

“The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenge to the current state of always imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice.....The commitment to consensus therefore comes at a high price: the elimination of proposals and alternatives that might be valuable for decision makers dealing with complex problems.”

It is these proposals and alternatives presented by constituents that were ignored by legislators captivated by the Energy Action Network. Discussion and debate were shut down because the Clean Heat Standard was accepted--no questions asked--as the answer to the problem. This interfered with the ability to find real solutions to achieve Vermont's environmental and energy goals while simultaneously ensuring that Vermonters were supported and had access to a wide array of options to fit their specific needs.

Energy independence and affordability are goals that make sense. Taking the advice of scientists from a variety of fields and perspectives to inform decisions is an integral part of the conversation in the creation of policy. However, this information must be tempered with common sense and reality offered by the legislators in service to the people. If legislation intended to achieve specific goals heavily burdens Vermonters and as is the case for S.5 limits diversity in efficient, functional heating options, then it is not a real solution.

This technocratic pattern has broken trust, violates the people by those sworn to serve them and resulted in an intense groundswell activation of Vermonters. The Energy Action Network is a private, highly coordinated partnership of stakeholders working together for their own special interests NOT for the people of Vermont. This network was based off of the Rockefeller Foundation and Deloitte Network Design Model and was structured to implement specific plans related to energy policy. Many legislators have fallen prey to the well-oiled Energy Action Network machine. Hopefully legislators can decipher truth from propaganda and will choose representation of the people.

Securing our Constitutional Republic based on democratic representation will be a priority for Vermonters as the super majority chooses technocracy, propagandized mob mentality and an elite class of 'experts' to heavily influence policy which compromises the very foundation and intention of our country. We are witnessing a failure of our line of defense- the failure of our elected legislators tasked with representing and protecting Vermonters. This past session many legislators chose agendas, industry and technocracy over the people of Vermont and democracy. Hopefully this trend of the super majority does not continue.        

If you were wealthy and you wanted something, what would you do? You would most likely buy what you want. This summarizes the beginnings of the Energy Action Network of Vermont (EAN). Money can buy a lot these days, even a detailed, step by step, blueprint for the formation of a “Network” designed specifically to break down regulatory barriers and create policy to achieve the goals you desire. Even if your goals are based on coercion and result in collateral damage and discriminatory policy that bypasses representative government, this “network” design and implementation plan can be utilized to achieve the goals that a well funded, select, exclusive private group has determined is the answer. Meet Vermont's Energy Action Network--designed and committed to completely altering the face of energy policy in Vermont without the consent or voice of the people.

In 2009, Jennifer Berman, the Executive Director of the Maverick Lloyd Foundation became frustrated with the lack of coordination happening between the climate and energy organizations receiving grants from her foundation. This deficiency inhibited success and in order to have a greater impact, Berman sought “models of collaboration” to achieve the goals that the foundation, their grantees and strategic partners found worthy and believed should become policy in Vermont. 

This search led Berman to the Rockefeller Deloitte Social Impact Network design. A network playbook used to coordinate actors and create a guide to achieve the shared goals of the stakeholders. Stakeholders included those from industry, nonprofits and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with specific goals, none of whom are bound to represent the people or ensure legal and ethical policy. These Networks are driven by the agendas of the organization, industries and their demand for sales of products and services, and ideology often to the point of zealotry in which dissenting voices are not welcome. 

In a case study report on the development of the Energy Action Network of VT, issued by the Rockefeller Foundation working in conjunction with the Monitor Institute, an offshoot of Deloitte Consulting LLC, Berman and her foundation determined their goal would be to shift Vermont to 100% renewable energy by 2030. The framework for this goal would be this pre-designed network, soon to become the Energy Action Network of Vermont. Berman specifically stated,

“We were keenly aware of the many previous processes around climate and energy that had happened in Vermont, but we also saw that they had all been oriented towards putting out a report. Nothing had brought together a strategically chosen group of folks to think about where the state needed to go, mapped out how to get there, and created the capacity for that group to do work over time.” 

In other words, how do you force your agenda with regards to policy and legislation on the people? Well- you buy a blueprint and form a Network based on an intricately detailed, systems-thinking guidebook designed by Rockefeller and Deloitte- two highly successful consulting firms and leaders in the realm of manipulation of systems to achieve outcomes including legislative change. These players have long been at work successfully breaking down regulatory barriers to service their needs and their clients.  

Berman came to the right place and found the right tool to achieve her goals related to fundamentally altering energy policy in Vermont. The questions of course are: At what cost to Vermont and Vermonters? Should Berman and her Network consisting of industry and non governmental organizations design energy policy and make these decisions for Vermont? Why are so many legislators under the spell and captivated by their campaign, shiny reports, champion awards and “expert knowledge”? 

In 2009, Berman brought in Growing Edge Partners and Jim Ritchie-Dunham, author of Ecosynomics to aid the process of interviewing and engaging stakeholders to build their envisioned network and achieve their climate and energy goals. After comprehensive interviews, Berman and her team created a map and realized that achieving their goals involved putting “simultaneous pressure on four 'leverage points' that represented the greatest opportunities for change- public engagement, regulatory reform, technological innovation and capital mobilization.” Essentially with money and targeted campaigns, the government could be used to alter policy and ensure achievement of the network's goals. 

After this process, in 2010 the Energy Action Network was officially born and consisted of 70 leaders stepping out in a unified front to transform policy in Vermont. Regardless of the fact that they were not elected officials and there was not a transparent public process incorporated into the development of this network, their mission was clear- Vermont would be 100% renewable by 2030. 

In fact, this was their first significant policy win at the statehouse, as described on the Rockefeller website,

“In the fall of 2011, the State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan featured a bold new goal: moving the state to 90% reliance on renewable energy by 2050. To many Americans scanning the headlines, that announcement may have sounded like a logical extension of the state's reputation for progressive politics; but the advocates involved in securing the victory knew that it was not only hard-won, but reflected a radical transformation of the dialogue on the energy policy at the state level. This story sketch details how that transformation was enabled by a new social impact network, the Energy Action Network of Vermont, catalyzed and developed through three years of hands-on engagement by a small, local family foundation.” 

This network excludes the voice of the people who would be directly impacted by this altered policy and legislation. This network is not the will of people but they are heavily coordinated, highly funded, loud enough and have positioned themselves as “experts”.

The rise of pre-made, step by step social impact network models and campaigns such as that utilized in the creation of Energy Action Network is a fast growing industry in high demand as NGOs, nonprofits and industry work to create space for the success of their products, services, agendas, and ideology. Breaking though regulatory barriers brings in big money as it is often necessary to force paths. There are multiple tools and companies dedicated to this work for their high paying clients. 

Vermont is in the thick of this network campaign wave at this time. In addition to EAN, Hunger Free Vermont funded by venture capitalist Bradley Tusk and the Let's Grow Kids Action Network have a similar design base including significant funding. All of these causes are worthy but the bottom line questions of economic impacts, risks, and burdens to Vermonters must be addressed by legislators while creating policy. These causes are fiercely lobbied by well-funded campaign networks. Often the campaign is so intensely coordinated, every base is covered and it seems difficult for legislators to say No even if the details do not add up or serve. Often in this situation what appears to be a people's movement is the result of this corporate formulated network design, essentially guaranteed for success. 

_______________________________________________________________

Vermont has experienced the force of corporate designed, Network campaigns first hand since the Energy Action Network (EAN) started in on their work in 2010. Vermont is in the midst of this vision catalyzed by EAN’s involvement in creating highly controversial, destructive legislation including the Global Warming Solutions Act and S.5 the Unaffordable Heat Act. Both are unpopular and received significant opposition from Vermonters. These bring high risk and burden to Vermonters yet the majority of legislators ignored their constituents and voted in favor. 

As a result, the current climate goals and energy policy within Vermont are a product of a long term, manipulative process that utilized the development of this pre-designed network. It is not the result of elected officials working with their constituents to solve problems with an unbiased eye and goals directed at a successful future for Vermont. This network is not the will of the people, in fact in direct contrast, it is the will of industry, organizations and philanthropic foundations buying a playbook to ensure the success of their goals and agendas regardless of the ramifications to the people and the state.

In essence, the Energy Action Network facilitated and provided the space for nonprofits, non governmental organizations, and industry with stake in the game to develop legislation, dictate policy and essentially transform and regulate entire industries within Vermont such as the heating sector. The transportation sector is next in line to come under attack due to the Global Warming Solutions Act and its legal requirements to reduce carbon emissions which has led to impulsive, destructive and high risk legislation. 

Currently there are over 200 EAN members consisting of business and finance, utilities, nonprofits, higher education and local, state and federal public sector partners. This highly coordinated network works in lockstep to alter policy in Vermont based on the wishes and goals of their private members.  

One of the most ironic aspects to this entire situation is the fact that on their website, EAN states,

 “EANs systems work started with a core team and using a 'concentric circle' approach has continued to engage an increasingly wider circle of people at each point in the process. This approach encourages the development of effective working relationships and high levels of trust across sectors and organizations and has ensured that divergent points of view are heard and considered.”

On June 1, EAN held a meeting for legislators and members only. Several dedicated Vermonters who hold “divergent points of view” regarding energy and environmental policy concerns were told they were not welcome when they attempted to register for the meeting. Yet here we have a “network” of players including elected officials heavily influencing energy and environmental policy and creating legislation in Vermont with large scale impacts and the public is not welcome and dissenting voices are discouraged, ignored and excluded. 

Energy Action Network is not a grassroots Vermont movement. EAN is a highly coordinated, top down, corporate network framework bought and installed to force change determined acceptable by industry, non profits, and NGOs who align and are favored by the network and their mission. Vermonters deserve to know where Vermont's extreme and destructive energy and environmental policy came from. Vermonters deserve to know why Energy Action Network holds tremendous influence in the statehouse. They need to know that many legislators work closely with EAN and that conversations to consider alternative approaches that are supportive not coercive are near impossible. It is time to hear from the people, the voice of Vermonters, not the Networks who know how to work the system and have the money and blueprint to do so. 

It is both disturbingly ironic and shockingly hypocritical that Paul Burns- executive director of Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) would coauthor a commentary entitled, Make Big Oil pay, not Vermont taxpayers. This does not add up on any level given VPIRG lobbied hard and testified multiple times at the statehouse in favor of S.5- The Unaffordable Heat Act. S.5 will ultimately make many Vermont taxpayers pay more for heating fuel in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. There is a real disconnect here and the question as to whether Vermont taxpayers should be coerced to pay must be turned directly back to Burns for an answer and explanation.

Maybe we could all agree to place S.5 on hold while the Superfund lawsuit that Burns describes is considered. Many Vermonters are struggling with basic expenses and inflation. In the meantime, the emphasis can be placed on expanding and ensuring a workforce to help Vermonters who choose to take advantage of the green subsidies offered in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Vermonters are already paying more due to hyperinflation and legislation such as the IRA which is funded through the continued printing of money which decreases the value of a hard-earned dollar.

On March 24, The Wall Street Journal reported,

“The Inflation Reduction Act may go down as one of the greatest confidence tricks on taxpayers in history. Democrats used accounting gimmicks to claim the partisan law would reduce the budget deficit. But now a Goldman Sachs report projects its myriad green subsidies will cost $1.2 trillion –more than three times the law's supporters claimed.”

There is a trending theme in the title of bills in which their impact is the direct opposite of their name. The Inflation Reduction Act leads to increased inflation. S.5--the Affordable Heat Act-- follows suit here and will make heat more expensive for many Vermonters. High hopes, deception, ignorance--tough to say-- but ultimately confusion and manipulation are the result. When S.5 hit the Senate Appropriations Committee, the chair Senator Kitchel recognized this situation and called out the problem with the name—Affordable Heat Act. These bills do not make Big Oil pay, they make tax payers pay.

Instead of increasing the price of heating fuel, it would be sound policy to offer zero and low interest loans to Vermonters who would like and are able to take advantage of the green subsidies offered in the IRA, which they are already paying for and will be for a long time in the form of inflation. This will make sense for some and not for others based on a variety of factors. Respecting these differences and allowing people to assess their best path is the right action. Punishing those who cannot act on the eligible measures offered in S.5 with higher heating costs is unethical and wrong.

According to whitehouse.gov, the Inflation Reduction Act offers multiple incentives for lowering energy costs and building a clean energy economy. Supporting Vermonters' decision to implement these green subsidies or Not and ensuring workforce, affordable loans and educational campaigns would provide Vermonters the tools and information needed to help inform their individual choices. Assumptions that all Vermonters will be able to take up eligible measures and significantly reduce their fossil fuel consumption because S.5 mandates this is not based in reality.

It is important to note that Ben Edgerly Walsh, Climate and Energy Director at VPIRG has also stated that S.5, “Will finally require the fossil fuel industry to help fund the transition to cleaner, more climate friendly heating solutions in an affordable and equitable way for Vermonters.” Yet small businesses and the end users of the heating fuel- Vermonters-- will feel the brunt and pay more with S.5. Maybe VPIRG's advocacy action and time would be better spent hiring lawyers to make Big Oil pay instead of altering policy and law in Vermont to achieve their goals at the expense of Vermonters, Vermont businesses and the heating sector in a New England state,

As Burns points out, polluters should pay to clean up their waste. Enforcing the laws on the books would be in the best interest of the people and the earth. Many corporations that pollute and poison humans and the earth have long neglected their duty to honesty, quality and safety in their products. The choice of profit over the health of people and place is nothing new. The fact that proper regulation and oversight has not been happening offers a glimpse into the problem with our federal regulating agencies, their corporate capture and ultimate failure.

The tobacco industry blazed the path for deceptive marketing and the use of “science” to create controversy and question to distract from actual truth and harm. This has long been the pattern of many industries. If federal regulating agencies were actually doing their job versus receiving significant funds from the industry they are intended to regulate and playing the revolving door game then we would most likely not be contending with rampant poisoning of the earth and humans.

There is no doubt that Mr. Burns is acting from a place of concern for the earth and our environments but sacrificing and burdening Vermonters and Vermont businesses in order to cover costs and force change will not help Vermont, our economy or save the world as envisioned.

An idea for consideration would be to promote a Vermont commitment to reduce or eliminate purchases from outside of America—to buy local. A little research and one finds that a medium sized container ship that can go through the Panama canal uses 63,000 gallons of fuel per day at a full speed of 23mph. It is roughly 6,881 miles from Shanghai to LA which brings consumption on average to over 1,000,000 gallons of fuel for one ship to make the voyage. Reducing even one container ship would have a much stronger impact than S.5 will ever attempt to offer, especially given the fact that not all Vermonters will be able to take action on this legislation

It is well known that legislators rely on advice, guidance and the creation of legislation by lobbyists, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and non-profits such as VPIRG. Analyzing this situation and assessing special interest priorities in relation to the needs and rights of the people is necessary and epitomizes the complexity of creating sound ethical policy. Legislators hold a duty to serve and protect their constituents while simultaneously solving problems.

Regardless of intention, S.5 lacks the balance found in sound policy where issues are addressed and people's rights, livelihoods, and cost of living are protected and intact. Working to achieve environmental justice while bringing social injustice to Vermonters is not ethical policy.

The crux of S.5 is the policy design and funding structure which is not surprising given the Clean Heat Working Group consisting of Energy Action Network members wrote this legislation and hold stake in its passage. S.5 is not partisan legislation in the sense of winners or losers, it is more specifically the failure of legislators to design a functional implementation plan that does not bring collateral damage, increased costs and a stranglehold on the heating sector which is integral to the safety and welfare of Vermont.

Energy independence and affordability are goals that make sense. Taking the advice of scientists from a variety of fields and perspectives to inform decisions is an integral part of the conversation in the creation of policy. However, this information must be tempered with common sense and reality offered by the legislators in service to the people. If legislation intended to achieve specific goals burdens Vermonters and as is the case for S.5 limits diversity in efficient, functional heating options, then it is not a real solution.

Aside from the question of the Vermont-specific Climate Change Superfund Act as discussed in Burns' commentary, S.5 does exactly what Paul Burns posits should NOT happen- it makes Vermont taxpayers pay more to “solve the climate crisis” The fact that this connection was not made by Burns raises concerns and demands the question he asked in his commentary- be tossed back to him—Who should pay?  

At the statehouse this past session, a majority of Vermont legislators took a brazen, controversial and unconstitutional step away from representative government towards technocracy--defined as rule based on an elite of “technical experts.” Despite the outpouring of Vermonters' warranted opposition to S.5, many elected officials blatantly ignored the pleas of their constituents. Vermonters' concerns were trivialized by their representatives and excuses were made by elected officials in their attempt to justify the need for S.5- a bill plagued since its inception by deceit, agendas, discrimination, an inability to serve and a lack of transparency.

This shameless act by elected representatives reflects both the dilemma and assault that Vermonters face at this time. This technocratic trend gained traction during the Covid response and this pattern continues in the statehouse and should concern all Vermonters. Regarding S.5, our elected officials have ignored their oaths and have chosen technocratic “expert rule” and the highly coordinated Energy Action Network players--which includes industry bound to sales and shareholders and Non governmental organizations (NGOs) with agendas-- as their sole guide and priority. For those legislators who chose to represent their constituents, this does not apply to you and thank you for your service.

The emphasis on technocratic “expert guidance” as the primary driver for decision making and policy creation over the needs and best interests of the people shifts Vermont away from a Constitutional Republic based on representative democracy. Instead, the technocratic framework prevails and cherry-picked data, 'experts' and social engineering plans become the driving forces for legislation and policy shifts. The narrow-minded focus on forced implementation of specific policy designed by special interest groups and industry claiming to hold truth, data and the righteous path trumps any and all common sense discussion for solving problems by and for the people as intended and designed. This is the real issue.

In the Lancet Journal, on December 12, 2020, Richard Horton published an article entitled, Offline- The Coming Technocracy, He specifically stated that, “Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments.”

This constant crisis mode triggers many elected officials to overstep their boundaries as they are swept up in the wave of propaganda and fear related to the current crisis. Decisions are made that compromise and circumvent the guaranteed rights of the people. Fear interferes with clarity of thought and critical thinking. This is a vicious cycle that erodes our Constitutional Republic and free society as crisis states are used to manipulate policy and people.

Politicized science in the form of “consensus science” is used to steamroll impulsive and heavily debated legislation often driven by fear and misinformation fueled by propaganda. Keeping in mind that the entire point of science is the attempt at the discovery of truth, and the ongoing dispute and debate is essential to reaching truth. Science is never settled and science has been wrong more often than not. The weaponization of science, in particular “consensus science” is used by politicians and governments to drive “the right kind of change” typically with end goals characterized by the opportunity to increase taxes and fees, justify mandates and excessively regulate and control sectors within society.

Regardless of personal opinion on the climate crisis, make no mistake, this situation is abused by many in order to justify actions that are clear government overreach and bring danger to the people, Both industry and NGOs utilize crisis, consensus science and propaganda to impose their goals which are NOT oriented towards representation or service of the people. Vermont has just lived through this with the passage of S.5 and despite its initial study phase, there is no acceptable outcome of S.5-- it charges the people and businesses more for a product that is essential for many and coerces the thermal sector into the highly gamed carbon market.

Michael Crichton, a prolific author with plots often based on the risks of science and technology, is best known for his book Jurassic Park. His quote from a lecture he gave at the California Institute of Technology on the incompatibility of science and consensus sheds light on the problem with technocracy and politicized science.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped dead in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels: it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet because you are being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Not only does this technocratic path violate the people by those sworn to represent and serve them, it also has broken trust and resulted in an intense groundswell activation by the people of Vermont. Vermonters have taken the time to call, write and reach out to their representatives because of justified concerns and repercussions related to S.5. Responses to the passage of S.5 despite widespread opposition have ranged from fervent anger, shock, disbelief and sadness. Rightly so, this legislation is an attack on Vermonters, Vermont businesses and the entire heating sector-- an attack that stemmed from the collusion of organizations with targeted goals working in conjunction with industry set on their services as the answer.

The reality is that many legislators have been played by the “Network” - the Energy Action Network- a private, exclusive, highly coordinated and collaborative partnership of stakeholders working together for their own special interests NOT for the people of Vermont, This network which was based off of the Rockefeller Foundation and Deloitte Network Design Model was specifically structured to implement targeted plans related to climate and energy policy in Vermont. Many legislators have fallen prey to the fierce propaganda and the well-oiled Energy Action Network machine. Joseph Goebbels- Hitler's deranged and insane propagandist stated, “Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.”  Hopefully legislators can decipher truth from propaganda as they work for Vermonters. Hopefully they will choose representation of the people.

Baron de Montesquieu's quote on tyranny summates the past legislative session at the Vermont statehouse. He stated “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” Securing our Constitutional Republic based on democratic representation will be a priority for Vermonters as the hive-mind super majority chooses technocracy, propagandized mob mentality and an elite class of 'experts' to heavily influence policy which compromises the very foundation and intention of our country. What we are witnessing here in Vermont is a failure of our line of defense- the failure of our elected legislators tasked with representing and protecting the people of Vermont. This past session many legislators chose agendas, industry and technocracy over the people of Vermont and democracy. Hopefully this trend of the super majority does not continue. 

“We must take control of our environmental movement and our future from billionaires and their permanent war on Planet Earth. They are not our friends.”  Jeff Gibbs- filmmaker-Planet of the Humans

Jeff Gibbs drove all the way from his home in Michigan to share his documentary – Planet of the Humans – at the Essex Cinemas in Vermont last week. What began as a quest to save the planet and shed light on the widespread environmental damage happening at alarming rates, his film quickly evolved into an urgent plea and exposition of the dangers and deceptions within the “green” energy movement ever since it was hijacked by corporations and investors out to make a profit.  A situation Gibbs refers to as the eco-industrial complex. 

Planet of the Humans chronicles the environmental movement and the controversial role of renewables. Vermont has a starring role. Gibbs weaves in Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring and its influence on the early stages of authentic environmentalism which emphasized regulation and removal of chemicals, toxins and practices destroying and poisoning humans and the earth. 

Although the path forged by Carson defines genuine environmentalism, another take on the environmental movement –the war on carbon-- has become louder and squashed the competition with corporate backing to position itself at the forefront of present day “environmental justice”.  This war on carbon has sucked the life out of the actions necessary for achieving true environmental justice. The decarbonization vortex continues to distract from effective action and leads to destructive decisions as is evident with Vermont's S.5 - UN-Affordable Heat Act legislation. 

Gibbs doesn't hold back, his commitment to investigative journalism is his driving force and it is evident that he has no agenda other than seeking truth and real answers. Along the journey, his willingness to dig deep and expose the harsh realities and shocking limitations of renewables is prescient for the current Vermont conversation. Gibbs explores how and why this movement was led astray.  A straightforward and typical tale--industry and investors identified a new market, the heat was on and the full force propagandized drive for the ‘green’ revolution took hold and was heavily funded by those with financial stake who wanted in on the wave. 

Keeping in mind Vermont's Global Warming Solutions Act, its requirement to reduce carbon emissions and Vermont's at-all-costs drive to electrify and embrace renewables- it is apparent that many in Vermont including legislators and certain environmental groups have fallen prey to this heavily marketed and funded corporate version of environmental justice.

How do we reclaim and ensure true environmentalism in Vermont with this all-out corporate campaign to “go green” – no matter what the cost, no matter what the risk and with the burning questions of do renewables actually bring more destruction and do they even hold the potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption and use when they are directly dependent on it for their existence? Will the people and environment become collateral damage in this blind drive?

Former Senator Joe Benning shares words of wisdom with the filmmaker while out on a ridgeline hike with Vermonters where a 21-tower wind farm was slated to happen. Benning’s words echo many Vermonters feelings about the love we hold for forests --“If the goal is to try to make Vermont the leader in climate change, I appreciate looking to the sky in the hopes that we can do that, but more importantly I am personally looking at the ground thinking this is not the kind of legacy I would want to leave to my kids. When I was a kid, we would go hiking in these woods, we would be able to drink the waters down the hill here and now you have to question that.”

This statement brings forth the heart of the matter- should we destroy and poison our earth in order to 'save it'? There is an obvious disconnect here. How far down this continued destructive path will we move until we realize what exactly it is we are doing? This is the real dilemma. 

Due to present day technologies and the insatiable and timeless need by some for power and profit, the earth is experiencing unprecedented environmental destruction. In addition to global corporations, many individuals have positioned themselves to earn immense profits from this "green movement."  Former Vice President Al Gore and David Blood, long time asset manager for Goldman Sachs, have created their Generation Investment Management company with 'green funds' that support highly destructive biomass and biofuels industries. Sierra Club held a “green” fund called Aspiration, also mentioned in the film that was subsequently shut down soon after the film was released. 

Blackrock's Environmental Social Governance (ESG) framework and coercive demand on the companies it invests in to join the ESG game is another example of this synced “green” messaging which emphasizes a narrow focus and obsession on carbon to gauge progress and a blind demand for renewables which grips the world despite its own set of major problems as Gibbs reveals. In Vermont it is the same story, there are multiple individuals and entities set to gain from the S.5- Clean Heat Standard legislation-many of whom actually designed the legislation itself.    

Bill McKibben- “Vermont's environmental hero” makes several appearances in Planet of the Humans, including an interview clip about the donors to 350.org and his role in promoting biomass. Gibbs wonders if some have lost their way with their support and advocacy for renewable energy and their unrelenting drive to rid the world of fossil fuels at all costs- even at the expense of the health of humans and the environment. 

Gibbs shares a poignant observation regarding several key environmental players-- “What are they hiding? And why are they hiding it? Is it their ignorance? Or is it something else?  What if they themselves have become misguided? What if they made some kind of deal they shouldn’t have made and are leading us all off the cliff?” 

Bill McKibben's involvement with David Blood and Al Gore, his support of a "green" fund called – Green Century Funds and his testimony in Vermont Senate Committee on Government Operations to support Senate Bill S.42 --the divestment of Vermont's state pension funds from investment in fossil fuels – raises questions and should be explored. What are the driving forces and implications of this decision? Will this divestment shift simply move support to other destructive industries such as mining, natural gas infrastructure and companies, deforestation, and the promotion of biofuel and biomass, all of which poison water, lands and people?

Does this divestment shift fuel Blackrock’s monopolized ESG index funds and continue to allow corporations and institutional investors to determine what environmentalism looks like and how we get there? With corporations leading the way, we know what lies ahead is an abusive and dominating road lacking in real solutions. 

McKibben also wrote an opinion piece back in November in the New Yorker entitled “Dimming the Sun to Cool the Planet is a Desperate Idea Yet We’re Inching Toward It”-  This article gently promoted and created a soft landing space for the role of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) aka- solar geoengineering. SRM involves widespread spraying of chemcials and compounds in an attempt to reflect the sun's rays and cool the planet. This entire practice is highly debated and controversial, brings great risk, and contradicts itself through history, practice and outcome. There are monumenal ethical and legal issues related to this experimental and toxic solution to “save the planet.” These actions prompt the necessity to investigate and question if we are indeed being led off the cliff or to the promised land.

Supplying energy to people throughout the world is an ongoing challenge and dilemma.  Latching onto false solutions of biofuels, biomass and technologies that demand massive increases in destructive mining, devastation of the earth and abuse of people is not a real solution. 

Many would like to think that these alternative “Green” options are our saving grace.  Gibbs and his film Planet of the Humans clearly shed light on the dark side of renewables, the inherent issues these technologies hold and their role in perpetuating the ongoing practice of exploitation and domination of the environment and people. Planet of the humans helps encourage, actually demands, an opportunity for difficult albeit necessary and long overdue conversations. 

In direct relation to Vermont - Legislators are currently assessing S.5 after the Governor’s veto.  Many have been told a “pretty story about renewables and electrification”. Lobbyists and special interest groups are currently shaming, coercing and battering them with Pavlovian messaging--”We have to act now. We aren’t doing enough and We are leaders in climate change.”

Without a comprehensive knoweldge base or honest, unbiased discussion on the subject area, impulsive and destructive legislation  such as S.5 evolves and brings risk to Vermonters, our economy and our environment. –A closer look at the origin of S.5 -the Clean Heat Standard -lands it right in lockstep with corporate environmentalism. Not surprising given the history and trajectory that Gibbs helps surface in his meticulously researched film. Planet of the Humans is a must see for all as we work to engage honest conversations in order to achieve real environmental justice in Vermont.

Most Vermonters agree on the goals of reducing fossil fuel emissions and dependency, helping our environments and seeking diversity, independence and affordability in energy sources --but these worthy goals must be coupled with effective ethical policy. This is where S.5 fails. Fossil fuel will not just magically disappear from our homes. There is a process in play and S.5 does not respect the process and the transitions which will vary for all Vermonters for a multitude of reasons. S.5 attacks those who still need fuel and the local fossil fuel dealers who provide a necessary service and product in our communities at this time. These local fossil fuel dealers have been helping customers convert to high efficiency systems, heat pumps and other clean measures for decades and now they will pay and so will their customers- talk about an attack. Unrealistic utopian legislation that burdens people despite the best of intentions is destructive.

As a state, Vermont has been on a path towards reduced consumption and alternatives for decades. We have made great strides. Julie Moore, Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources and TJ Poor of the Vermont Department of Public Service have shared all of these numbers and the significant headway that Vermont has made in their S.5 testimony.

There are many paths up a mountain, S.5 is the cliff- a sheer cliff- and there are many Vermonters who are not equipped for this climb and will be punished and placed at risk through this unethical, inequitable and unaffordable legislation. That is one of the most deceptive aspects of this legislation- the buzzwords surrounding it- equitable, affordable, resilient. Thankfully Senator Kitchel saw through this and called it out as soon as S.5 hit her Senate Appropriations committee. Once you actually get the details of S.5, its origin, and its framework, the fallacies are readily apparent. Due to this situation, Governor Scott rightfully and compassionately vetoed S.5.

I must also add with all due respect Dennis- you completely miss the point of John McClaughry's letter regarding Energir and their windfall profits with S.5. Ben Edgerly Walsh of VPIRG and many legislators including Representative Campbell have all tried to say we need to make the fossil fuel dealers pay. With S.5, the only ones paying here are Vermonters, our small businesses and our small local fossil fuel dealers who are integral to our communities and provide services and jobs within our communities. The large fossil fuel dealers including Vermont Gas Systems fully support this bill, they are already wrapped into the fraudulent carbon credit game. They are positioned to profit off the small business and if the small businesses fail because they cannot afford the added costs and necessary credits required to continue to sell heating fuel to customers who need it, large fossil fuel dealers will gladly take the accounts. This creates opportunity for monopolies at the expense of local businesses-- S.5 attacks Vermont, while large fossil fuel dealers and Vermont Gas Systems will all profit because of this legislation. This is not how legislators and legislation should behave – it is cruel and unethical especially when there are functional alternatives available. We must assess the on the ground impacts to Vermonters, local businesses and our economy—not ignore them or pretend they don't exist.

The Global Warming Solutions Act became law in September 2020, a month later without wasting anytime-- both Don Rendall and Neale Lunderville of Vermont Gas Systems (VGS) working in conjunction with Richard Cowart of Regulatory Assistance Project pitched their clean heat standard carbon credit at Energy Action Network. Vermont Gas Systems has specific and untouchable language in S.5 (despite overwhelming testimony against this) that allows them to purchase toxic landfill gas --aka renewable natural gas-- and acquire out of state credits from British Petroleum The renewable natural gas will head in the pipeline from New York to Canada -never make it here but VGS can claim to offer renewable natural gas when in fact they are selling fossil gas from hydraulic fracking. The process of fracking fossil gas creates its own set of problems such as copious wastewater and methane production and the release of toxins into the air and water VGS and their fossil fracked gas are protected until 2050. This is the ultimate green washing and discriminatory policy. So now VGS has access to a significant amount of bogus green washed carbon credits that they can sell for profit while they continue to flow fracked fossil gas through their pipelines. Biomass and biofuel are also part of this legislation and based on life cycle analysis – these are often more carbon intensive than fossil fuel and bring widespread destruction and poisoning to ecosystems, people and water around the world. Again these facts have been presented to committees and ignored. The questions of “less carbon fuels” and alternatives is highly debated and the question of massive environmental destruction must be considered. S.5 is ultimately discriminatory, greenwashing policy that hurts Vermont despite the best of intentions.

Meanwhile, our small local fuel dealers are not allowed to get credit for installing a high efficiency fossil fuel heating system that can cut emissions by 50%. This is a significant reduction equating to savings for Vermonters as well as reduced emissions. The entire point of the Global Warming Solutions Act is to reduce carbon emissions. Yet again the discriminatory and inequitable framework of S.5 is evident. These are the actual details. So legislators who voted in favor of S.5 have now allowed local business and Vermonters to be attacked in this legislation and expected to pay more when so many are already struggling. Ideology must not mask reality and create a situation in which Vermonters are compromised and sacrificed due to poorly designed, unethical policy such as S.5.

Vermont could easily follow Maine's lead and offer a widespread educational campaign on the role weatherization, heat pumps and efficient heating upgrades and systems can play in reducing costs and helping the environment. With the incentives offered by the Inflation Reduction Act, Vermont could focus on building workforce to take advantage of this opportunity and help Vermonters lighten their heating costs with efficiency options while at the same time helping the earth. Raising fuel costs for Vermonters and businesses and locking the thermal sector in to the bogus carbon market that favors entities such as Vermont Gas Systems over small fossil fuel dealers will not help the situation. All of these businesses have been moving in the right direction with efficiency and new technologies as they become available, affordable and prove themselves. Bottom line- the S.5 framework punishes and burdens Vermonters versus supporting and aiding the transition. This is why Clean Technica. The world's number one source for cleantech news and analysis assigned Vermont's S.5 the UN-Affordable Heat Act a C minus, “We give Vermont an A for trying, but only a C minus for execution.” More bureaucracy, higher costs, and unethical and discriminatory policy is not a solution.

Vermont Legislature Pushes For End To Polluting Heating Equipment - CleanTechnica

This is a mere glimpse into the incongruities related to S.5. It is also worth noting that a significant portion of the renewable energy sector is owned by the fossil fuel industry and the same institutional investors. It doesn't matter to them- we are just setting up more markets to serve their bottom line while we compromise the people and our economy of Vermont without even solving the underlying problems and achieving our environmental goals. This is what happens when industry and special interest groups write legislation in a private group outside of the climate council and then sell it to legislators as the best and only answer.

There are two primary approaches that legislators and the state utilize use to create change. The first is persuasion. Sometimes an idea is easily sold and accepted because it actually solves problems and serves. Persuasion was attempted with S.5 but as soon as people started understanding this legislation, persuasion was no longer enough. The dangers were apparent and the imminent threat surfaced- thus the battle cry from the people which was ignored by a high majority of representatives. This is a problem and a real dilemma for the people of Vermont.

The other approach to create change is coercion-- when persuasion fails, there is always force. S.5 -the Unaffordable Heat Act had both. The buzzword persuasion was called out and ultimately failed but now the coercion will kick in if S.5 makes it through the next legislative sessions to become law. I hope more Vermonters and more legislators will see through the deception of S.5 and stand up for the people of Vermont. Details are critical in the development of policy. S.5 details are disturbing and will not serve Vermont or solve the problems we face. I offer my sincere gratitude to the legislators who did there due diligence and recognized the predatory and destructive nature of S.5, chose to represent their constituents and voted NO. Without a doubt, Vermont has options to move us in the right direction of authentic social and environmental justice, we have been on this path for decades. S.5 is absolutely not the answer and does not have the capacity to provide a constructive solution. It is merely one of the many examples of how Vermont is taken advantage of by special interest groups promoting their agendas and selling their wares without a care in the world for Vermonters. Our line of defense – the legislators- are failing us in their capacity to protect and serve the people while solving problems. This is the real dilemma.