 I don't want to scream too much. All right, great. Welcome. Thank you so much for coming out tonight. I really appreciate it. I'm Paige Heberle, chair of Resilient Hartford, formerly the Community Resilience Organization of Hartford. We just changed our name on Tuesday. And we are co-hosting this event with the Hartford Energy Commission. So if you're a Resilient Hartford or an Energy Commission representative, raise your hand. There's a lot of folks in the back there. And John. Orlaiza. So thank you all for coming out tonight. How many people are Hartford residents? Great. That's a good showing. And I know we've got a Randolph person here. So a little bit about Resilient Hartford. We are one of about 10 resilience groups operating in the state under an umbrella group called the Community Resilience Organizations. And our group started about four years ago, kind of coming out of the Transition Towns movement. And we are actually an arm of the town, similar to an energy committee structure. So we're appointed by the select board. And our job is to advise the select board on issues of adaptation and resilience. So part of that is a lot of public education. So one goal tonight is to connect all of you with some of the legislative process and priorities that are going on now. We also have a number of other events coming up too. Our next event is actually just less than two weeks away. There's flyers here, and it's about the 38 hurricane that gave the Hartford High School their mascot. So it's with Stephen Long, who wrote a book called 38, The Hurricane That Transformed New England. And that is on Tuesday, April 23rd at 7 p.m. right here. And it'll be kind of about the book he wrote on that. And then also kind of looking ahead if and when we get another storm of that magnitude, what would that look like with today's infrastructure and today's communities? So be sure to come out for that. We also are launching an incredible initiative called Potato Fest. I'm sure a lot of you came in after I brought the potato in, noticed that silly thing. So be sure to get a picture with the potato. And Potato Fest is a inter-village competition in Hartford, but we welcome anyone who wants potatoes to grab some to encourage households to plant backyard potato patches. So it's supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be kind of silly. But we believe that local food and backyard gardens are a key piece of a resilient town. So West Lebanon Feed and Supply has been a great partner with that. So you can actually pick up a voucher to get free seed potatoes early, first part of May, at West Lebanon Feed and Supply to start your own potato patch. And we'll have a number of workshops that are kicking off, and there's all the dates there, but one in each of the five villages of Hartford. So West Hartford is the first, and White River Junction is the last. And those are between April 18th, so a week from yesterday, and eight nights. So Hartford residents, or not, be sure to come out to those and learn how to grow potatoes if you are not familiar, and maybe learn a new method if you are familiar. And we have little flyers to remind you of when the potato kickoffs are right up here. Right up here. And then we also have a grower's guide. Flora, you want to be Vanna White here. So if you are just not the kind of workshop sort of person, there is some guidance pulled together from lots of wisdom and Kai's hard work to serve as a little guide for growing your own potatoes. And then our next and last event that we currently have scheduled is Friday, May 31st. And it's with Conor Steadman, who's a permaculturist and silvapastorist, who will be giving a talk here called Thinking Like a Watershed, Community Scale Resilience Planning. So I am really excited for that one. And it's also on this little quarter page sheet. So if you don't have a notebook and aren't taking notes, don't worry. We've got you covered. So I'll turn it over to Laura, who will introduce Dick. Thanks. Senator McCormick is currently the co-chair of the Legislative Climate Solutions Caucus. So that's made up of this year, what? 6, 5, 6, 20, I don't know. It's more like 80. 80. The legislators are on this caucus. They meet Thursdays at noon. And I think I found out who provides your pizza. It's the Perg. The Perg and me at the VNRC. Yeah. So they're treating them nicely, trying to get our legislation through. So that's what he's currently doing. But in the mornings, he is on the Health and Welfare Committee of the Senate. In the afternoons, he's on the Appropriations Committee. And he mentioned to me that he's going to be speaking a lot about the Appropriations Committee. But formerly, he was on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee of the Senate. So I went and googled you. And you would think they'd had this long list of things about our senator. No, it was about his singer songwriting years. Well, that's googled. The legislature was my leg. So I thought I would just embarrass you a little bit. Back when you were probably in your 20s, you were taking a song about coming up from New York and your mom continued the song. And he says before he sings that you have to sing it with a real New York accent. So I'll do my best to sing this. Go on home, young mother is calling your father. I just found the ball calling. They had gone to collect your old man. Have I introduced one? Googling oneself, as you probably know, can be very dangerous. You come on stuff you totally forgot. I love the potatoes. When my great grandparents bought their house in Bethel around 1890, the quick claim deed said that the sellers had already planted their potatoes. And part of the sale was that they had the right to come back in the fall and harvest their potatoes. So my great grandparents, their first year in their house, watched the potato crop go away. After over well over a century, it finally did pass down generation to generation. My cousins inherited the house and realized they had no use of it. And I had arrived at the point where many Vermonters find themselves, realizing I could not afford my ancestral home. And they sold it. And in any case, the day of the closing, several of us gathered, read a few poems, shed a few tears. And then I gave out, everyone had a potato. The McCormick's are leaving and we're taking our potatoes. I made an outline of my talk, in part because I like to meander. I like to take side trips when I speak. And I figured it might help for you to know that I actually am still, I know where I am. And this, we're going to come back to where we were when I left off. For example, I had not thought to talk about the potatoes. George Bernard Shaw made a really interesting point in the early part of the last century, where he said when a medieval peasant walked out of his hobble and looked around him, what he saw was a flat earth. And then he could see with his own eyes the sun rising. And he could see the sun move across the sky and see the sun go down. Science asked him to suspend his own trust and his own senses and to believe that there is a formula, but the peasant couldn't work the formula. The peasant couldn't do the math. Scientists did the math. And they said, actually, the earth's not flat, it's round. Actually, the sun is not moving. The earth is turning and our perspective is changing. That's all. They had to take a certain amount of faith that scientifically, things are not always as they appear. Global warming science does not ask us to do that. Global accepting global warming science is a lot easier than accepting the heliocentric solar system. Because really what global warming science is saying to us is, hey, you know what you're seeing with your own eyes? It's real. That's all it's saying is that the science vindicates and supports what we already know is the case. And I would say that I have come to the point, because as a policymaker, obviously we talk about things that people disagree about all the time. And you work hard at disagreeing without being disagreeable, as they say. As a teacher, finish every course with a little lecture of my students, I say it is possible for a person to be completely wrong without being stupid, evil, or crazy. And we can argue and still be friends. But I have come to the point where I am no longer willing to spend time and energy arguing with someone about the science of global warming. The debate was resolved scientifically years ago. And we have work to do. And the people who will argue now, and it's interesting, they still call themselves skeptics. And I think people who don't accept the science on global warming and call themselves skeptics are flattering themselves. A skeptic is someone who holds out for better evidence. A skeptic is someone who recognizes the flaws in the argument. Someone who digs in his heels and ignores the proof is not a skeptic. We're all friends here. Can I say bonehead? I mean, it really is boneheadedness. It's not skepticism. We have work to do. And I would say that the deniers of global warming science have basically talked themselves away from the table. I don't know about you, but when I am talking to someone who is still not convinced by the science, to be honest with you, I'm not really being sincere. I'm patronizing the person. I don't want to hurt his feelings. I don't want to be insulting. But I'm calculating, how do I get out of this? I've got work to do. How do I get away from this fool? And they really have put themselves in the position of the guy at the far end of the bar two in the morning. Or everyone's crazy, uncle, ruining another Thanksgiving. But that doesn't mean that they are powerless. First of all, there's an organization called the Heartland Institute that sends me, I'm a legislator. I get a newsletter from them regularly. And it's called Climate News. And it's got graphs. And it looks like science. And it really is nonsense. But it looks like science. But it's not as though the skeptics actually buy the anti-scientific argument. What you get is a subtler argument, which is, well, I'm almost convinced on this. But you know, a lot of people disagree. And you've got to listen to both sides. And you hear that all the time. And there's the idea that any scientific study that vindicates global warming science is not real science. It's biased. And you know it's biased because it vindicates global warming science. I count former state senator John McLaury as a personal friend. He's one of those people who is capable of being wrong without being evil, stupid or crazy. But he will write a letter to the editor of every paper in the state every couple of years in which he challenges people. He said, I challenge anyone to come up with real scientific proof of global warming. And what it is, is that it's long enough since the last time he did this, that there's always some gullible soul who will read that and say, well, I can do that. I can provide the scientific proof. And they'll respond. And then the answer is, well, that's not real science. And the reason you know it's not real science is because it supports the science. And so therefore, it's biased. And that notion that those of us who accept the science, that we're dogmatic, that we're not listening to the other side, that idea takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. And it really is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. And this is where I want to go next. My father was a science teacher. And I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood. All my friends would ask their parents, why is the sky blue? And the answer was very simple, because God made it that way. The sky is blue for the glory of God. My father would answer, why is the sky blue? Well, the prevailing theory is, and I as a little boy would say, daddy, I don't want to know the prevailing theory. I don't want to know the truth. And my father would say, well, a lot of people believe if you're good when you die, you'll go to heaven. And God will tell you the truth about everything. But until then, on Earth, we're stuck with our own wits. And the best we can do is to have clear, disciplined thinking. And the clearest, most disciplined thinking is what we call science. But any scientist knows that no scientist really knows the truth. What you have is the theory that has been vindicated by the scientific method. You have the theory in which we have it. I was like eight years old explaining this to me. Today, they call it child abuse. But in any case, the idea that the theory has enough learned, competent, science-based confidence that we treat it as the truth. Philosophically, all scientific assertions are contingent. They're all, at least, potentially in doubt. But that's to say, gravity is the prevailing theory. Gravity is not the truth. Gravity is the prevailing theory. The two and two is four is not the truth. It's the prevailing theory. And perhaps mathematics gives you total truth because it's so abstract. But even there, you ask a real mathematician and they'll tell you otherwise. So yes, there is some doubt about global warmth. There's a philosophical doubt, just as there is a doubt about gravity. But I don't see too many people willing to jump out of an eighth-story window because gravity is only a theory. So the idea that we shouldn't act because there's a potential for a reevaluation is really a very, very pernicious and paralyzing attitude. Ultimately, there comes a point where you decide, we're going to treat this as the truth. And as I said, that is not to give a second-class status to global warming science, because that's true as well as gravity. So what do we do with global warming now? And why has the Vermont legislature, we're one of the more, I think, one of the more enlightened states in the Union, why has the Vermont legislature done so little? Why does it drag its feet? Well, part of it is this sort of paralysis that comes from the misuse of doubt. The misuse of scientific contingency, that the scientific assertion is contingent upon the scientific method. And that's always subject to re-examination. But there's something else, and that is what I call soft denial. Consider, if you will, that there's a kind of a spectrum of denial. At the extreme end is the flat out, I don't think it's true, I deny it. But then there's a softer denial, which is, of course, it's true. But I don't really want to do anything about it. And even more pernicious, we can get away with not doing everything about it. Certainly, if it costs money and it's inconvenient, then we probably shouldn't do it. And it really rankles me, having had a science teacher for a father, to hear words like reasonable used to mean you shouldn't take the necessary steps. Dick, I'm with you on this global warming stuff. But you've got to be reasonable. And that means you've got to not be reasonable. I would say that right now, most of my colleagues are in soft denial. And we've all seen that. Most of us have had a friend or a relative, or maybe in some cases, one's own self, who probably has gotten into a bit of a problem with alcohol. And you've heard it. Look, I know I drink too much. But I've never missed a day of work. I've never raised my hand to my wife. I'm doing fine. That's a form of denial. He's not denying that he's an alcoholic. He's denying that it matters. And that is what is going on, and not just in the Vermont legislature, I think, in our country is this soft denial. Of course global warming is a problem. Of course we've got to do something about it. But I can tell you, for example, in the last election, the carbon tax, so-called, was an issue. And actually, I'm willing to yield certain points that, first of all, all sales taxes are regressive by their nature. And so a carbon tax is regressive, and that's a problem with it. But I've got to tell you, the people who were against a so-called carbon tax voiced their opposition without ever mentioning global warming. It was as though that's not an issue worth considering. And that, again, is that kind of soft denial. Things that cost us money, things that are inconvenient. So what are we up against? What am I up against? I'm not alone. I'm not a hero. Because there are a lot of us in the legislature who are pretty savvy, I think, on global warming. Well, we're up again. We have various phony theories, some of which are infuriating. I'm wondering how many of you have heard some of these. I love this one. There's always been a natural warming and cooling cycle. You've heard that. Well, we know that. Everyone knows that. In fact, that's the baseline for global warming science. That's how we know there's a problem, because what's been going on during the industrial era is inconsistent with that. So when someone says that global warming science is wrong because there's always been a warming and cooling cycle, then what they're saying is, I don't buy the global warming stuff because I don't know the first thing about it. I don't even know the first line of the song. That's why I take the position I do. I love the one. And I had a guy really lay into me a couple of weeks ago, his town meeting. And I was getting around to the various town meetings. And the guy said, don't you understand that there's something called the carbon cycle? Trees, plants, breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. And of course, my answer was, yeah, I passed ninth grade general science. Doesn't everybody know that? But the implication is, no, not everyone does it. Also, the implication is, if you buy the science of global warming, you're stupid. And you need people like him to explain to you about these things. And of course, the logic also is, if this occurs naturally at this level, then artificially raising it is fine. It occurs naturally down here, so therefore, we're fine with more. The analogy I would use on that is a dry martini. I have never once in my life encountered a situation where one dry martini wasn't a great idea. Because it's a great idea does not mean that two martinis is a great idea. Two martinis are a highly questionable idea, largely because if you have two martinis, you're very likely going to have three. And three martinis is a disastrous mistake. But one martini is fine. So, too, the fact is, we would all die without carbon dioxide. It's true. There was no carbon dioxide, and then we'd all die. Maybe you remember the ad from one of the oil companies about 10 years ago, and it said, they call it pollution. We call it life. And this is just basically, jerk science is what I call it. Bear with me. I have come up here to talk to you without my reading glasses. But I can do this. I promise you, I can do this. Faux populism. There is a very widespread attitude, and this is in our legislature, which is that the environment is of concern to somewhat effete, overly educated, overly affluent people, usually from someplace else, as opposed to the real people, the salt of the earth people. The real people don't drive lightweight little gas efficient cars. Real men drive big gas wasting cars. We like polluting the air. That shows what we're made of, mister. Real men leave the engine running for no reason. And you've got that whole thing, that there's that whole us versus them, us being the real people, them being the green sneakers. And there, you're not even discussing the environmental issue. You're discussing the demographics and, as what I say, faux populism. And then there is timidity. The logic of many people in my party, in the Democratic Party, is this. And it's pretty simple logic. We do good things, the Republicans don't. Therefore, good government means that we have to stay in power. And if we do good things, we'll be voted out of office. So we can't do good things. That's the logic. It's timidity. It's just people will be mad at us. That's certainly why there's no carbon pricing scheme. And again, I admit that the carbon tax, so-called, is regressive because all sales taxes are regressive. And that's an issue. But we're not even working on how to deal with that. We're not even working on how to make lower income people whole if we do carbon pricing. And it's because the thing is just off the table. And it's off the table because there are people who got angry with us about it. OK, so where are we now? I'm going to give you a list of issues that I think. And I think you already know this. But let's just go over it to get oriented. Carbon pricing, that one way or another polluting the earth and jeopardizing the planet's capacity to support life as we know it, that making that cost and giving you a reward for doing environmentally benign behaviors is a good idea and probably a necessary idea. It's an old principle that you tax bads and reward goods. And again, we're probably doing almost nothing on it. One of the biggest, best things we can do on the climate right now is mass transit. I do want to do a little personal family bragging here. My younger brother, Kurt McCormick, has been made the chair of the House Transportation Committee. He does not own an automobile. A lot of people think he's crazy. A lot of people think the speaker of the house is crazy for making him the chair of the Transportation Committee because transportation is nothing but cars on highways, right? The idea that maybe it's pedestrians and bicycles and maybe it's also mass transit is seen as a somewhat, well, again, it's one of those. It's a good idea, but there's, again, that's sort of the partial denial, the soft denial. Electric transportation, if you have to have cars, there are some cars are cleaner than others. Electric cars are the cleanest. Hybrids are cleaner than internal combustion. By the way, there's another angle on electric cars that I didn't know until I got a hybrid. And that is that they're really, really much more reliable cars. And a new technology is scary because you think, OK, they haven't really gotten all the wrinkles out of it. But the electric car is so much simpler. I mean, there's no camshaft. You don't have to take this motion and turn it into this motion. Very, very basic things. And the engineering that, in fact, the electric car seem to be more reliable. There's a problem, of course, now, which is charging stations. But that's the same problem they had a century though with automobiles, was I'm reluctant to buy a car because I don't think there are enough gas stations out there. And I'm reluctant to open a gas station because I don't know if there are enough cars. So you ratchet it up little by little. This is where government really can do something, which is you tweak it. It's not as though government's going to open up all the charging stations. But we can open up a few, certainly at the parking rides, just as an example. Clean, renewable energy. Boy, people hate the windmills. And that's a problem because I don't know if we can do it without them. And I don't think the windmills are any more unsightly than the skier. Maybe it's an aesthetic compromise, but you accept the compromise because it's necessary. But solar, as beautiful a place as Vermont is, there are places in Vermont that are already aesthetically compromised. And there's no reason not to put solar collectors on. So that's a direction we want to move in. Weatherization, the cheapest kilowatt is the one you don't burn. The cheapest oil is the oil you don't burn, just conserving. And it's a good old Vermont value as well. And we have a weatherization program. Every year we fight for it for funding. And every year we get funding, but probably nowhere near what we should be putting in. And there's some full populism that is often presented to us that weatherization money shouldn't be used for weatherization. It should be used to subsidize the purchase of fuel oil. You don't care about keeping people warm. You just care about your green agenda. And that's the kind of thing we're up against. And once again this year, when we get to what's happening right now, weatherization is one of the issues. Every penny that goes into this infrastructure is money not available for that infrastructure. So the idea of continuing to invest in infrastructure that is only going to be used for fossil fuels means that we've made a decision for 20 years, 30 years that it's sort of decided. A lot of people are saying, well, fracking and pipelines and the heavy power lines, that's a bridge. That'll supply our power short term until we can do more renewables. But it's also pretty much a decision not to do renewables, at least not to do as much. Because the money has already been spent. And it's been spent on infrastructure for fossil fuels. What is happening right now? What is happening right now? This is the end of the legislative session. And we are really down to two issues. One is weatherization, to maintain, to keep the weatherization program for poor people. And hopefully, to expand it, to comfortably middle class people, not people living at the level I call Buick Prosperity. That's the term I invented to describe my grandfather. But it's just people who are not necessarily poor, who would not generally get any kind of public benefit. But it's a public benefit that they weatherize. And so weatherization is the issue. And then the other one is at least tentative early baby steps on electrification of transportation, other than rail. I mean, rail is really one place that is still being neglected. Although, not entirely. We're putting a couple of million into rail. But the idea of electric transportation, meaning buses, for example, we should use the Volkswagen money. We're getting a payback from Volkswagen. It's part of their punishment for lying about the fuel efficient diesel. That should be put into transportation. I hate to disappoint you. We have a roomful of people here who get it about global warming and who want to do something. And I am sorry to tell you that really all that's happening right now is trying to get some money for the early first steps on electrification and weatherization. But then that is what's happening now. And we need to work on it. And there the public support really does matter. It was mentioned earlier that I serve on the appropriations. The question really is, are we going to put our money where our mouth is? And the fight, that's not a fight. The struggle, the decision about weatherization is essentially a decision. How much money are we going to have? And the people of Vermont are pretty clear they don't like being taxed. And my Republican friends will like to tell you that only they don't want to tax you. That's not true, because the Democrats are afraid to tax you. We know you'll get mad. And nobody wants to raise taxes. And there's only so much money. And so it means any money that goes into this doesn't go into that, whatever this and that are. It's the equation always is a kind of the southeast choice. You want to put it into this, you've got to take it out or something else. And what we have actually been doing in the Senate, this is interesting, is that any bill with money comes through the appropriations. Even though if we're not the primary committee of jurisdiction, it still comes through here because we've got money. And what we have been doing is every bill that comes to us, we have amended by taking all of the money out, all of the appropriations. And it is so that we don't have any episode in which we simply appropriate money to one thing because we think it's a good idea, but rather that all appropriations get weighed against all other appropriations. I've got to tell you, it's a terrible power. People talk about the powerful appropriations committee. I'm on the appropriations committee by virtue of my seniority in the Senate. It's sort of like, OK, these are the people who really run things. And I've got to tell you, I have never felt more powerless in my life because we don't have enough money to do what we need to do. So we have to decide how much are we going to short this one? How much are we going to short that one? But that's the work that we have to do. And that is coming up now. It actually starts this week. It started this week. We have the budget from the House. And now we are going rewriting the House budget, which is what the Senate does because we are the upper body. And the word Senate comes from the Latin Senex, which refers to old men. The idea that we are the wise ones. It's also the root of the word senile. That's another thing. But in any case, I've been in the Senate for 30 years and have never seen the slightest indication that we're any wiser than the House. But that is our role. That is the job. So the money bills come from the House because they're closer to the people. And now we in the Senate, in our wisdom, decide how to rewrite it. So now is a good time to be in touch with the Senate Appropriations Committee. I represent the Windsor County Senate District. You've already got me. Alice Nipka represents the Windsor County District as well. I count her a friend. I count her an ally. But she is very, very scrupulous about the taxpayer's money. She's very aware that it's not her money. It's the taxpayer's money. And she is very guarded about where it all goes. So it wouldn't hurt for her to hear from you. It wouldn't hurt for Jane Kitchell, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, to hear from people. And you don't have to be her constituent. The way I look at it is that I was elected by the people of Windsor County. My primary loyalty is Windsor County. But I'm one of 30 people charged with governing the whole state. So if I hear from someone in the Northeast Kingdom, I write them back. And I pay attention to what they're saying. And that's the case with my colleagues. How do you do it? How do you support a particular piece of legislation? And this is my last thing that I wanted to talk about. And then I'll shut up and answer questions if I can. Or maybe people don't have questions. We would just like to make their statements. Everyone talks about how the printed media are in trouble. And electronics have taken over. The local weaklies are still very active. Because if you want to know what's going on in woodstock, high school sports, you're not going to find out any place but the standard. And if you want to know what happened at the Randolph select board meeting, you're going to find out in the Herald of Randolph. People read the weaklies. And so good old fashioned letters to the editor are very helpful. But then there is also social media. I know it's mean. I know it's ugly. It's often slanderous and creepy. But you don't have to be. Just state your case. And someone will tell you, we'll post that you're a nut. It's people like you who are ruining Vermont. Well, that's their opinion. It's still hard. My wife scolds me for doing anything on Facebook. Because it's so frustrating. I'm a grown man. I'm sitting there yelling at the computer. But don't know. You can't, in this day and age, you cannot ignore social media. Contact legislators. And then the other thing is just a lot of people think that the personal conversations don't do that much. But if everybody's doing the personal conversation, it really doesn't. They're the grains of sand, and they add up. A little bit of how to get in touch with your legislator. I presume everybody here has some access to a computer, right? OK, the Facebook homepage for the state government of Vermont is easily accessible. You just Google Vermont State of or State of Vermont. And there's a page. And my simple answer is go there and follow the prompts. But you actually have a search box for bills. And if you happen to know the number of the bill, then you just go there, and you'll find out where the bill is at present, or at least where it was last time it was posted. It might be a day or two out of date. But you can also put in a search word. And I found, for example, I was surprised. I put in global warming. I did it this afternoon before coming in here. I put in global warming. I only got two bills. But I put in climate, and got about 25. So that's the usual problem of searching online. Keep trying. It's all there. Before I turn it over to you, I want to mention one thing. And I don't want to put on airs. I have never read Schopenhauer. I got this off a box of herbal tea. But it's a quote to keep in mind. Every important idea goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed as dangerous. And finally, it is held to have always been self-evident. And then one from Winston Churchill, a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. In this case, be a fanatic. OK, I'll throw it open to the floor. Yeah. I'm your neighbor from Randolph. And we have a young legislator by the name of Jay Hooper. And he went to the Energy Action Networks last report. He came out about six weeks ago. And it says that to meet our 2025-30 goals and the 250 goals, we need this number of EVs on the road and charging stations to go with them. So I don't worry with it. You probably did. Maybe in the climate caucus. And he said, that's $20 million. So I'm proposing $20 million. How far did that go? Well, he said, I'm hoping for eight, but how did you know? Well, of course, everything right now is still up in the air. There's no $20 million for that. I'm going to tell you that. So we're not going to meet the goals. Well, you see, that's one of the bills that is pending. And it's not going to get a lot of attention this year, but will in the future. Is that the famous goals that goes back to the Shumlin administration? 90% renewables by 2050. I always said on that, I don't expect to live to 103. So I can make that promise. I won't have to answer for it. But no, is that those are goals. Those are not required. We have not required that of ourselves. So there is a bill to take those goals and put them into statute. And that's worth supporting. That's worth pushing. Where do I get the bill number for that? Yeah, bill numbers. Because these are, if you're writing it down, we talked earlier about no new fossil fuel infrastructure. That's House Bill 51 and Senate Bill 66. And again, nothing is happening this year with those. But it's a biennium. It's a biennium, so we come back next year. And I've got to tell you, the public support seems to have, it's been there all along, but it's getting louder in the last month. It's really catching. So keep that on. To put the goals into statute is House Bill 462. And there is a Senate bill as well, introduced actually by Senator Clarkson of Windsor County. And I don't remember the number of that. Again, nothing had happened with it this year. But I mean, the idea that we have to not just, to say we're going to be at 90% renewables by 2050, I'm 72 years old. It's easy for me. I just say, yeah, I promise, we'll do it. And if it doesn't happen, I won't be around to be confronted with that. But if we put it into statute, that interim goal, interim targets are compulsory. We're breaking the law, if we're not, certainly. Not only are we not on pace, we're actually falling a little bit behind. We're actually losing ground. So it would be a good thing for us to make that, make it illegal to lose ground. Yeah, that's a good point. I also want to tell you, this is a little bit dismayed. I think it's 4% of the cars on the road from our electric. And that's simply the fact. What one does with that fact? My reaction, the 4% of the cars in the road are electric, was, oh my god, we've really got to up our game here. We've got to really do a better job of getting electric. A fairly powerful Senate leader confronted me with the fact that 4% of the cars are electric as a reason not to pay attention to electric cars, because they're not with the actions, that the people are still driving internal combustion engines, gasoline power engines. Therefore, that's what we should be thinking about. And why are you wasting your time with 4% of the cars? The exact same facts. And of course, you can see his logic. It's not completely the logic. I think he's wrong. But he came to the opposite conclusion than I am. Yeah. Just out of curiosity, if the goals are translated into legislation or into statute, and that includes interim goals, and we don't meet our interim goals, what are the consequences or potential consequences that the legislators are thinking of? Citizen action groups that sue the state. And if you look at the federal, the pending docket in the federal courts, Sierra Club versus EPA, there's always a Sierra Club versus EPA case, because that EPA is not enforcing the law adequately. You'll also get Chamber of Commerce versus EPA, and they're saying that they're overdoing it. They're overstating it. But I mean, that's how the bureaucracy implements the law is a subject for argument. And having it be in statute gives a judicial tool to citizens who think that the government is not doing its job. Yeah. The bill that's called the fuel tax, you said that was one of the, it's the weatherization bill. Oh, yeah. When it came over to the Senate when I was here, I think today is here, trying to find a different way to finance it, because they didn't say what it is. Yeah, because I don't think anyone really knows yet. But there is that problem, the way, weatherization is a great program. It's a big bang for the buck, which is just that we help people tighten up their houses so they're not putting heat and money and greenhouse gases out their windows. And the way it has been funded is a surtax on heating. And to get it to increase weatherization required that the House agreed to increase the fuel tax, the fuel oil surtax. And it is regressive. And it was an issue that many want to talk again about populism, that there are people who are saying, you're taxing the poor people that you claim to be helping. That's the conservative opposition. And frankly, they've got a point. So what we're trying to do is figure out is there's some less regressive way to pay for the problem. And we really haven't gotten there yet. That's what we will be doing in the next few weeks. Yeah. Yes, thanks so much for being here and talking. A couple of quick ones. We, the people, probably pay for the governor's vehicle. That should be electric. Right now, we can afford that. If you can go ahead and buy an electric car, that would be a good idea. I've been in Mount Pelier where a police officer is directing traffic while his vehicle is off to the side idling. What was the excuse? The excuse was, well, we have so many computers on board, we have to keep running the car to charge the battery. Why not put another battery in the car and make it a law for law enforcement to turn off the cars? There are simple things that you, as leaders, should be doing immediately that can be solved without a huge amount of money. And for another one. What about convincing Vermont credit unions to do the best job they can to get people loans into electric cars? This is called education, and you're a great educator. But we need leadership to educate those, for example, hardware stores. Start selling the electric lawnmowers. Start selling this stuff. It's just outrageous what's going on in the retail world. Thank you. I'll cap that as a statement more than a question. Yeah, a bunch of it. And actually, no, I think you've made very good sense. This gentleman ran against me for the state senate news. As an independent. Was a great candidate and made some really good, good points. Yeah. I'll take that to heart. Yeah. There's several things that you said that I'd like to comment on. But I'm thinking of one here. I drive a car. I would much rather be taking the bus. But first of all, the bus does not run at night. This is at night, obviously. The bus does not run on weekends. The bus is a third one. Holidays. OK. This is quite a junction. Obviously, we help support the buses in here locally. So that's my problem. How do I? I'm in the 80s, how I've been. So I should be staying at home all the time. But I'm not the kind of person. No, you don't want to drive. I don't like to stay home. I want to be out and come into this meeting. But how can I do it? But I've got the car. I can walk here tonight. I mentioned my brother, Kurt, who chairs house transportation and who does not have a car. He and I are of a mind on transportation issues. But I've got to say, he walks the walk better than I do. Any place I go, the first place I look for how to get there is training. If I'm visiting, you know, if I'm going to New York or Philadelphia, I've got a family out in Michigan. I always look first at the train. I rarely take the train. Because the schedule doesn't work for me. And if there were more trains, I would use them. I really think there's sort of a build it and they will come principle, which is that if we have more there's a point at which you have to take a leap of faith, that if you build more trains, more people will use the trains. That people like me, because I would use it if the scheduling worked. I've got to say, my brother, Kurt, would cancel the trip. It's if I can't get there by train, I'm not gone. I'll go another time. But Vermont is particularly a problem in that we are the most rural population in the country. And then of course you can figure these things different ways. If you take the population of Montana and divide it by the square footage or acreage, then Montana is the population more rural than we are. But most of the people of Montana are in the handful of population centers. Vermont has a dispersed population. We are the most thinly settled state or thinly settled population. We all live, and to a certain extent, it might be said we live in the wrong places. Everyone should live in a village. If you're not a logger or a farmer, it's probably a self-indulgence to live out in the country. And I live out in the country. I got to admit this. And I live out in the country because I like it. It's a poetic aesthetic satisfaction. I love having deer in my yard. But probably we'd be better off in the villages because we are so thinly settled, so broadly scattered. It means that mass transit is a problem for us. I don't know if there's a way to get Vermonters that, when Vermonters go from here to there, they use mass transit. And that's pretty much the way it is for a lot of people in New York City, for example. They walk or they use mass transit. They're much less environmentally destructive for capita than we are. But we have population centers. And certainly buses. I mean, it's a half hour from Brattleboro to Springfield. Half an hour from Springfield to White River. An hour from White River to Montpellier. There are certain areas, not to mention, that we've got a train line coming all the way up. The Connecticut is a good passenger service that goes all the way to Burlington. Why not commuter service? I live in Bethel. I live a mile and a half from the train station. I would love to ride my bike to the train station and take the train to Montpellier Junction and then ride to the, you know, but we could do more on mass transit. And I really do think, build it and they will come. If we do more, it'll be more usable and more people will be laying in the back out of an elevator, yeah. So I recently heard a statistic that 85% of Vermonters live within a quarter mile of a railroad, not a stop, but a railroad that was a track. A track, yeah. I know I'm having trouble with that word. Okay, railroad track. So, and this, you know, granted, was told to me by All-Earth Rail who has these bi-directional blood cars. What's being done, and it sounds like right now most of their roadblocks are, because the railroad company owns the tracks, not the state. So what's being done to make that easier for them? They have money, they want to get on the tracks, but the companies, the freight companies won't let them. Again, I'm focusing on where the action, right now the action is in the western part of the state and the possibility of a flood car, commuter train from the south into Berkeley. And I think that's, that may happen. And in part because it's not just the state, there's a commercial interest in doing that. Always, always it's dismaying that we're not doing more, but that's where the, where the focus is right now. But again, the track from Washington D.C. to Montreal is usable for passenger service. There is passenger service in Vermont now coming up the Connecticut River as far as White River and then up, across the state, ultimately in St. Albans. Whereupon you got a bus to Montreal, which is very frustrating. And you can't go back. The schedule that doesn't work, right. It's happening slowly. Yeah. When I was a kid, I remember on TV, there used to be public service campaigns, which were not advertisements, but they were trying to get across a message about something for sort of societal improvement. And I wonder why, it seems to me, I feel that programs like Weather Rise and Solar Rise, which the Barnard Energy Committee has supported are wonderful and I'm glad that we've done those, but they feel piecemeal. As I look back on, as I look at where we are and where we have to go, it feels like that we felt real success with those things. It's, we need a much bigger, broader buy-in. That these things aren't, they aren't viewed as optional, but they're viewed with some sense of urgency. And I feel that this out of somewhere, and it seems to me it's probably state government, there should be messages to the public that climate change and overshoot need to be addressed. And I'm wondering if you are hearing about that from anywhere else, and if you have any suggestions as to where some traction might start to come on an ideal life. Well, I understand you can be making two points. One was the idea that you talk about things being piecemeal. There is H477, it's a house bill that is a comprehensive global warming bill. And that is that it addresses a wide variety of strategies and has not gone anywhere this year but again, it's a buy-in in, and after which we have another election. That idea could be, on the other hand, if you get too ambitious, it's almost, it's tempting to say wonderful things about the environment but not actually do that much. And there's the idea, it's certainly late in the session. I get to, I've been one of the people who's been saying all through this session, we should be doing more. We should be thinking bigger. But now, it's the middle of April, I'm here telling you weatherization and baby steps on electrification because it's any game. And so we're not gonna get comprehensive and global this year in the legislature. But there's nothing stopping people from getting comprehensive and global over the summer in terms of the popular, just the popular will. Was it, I think it was Aristophanes who had, in one of his plays, where the politician says, there go the people, I must catch up with them, I'm their leader. And that kind of thing happens, you know, where you start hearing from the people, I don't know, I've been there all along, I guess I'm not doing enough. You can really light a fire in a politician, yeah. We had the opportunity to join an electric co-op with solar co-op a few years ago and we're now, could be adding about 30, 35% of our total energy is coming from that co-op up in Randolph. We all love to hate our utilities but we find that Green Mountain Power has bent over backwards to make it possible. For instance, I give some of my energy to my son who lives in Bennington. But after that one acre facility was put up, the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission has made putting other solar fields up more restrictive, not helping them along, helping us to get to 2050. And it seems to me it's a commission that is making it more difficult for us to put in solar fields rather than other forces. What can be done about that? Well, one thing is, I remember, you know, tax bill, I moved forward to the village in Woodstock where they were very exercised about a solar array that was gonna go in right next to the village. And I went down to a meeting they were having. What I said to them is something I think is really important which is, I agree with you that you should not have a solar array right here. This is an aesthetically sensitive, beautiful place and that would compromise it. But you can't just say not here. If you say not here, that raises a question, where? Because we gotta put clean, renewable energy sources in some place. I think solar, again, we have places that are already aesthetically compromised and get lots of sun, such as gravel pits, unused gravel pits, such as industrial rooftops. And that's for the large scale. And then of course there's also small scale, just individual house tops for that family. But even an array, there are places where they probably, well I think parking lots. I don't understand why there aren't more in parking lots. Yeah. I'm a part of that community solar and Randolph and we're gonna do another one this year. You know where? Nope, that's all the fun of it. Yeah. As a politician, tell me how I should best communicate to a committee. Do I do a single letter as a person? Do I do a letter as an energy committee? Do I join with like 10 other energy committees and do a letter? Which one is more powerful? Well, I think it depends on the committees. And it depends on the politicians. So one of the things I would say is kind of get to know the people you're dealing with or get to know about them. I mean, for example, you live in Hartford, so I would ask Kevin Christie and Becca White and just say tell me about that committee. How do I deal with them? Because different committees are dealt with different ways. Let me tell you a couple of things not to do. Okay. Nobody likes to get scolded. Nobody likes to get threatened. And for example, I have been getting a lot of email, not on this subject, but I've been getting emails that have been saying, I am watching how you vote and I will be remembering in November. Well, first of all, I know that. How does he think I got elected in the first place? I know what happens in November. But the other thing is I take an oath of office that I will vote my own best judgment as to what will best conduce. Vermont Constitution has strange uses sometimes. What will best conduce to the best interests of the people in Vermont. And I'm gonna do that. And if I get voted out of office, I get voted out of office. I once said to someone who's threatening to get me voted out of office, I said, you know, you want me out, vote me out. I'm in the prime of life. I'm an intelligent man with a decent education. I'll find something else to do. He wrote a letter to the editor saying, Senator McCormick said he doesn't have to do what the people want because he's intelligent. To finish answering the question, I find much to my surprise that I prefer email to phone calls because phone calls come at inconvenient times. An email, I can manage when I deal with it. Other people don't want the email. They find that the annoyance. Also there's, I would say you wanna have enough information and enough persuasive logic that there's some reason why someone should agree with you. But, so I mean, just when I get a message, yes, on age 57, oh, well, since you put it that way, okay. I need more than that, but I don't need a book because I don't have time. I represent 60,000 people and they're all writing me now with the electronic revolution. It's amazing, I'm not sure. This is a letter written by a lobbying group that the energy committees are signing onto. Ah-ha. And or not signing onto and writing our own letter. That's the right. Yeah. Well, first of all, when a lobbying group writes a letter and then they sit to it, a lot of the time people just sign their names to the mass letter. And after a while, the legislators begin to recognize the pros. And you realize, oh, it's a form letter. You know, I mean. No, well, I don't know exactly how it's gonna be done, but okay, fine. Okay, no, in fact, even if you're doing a form, rewrite the form. So then people think it's from you. No, the one thing I would say is, you know, for example, as someone concerned and active on global warming, there was, I don't know who, what it was. Everyone was writing the same letter, demanding bold action. And I'm thinking, well, yeah, that's right. I got the sense I was being scolded. I agreed with them anyway, so I forgave them. But you know, you get the sense you're being scolded. Yeah. So without scolding at all, I'm genuinely interested to know whether you and your colleagues, whether the voices of our young people are even beginning to make a dent. And the reason that I ask is, I woke up this morning and found this letter from scientists in Science Magazine. Hundreds if not thousands of them will be signing. I'm not gonna read it. But to say, they declare that these young people whose concerns are justified. They say it's critical that we immediately begin a rapid reduction immediately. And they say, politicians have the huge responsibility of creating the necessary framework. And they say these young people, there's no time to wait until they are empowered. And they say they deserve our respect and our support. These are leading climate scientists. And I'm very curious whether that's getting across in the state. It depends. I would say that the legislature is made up of people every bit as diverse as the public that they represent. I have colleagues who will roll their eyes at that. And say, you know, these kids shouldn't be marching. They should be back in school. On the other hand, I have people who are, I have a couple of colleagues who are older who are thinking, in fact, to tell you that I don't want to start rumors that I'm gonna retire. I think I'm not gonna retire. I love my job. But every two years I ask myself, has the time come to retire? And I now have been thinking, boy, there's a whole new generation of young kids out there who are just chomping at the bit. Maybe we should, everyone over 55 should just clear the hell out of my bit. And give them. I said, maybe. But what I'm saying is, that's a false choice. It's up to you. Yeah. We are speaking up, she says, because these kids have done their homework. And if you don't think they should be marching then, she says, you should be marching. But you can't lay it off on 14 or what's paying you. No, but in terms of, listen, some, many of us are quite impressed with the kids. Okay. And not just the kid, just the young adults. Yeah, I'll catch you. Yeah, Linda. So last year, it was very impressive that there was a tremendous turnaround on gun safety legislation. That arose because of a crisis in Vermont. A particular crisis that affected Governor Scott's attitude about stuff. And something happened. And so it seems to me, like your discussion about stuff and looking back at that history, that to get bold action, we have to have some crisis. Like another huge flood. Is that, it's like, overall, is that what's gonna take for action in the legislature? We have to have a weather crisis that affects people and costs us billions of dollars. Is that what it's gonna take? Well, I think that's a rhetorical question. Maybe. Maybe, yeah, maybe it is. Everybody, not everybody, but the vast majority of my colleagues at least give lip service to global. I will tell you on the gun thing, what got me was not the Fairhaven and the Florida massacre, it was the Connecticut stuff several years ago. Where I had always taken the position that we're a safe state and we don't have a gun problem and why draw rats to use the Irish expression. And I'm just not gonna anger the gun guys. And after the Connecticut massacre, I thought, how do I face myself if something happens? And I hadn't done more. So there really was, there are some particular episodes tip, you know, the scales, what would, but it's not a matter of tipping the scales here. As I say, pretty much everybody at least gives lip service. They're already convinced. It's this soft denial that it's way down the denial spectrum. And what it takes to get me, I don't know. It may simply be that the public really does seem lately to be getting angrier. And well, hold on, there was someone else. Yeah, yeah. And then I'll get you. Is it really about the money? Yeah, first of all, there's end of the legislation. So it's not like there's millions of dollars to do anything. So it's really the next legislature that maybe the appropriations can work out differently. But the attention I think should be there to get this legislature. Well, I mean, it's a change. We really do want to get weatherization in this budget, in the 2020 budget. We want weatherization. And whatever smalls, if it's only small steps, small steps are better than nothing on the electrification of transportation. And then you get a little momentum going and maybe we get something more next year. Yes, Dick. Yeah. Yeah, we kind of all know that the transportation is not mass transportation. It's we need electric cars for our rural living. And it's a huge problem. Why aren't we inviting an auto manufacturer to the state to build a Vermont car? 35 miles an hour, off the ground, low gear, you can get to your property and you can get to your beer. That's what's important. Now, the guys, you know, quite a few trucks are in the yard, but you just need your little electric car to go get the beer. Now, why can't the state or the Democrats and the progressives demand of the governor to start negotiating to get a manufacturer here by calling jobs? We don't have to actually make the part. We can import the parts on the trains to so many of our communities that are ready for jobs. What's going on? Why has it, what has happened in the last 40 years? Nothing, right? Well, I wouldn't say nothing, but not enough. And when we talk about the young kids getting upset and they want to see action, well, we may not have money, but you sure can make noise. And we're not hearing the noise out of Mount Killier. No, you're not. And when I just mentioned, why aren't we going to an auto? Why can't Vermont have a manufacturer here building Vermont electric cars? I don't know if anyone's got a manufacturer specifically a Vermont car. But in terms of electric cars, I mean, there are electric cars. I'm driving a hybrid. By the way, on the faux populism line, I get a lot of grief for driving a hybrid. People presume I'm more affluent than I actually am. We got a real bargain on it, or we wouldn't have it. But in any case, there are fuel-efficient cars. And what we just need is more people willing to use them. Right, but when the state encourages people to drive electric cars and helps people make it happen, that's the educational tool that will turn this problem around. We're not showing the tools to get there. Well, it's not money. It's education. I really, I don't money. Since I'm a chronic critic of state policy, I don't have to defend the state. But I've got to say that the state has actually been trying to promote. Going back to Howard Dean, trying to promote an electric alternative, it was exotic in the Dean days. And now it is a way that a lot of people get around. And there's a small, slow improvement. Nothing like what I wish we had. Yeah? On the subject of transportation, I was hoping earlier you would mention Govermont, when you were talking about Maastrand, which I totally agree with you, it makes sense when it's a critical mass. But Govermont is trying to do the same thing, create a critical mass. So people should think about that. So it's a platform, an online platform for connecting commuters. And it's a simple solution. And I think what we're trying to do is create a critical mass to have a hard launch in the summer of 2019. I think Paige Heverly knows much more about it than I do. But people should think about that. Even if you don't have a regular commute, there's some work arounds you can use. But there's a lot of simple solutions that we can all take upon ourselves as well. That's my quote for Govermont. When you go in the morning and hold the board a little more on Govermont, it's finding you. I can. Thank you. So I put my job, my day job head on. OK, so Govermont is instead of highways and it's alternatives, transportation demand alternatives. So it's carpooling, vanpooling, making use of trips that are already happening. So the app or the platform that Eric is referencing, there's an app and a website that you can go on and essentially find gri-share matches. So if you every day drive from Heartland to White Room Junction, you can put that in there and then see other folks who are making that same trip, message them and say, hey, you know, maybe one day a week, you want to meet up for coffee, and maybe we could be carpool buddies. And then in the same app on the platform, you can redeem rewards for those green trips and you have fruit of points. And you can get things like discounts at Revolution. So it's pretty cool. And as Eric said, we do need a critical mass to be even on the app. So if you open it up now, there's 5,000 people in the whole state that are on there. And most people in rural areas, 5,000 people spread across the whole state, you're not going to find anyone as same commute as you. But if we go to events like this and all of us in this room here register and make an account, maybe we can start to say, oh, I saw that guy before. Turns out he's my neighbor. We have a similar commute. Let's let's carpool once a week. And this kind of just makes good on the fact that the best thing we can do to increase the efficiency of our transportation sector is to look at our empty seats and fill them. So while we might not be able to do buses or trains in the Blankford Nye, we often have five passenger vehicles that we can fill. So it's one way to do that. Thank you. Do you have a number? Or do you just go online and look for it? Yep. ConnectingCompeters.org. Or in the apps, either the Android store, Google Play, or whatever it is, and Apple Store, it's Govermont. Govermont is? Govermont. Is Vermont abbreviated or? No, just spell it out. Yeah. And we'll be doing a green drink so that the sustainable would suck in May. That we'll go through how to sign up, how to use the app, and everything like that. And a V-CAN will also be doing a webinar. So if you're cleaning with V-CAN, that's another way to do this. Yeah. So I just throw in on running off that. You can also just search for Govermont on the web. It might be easier than remembering or trying to scrap a plan, that URL, and maybe type of it. Govermont is your key, right? Yep. So Dick, I love you. I've been following you for years. I love the work you do. Uh-oh, that's not the purpose. But. But, well, no. Honestly, I just want to make sure that nothing I say comes off as anything, any form of disrespect or lack of appreciation for the work that you put in over the years. I've been working on this issue for over a decade now, which is, you know, opinions compared to how long you've been at it, if I understand correctly. And one of the things that I've done over that time is I've allowed my understanding of how to connect and how to effect change at all. And we've done a lot of amazing things at Hartford by focusing differently, right? And I kind of wanted to throw that preface out there, because, you know, I do have a certain level of frustration with things that are happening at the state level, especially around the lot. Because, you know, again, the energy independent Vermont, this is my tribe. You know, I love these people. And they love me, you know? They gave me an award for making the kind of rhetoric I'm about to make. And they had a VCAN conference. The keynote speaker made the same kind of points. And the point is, the reason nothing is happening in Montpelier or on climate change is the messaging is wrong. It's just wrong, because it's all about climate change, right? Everybody who is going to act on climate change has heard everything you said to everyone here tonight. And as much as I love to be with my tribe, and hear all that again, we're the choir. And you've got to get out of the choir and stop talking about climate change, because honestly, we're not going to affect climate change directly, right? If we want to have a real impact on climate change, we've got to accept the side. You know, something you talked a little bit about was frustrating with people who are still denying the climate science. And I'm right there with you. But I am equally frustrated with people that don't understand that that same science tells us as reliably that I'm not, my output isn't going to make a difference, what I do. What this town does isn't going to affect climate change in any meaningful way. And what the state of Vermont does isn't going to affect climate change. Our direct greenhouse gases, right? So to say that we have to put anything out there as if there is a sacrifice or a piety that's worth accepting as a means of affecting climate change, it's just false. We're not going to affect climate change directly. What we can do is we can save a whole lot of money. We can make our lives more comfortable. We can make our lives more convenient. We can make our air cleaner and be healthier. And I'm the person that's been doing this for years. I started driving Prius a long time ago, right? And I did it. Why did I buy my first Prius? You were talking about it being an expensive thing? I did it because it was the cheapest way to deliver the services and the needs to my family that we were accustomed to. It was the cheapest option. It wasn't the most expensive option to get a hybrid. Most reliable car on the road today is a Prius. That's just starting up. If you're buying new, right? Same thing with electric cars. I'm on my third Nissan Leaf. I built a net-zero home in Hartford. None of that I did because of my climate output. It just happens to have a great positive effect on my personal climate footprint. But that's not the driving factor. Every one of those decisions was driven by finance, comfort, health. How can I deliver the quality of life that I want to deliver to my family in the most cost-effective way, right? And nobody's talking about that. That's not getting through. What was Mitzi Johnson's excuse for not entertaining a climate bill? Can you help me out with that? Can anybody remember her reasoning? She said, we're not going to bring it up. We'll do it later. No, it was before that. It was earlier on. It was something about until we addressed, one of the issues has been solved since day one, which is how is it going to affect low-income folks, right? And the messaging around the climate, a carbon tax is wrong because we're calling it a carbon tax. I have yet to see a bill go to the house that was just a tax on carbon. Every single one is a fossil fuel tax embedded in a bill that was going to support low-income people, you know? I mean, directly support low-income is a progressive bill with a, if you treat it by itself, a regressive form of funding. That doesn't make the bill regressive, right? What do you do with that money is the question about whether or not it's regressive. So I beg you, and I beg energy independent Vermont, stop talking about climate. We're here. We're ready. Let's do it for other reasons. Let's get other people on board who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid yet. I hope I put quotes up when I say carbon tax. It is what the opponent's calling it. I'll live with carbon prices. But I know the argument about, say, with weatherization, there's the argument about saving money and comfort, just physical comfort when you work out. The house is better. I would say in terms of doing something about climate change, even though, you know, one little person or one little community, is that we're all responsible for our part of the big picture, even if we're just a small part. And the other thing is that the small parts really do add up. Where else does the big picture come from, but the aggregate of small parts? So I appreciate that. And again, I got involved in this stuff with that attitude, but when I started actually trying to affect policy change, in this case, it's the local level, I had to get away from that because most people, I realized after years of working on this, most people don't want to think about this stuff, right? And I was really angry about that for about seven years. Everybody's gotta think about the same things I wanna think about, right? This delusions of grandeur that I suffered from, and I'm sorry, but I think a lot of us still do, right? That what matters to us the most should matter to everyone else the most. But then I realized, wait a minute, I don't want my surgeon thinking about this stuff. I don't even want my sandwich artist who wants to think about this stuff, right? I want the people, us, the ones who want, who are passionate about this stuff for some weird reason than me, right? I want us to figure out how to make it easy for them, how to change the defaults, how to adopt the policies that are gonna make their lives better at the same time more sustainable, or let's not stop using the word more sustainable and just say sustainable. Okay, well, I take your point, to expand briefly on your point, it took me 20 years to get clothes lines legal. The right to drive up. The right to drive up. And I'll tell you, I based my position almost entirely on energy conservation and got nowhere. When we started getting somewhere was when Yankee magazine said, did an editorial praising the bill and saying, a Vermonters long johns snapping in the April breeze are as much a part of the New England scene as the scowl on a New Hampshire town clerk. And then Lyman Orton of the Vermont Country Store started a campaign. For him it was, who's offended by the side of clothes lines? It's people from down country. This is a good old Vermont tradition. And then I started hearing from old ladies who would say, hanging the clothes out was always my favorite part of housework. It took me outdoors in the fresh air. So it was a personal joy of living lifestyle issue that actually got approved. They couldn't have cared less. The right to conserve energy. Yeah, and I think it's getting late. Let me just throw out this one quick thing and then I promise I'll be quiet. On the issue of where there's not enough money, that's one of the biggest, false problems I think exists around this issue because we send around a billion dollars a year out of this state every year on fuels. Because we don't produce any year that's a one billion dollar economic loss. So to say there's no money for it but to not understand economics and not understand good governance and policy. That's an argument that's paid regularly. Someone, yeah. So Alan in response and I came a little late so I'm forgetting what he's probably just put. I think Alison Clarkson, so the Houses Global Warming Solutions Act which I think is the comprehensive one. And she I think is talking about rewriting that from an economic standpoint. Do I have that right? She has already, is the chief sponsor. I think I'm a co-sponsor. I'm not sure we can be co-sponsor a lot. Can you talk about that at all? No, but she talks about redrawing the issue as an economic development issue. Good. Yeah, the check-in is very wise. I wanna respond to the gentleman's point over there. I really appreciate what he said but I don't think we have any choice but to talk about climate change. But taking his point, we should emphasize solutions, climate solutions that really are profitable directly. And I wanna mention just one which I sent Richard some information about. In the last several years there's been a revolution in chemistry which allows us to capture CO2 emissions, mix it with water and make it into a fuel. And this fuel can be burned in a power plant so that it's just directly profitable. You capture the CO2 from a power plant, you mix it with water, you make it into a fuel. The fuel is returned to the furnace and the process is repeated. I'm not talking about a perpetual motion machine, I'm just saying that the CO2 can be harvested as a feedstock. And if you burn biomass in a power plant and you capture the CO2 emission and you make it into a fuel and you return it to the furnace then you have a very large scale negative carbon factory which is obviously profitable and eats carbon out of the air because when we grow stuff as you pointed out nature's way of taking carbon out of the air is to grow stuff, grow plants. And so this revolution is very apparent in the scientific community but outside of the scientific community policy makers and journalists, educators don't know anything about it. I'll go back to the last one. This one might screen you in case. There you have it. Is it time? Yeah. Is it time to wrap up? Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. It's a little after eating. Folks, thank you so much for inviting me. I've enjoyed coming and talking with you. We could go, I'm gonna hang around for a little while. Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.