 Welcome everyone and thanks so much for coming out I think it's fantastic and amazing that so many people care enough about this issue to take time out of their evening and listen to what opposing viewpoints have to say about it. As we sit here today of course national leaders from across the globe are gathered in Paris trying to reach an agreement on carbon emission reductions internationally. They're wrestling with a desire to reduce carbon emissions with the impacts of those policies on the people in the economies that are going to be affected by them. That debate is landed in Vermont as well and it's picking up in earnest and we're going to be hearing a lot more about it in the very near future. Last March lawmakers introduced two bills they're very similar and each tries to reduce carbon emissions in Vermont by imposing attacks on those emissions as a means of encouraging alternative sources alternative sources of energy and new ways of using energy. They aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by imposing attacks on those emissions and that would come in the form of an excise tax on fuels that emit carbon. We're talking here about gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating oil. The majority of the revenue collected by this tax according to legislation that exists right now would be redistributed to consumers in the form of other kinds of tax cuts. The remainder of that revenue would flow into a special fund that would pay for things like air source heat pumps, rooftop solar arrays and higher mileage vehicles. The bills have become touchstones in a political debate over the merits of using tax policy as a policy lever to change the way Vermonters use energy and to change the sources that that energy is coming from. It's also raised questions about the capacity of a small state like Vermont to have any kind of meaningful impact on emission reductions generally. Paul Burns of Veeperg and John Erickson of UVM's Gund Institute for Ecological Economics say that the proposed legislation would be good not just for the environment but for the state and local economy as well. Rob Roper and John McClurry of the Ethan Allen Institute say the proposals or variations of them would provide no environmental benefits and that they would harm the economy in the process. Tonight, each of them is going to try to convince you that they're right. I'm going to tell you a little bit about who these gentlemen are before we begin. Paul Burns is executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. It's a position he's held since 2001. Veeperg is Vermont's largest nonprofit, consumer and environmental agency organization. It has over 40,000 members. Through his work at Veeperg, Paul has helped to pass some legislation that you all have no doubt heard of such as the nation's first ban on fracking, GMO food labeling, comprehensive chemical reform. Paul earned his law degree from Syracuse University School of Law in 1992. John Erickson is professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources and fellow of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. He's published widely on energy and climate change policy, land conservation, watershed planning, environmental public health. He's written numerous books. He's been a Fulbright scholar on the economics faculty at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute before joining UVM. Rob Roper moved to Vermont in 1998, leaving a job as a senior copywriter at Young and Rubicom at Advertising to become a stay-at-home dad to his newborn daughter and two years later, his new son. Since then, he's done freelance advertising and writing and considerable work in grassroots policy organizations. You may know him from the public policy radio show that he hosted on DEV for four years. From 2007 to 2009, he was the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party and he's currently the president of the Ethan Allen Institute. John McClory is currently the vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute. He came to Vermont in 1963, served in the Vermont House and Senate where he served in the Natural Resources Committee and Joint Committee on Energy. Over the past 25 years, John has been following climate science and energy policy as well as many other state issues. You've probably heard him also on DEV and it featured in a lot of op-eds around the state. The Ethan Allen Institute is a free market public policy research and education organization with a mission to help folks understand public policy better in Vermont. The format for tonight is going to go as follows. We're going to have two opening statements, 10 minutes each. Each side is then going to have four minutes each to offer a rebuttal of what the other said. Then they're each going to ask each other questions. There's going to be two rounds of that. And then we're going to open it up for you all to ask whatever questions you have of these folks. Again, thanks for coming. It's really great to see so many people here. And Paul, John, how about it? Thank you. Again, my name is Paul Burns, and I'm the executive director of V-Perg. It's Peter said I want to thank you all for being here. Let the record reflect a standing room only crowd. So thanks. And I really appreciate you're coming out on a not so beautiful night. Thanks to Peter as well for agreeing to moderate here. We're gonna share a little time as an opening here and then our friends will do the same and we'll move forward in the way that Peter described. We're here tonight, though, for one important reason. And that is that our climate is in dire straits. It's being damaged every day by fossil fuel companies who are making huge tremendous profits by polluting our environment and essentially throwing their waste into our atmosphere for free. You know about the climate talks that Peter mentioned going on right now in Paris. You also probably know that in Congress, a number of key committees in both the House and the Senate are chaired by individuals who do not believe in climate change, do not believe in climate science. So while we are optimistic about what may happen in Paris in the next few days, we do not hold out great hope for Washington D.C. in terms of being able to solve this problem for us. And yet, we do have an opportunity right here at home to make progress on climate clean energy and the good-paying jobs that can come with the solutions that we're proposing. I have to tell you that although we too are the panelists that believe in global warming and we understand the damage that is being done to the climate, I think we are the optimists here tonight. We're gonna be talking about some of the positive things that can happen by thinking about what we can do to help solve this problem. VPURG and the Gund Institute are two members of a large and growing coalition known as Energy Independent Vermont. Energy Independent Vermont includes faith leaders. It includes low income advocates, many of the town energy committees around the state, the state's leading environmental organizations, business leaders, and literally hundreds of businesses as well. We've come together in the belief that we all want to live in the place that is best for our families. And I think we all believe that we have a moral responsibility to do what is best for our children and for future generations. While none of us can solve the problem of climate change alone, I think we all understand that it is together as a community, each of us doing our part that we actually can achieve success. Certainly it's success that none of us could achieve alone. So putting aside Washington DC for a moment, we have an opportunity here to reduce pollution, improve our health and create new jobs here in Vermont that cannot be exported. It's possible to turn away from dirty fossil fuels and instead embrace sustainable solutions. We imagine a place where people at all income levels can afford to weatherize their home or heat their home without using fossil fuels. We think that everybody deserves a chance to go solar or to tap into other renewable energy resources in this state. And imagine a world in which you don't have to your car is getting such mileage, such good mileage or your other vehicle that you don't have to make as many frequent stops at the gas station, or maybe none at all. And maybe even here in Vermont, you can have reliable public transportation. That's a vision that we have for this state. Vermont has always been a yes, we can state a can do place. We don't we don't shirk from the responsibilities that we have to move forward. And when somebody says we can't do it, or we can't possibly make a difference, we we disagree. You know, we say yes, we can. If you think that Vermont is too small to make a difference, ask the millions of Americans who can now get married legally in this country. 15 years ago, Vermont legislators had the courage to lead on that issue by passing civil unions. And my guess is there isn't a single one of them who today regrets their vote for being on the right side of history there. Today we're here to talk about climate change. We believe that it is time in Vermont for a gradually increasing tax on carbon pollution that would be paired with tax cuts for individuals and businesses with additional protections for low income Vermonters. A portion of that revenue would go to create a carbon of that carbon pollution tax revenue would go to create an energy independence fund for Vermont. That would make it more possible for more of Vermonters to take advantage of money saving and energy saving opportunities within their own homes and businesses. Our economic modeling analysis shows that from day one, this policy would help to protect our environment and our economy. And over time, the policy would create 2000 new jobs in Vermont. It would grow real disposable income from in Vermont by $150 million a year and cut carbon emissions by 2 million tons annually cut. It's good economic policy. It's good environmental policy and it's a win-win for the state. Thanks. So I'll use the remainder of our opening time to say again, thanks to Peter and VPR for moderating. To Paul and all the VPIRG volunteers for organizing this event tonight. To our colleagues, Rob and John from the Ethan Allen Institute and of course for all of you for showing up tonight to have what I hope will be a thoughtful informed critical conversation about solutions to climate change. So despite overwhelming consensus from scientists on the urgency to act on climate change and an overwhelming consensus from economists my profession on how to act through tax reform. I anticipate you're going to see some major differences of opinions tonight on this urgency and on these solutions. First, and as Paul has laid out, a question before us tonight is do we take climate change seriously? And on the solution side, do we believe in the power of the marketplace to innovate, especially when given a nudge towards energy independence and towards homegrown know how and hard work? Or do we let our future be dictated by foreign control and trends interests who want us to continue spending millions and millions on an unpredictable, unsustainable and quite frankly, uninspiring status quo. You'll also hear two sides on whether our current tax system is fair or unfair. Do we accept an old system that taxes work and earnings and goods and services made by Vermonters for Vermonters, one that currently subsidizes foreign oil and unearned profits from destroying our land, water and atmosphere from now until I guess when it all runs out. Or should we have a serious honest debate about taxing what we don't want pollution, and what we don't produce oil and gas and cutting taxes on things we do want Vermont work, Vermont income and Vermont innovation to move towards a healthy, resilient economy of our own making. This evening one side will deny the overwhelming kind of urgency to get things done to ignore the anguish of citizens here and around the world right now who are feeling the blunt of climate as it is changing too fast to adapt to with too much damage to just wait and see. And one side will embrace science, hear the calls from our citizens and from our brothers and sisters from around the world and act now. Their side will claim to embrace free market solutions to solve problems, but then protect the interests of the most powerful industry the world has ever known. While this side will listen to the global course of economists left, right and center, who are calling for putting a price on carbon pollution to correct the biggest market failure the world has ever known. And finally, one side will tell you there's really nothing we can do. The small fiercely independent state of Vermont should just sit by and be intimidated by what taxing pollution might cost. Without ever addressing the empirical and historical evidence of overall economic, social and environmental benefits of taxing something again that we don't produce cutting taxes broadly elsewhere and investing in our own state's energy and economic future. While this side will speak about decades of experience with carbon gas and pollution taxes around the world that have undeniably led to less waste, more work, fair economies and a clear path forward to effectively address the threat of climate change. Thanks. John and Rob before you guys begin, I forgot one critical thing. There are pens and index cards on the tables in front of you. If you have questions for either of these guys this evening, you can write them on there and Liz will bring them up here. And I will ask them when we begin the question and answer part of the event. Thanks, gentlemen. Well, thank you. I just want to reiterate the thank yous that John and Paul made. Thanks to the both of them for coming out and doing this. Paul, thanks for accepting our acceptance of your challenge sort of in a roundabout way. And thanks to all the VPIRC staff for putting on, doing all the work to get the room set up tonight. We do genuinely appreciate it. Peter, thank you very much for agreeing to do this and putting up with the four of us and our back and forth emails over the past couple of weeks. It is greatly appreciated. And of course, thanks to everybody else for coming out on what Paul pointed out was not the nicest of nights. So the question is why should Vermont enact a tax on carbon, a tax that would ultimately artificially increase the cost of gasoline according to proposed legislation by 89 cents a gallon, add 58 cents a gallon to each gallon of propane, $1.2 to a gallon of heating oil or diesel fuel and similar cost increases to natural gas. The often heard arguments made by proponents are that we need to do this as one measure to combat climate change and its effects. For example, the coalition supporting this tax, which VPIRC is a leading member quoted in a press release a year ago when they announced their support for a carbon tax and I quote, more extreme weather is on its way because of climate change. I support putting a price on the pollution that causes global warming because I want to do everything I can to keep other Vermonters from losing their homes and businesses before it's too late. In February of this year, VPIRC circulated a petition and support of the carbon tax that was titled Keep Vermont Snowy and warned, and I quote again, imagine a Vermont without snow, no skiing, no snowmen, no sledding, no ice skating. It's the very real future we face unless we act now to confront global warming. End quote. The implication here is that if we pass this carbon tax, we will in some way be preventing future catastrophic storms and preserving everything we love about winter in Vermont. This is fundamentally dishonest. If one accepts the predictions of climate change activists that by the end of the century, if we do nothing, we can expect a rise in temperature between 1.5 degrees Celsius and 4.5 degrees Celsius, Vermont enacting a carbon tax will have zero impact on that temperature trajectory. Even if we accept the most optimistic expectations for action, say that those people in Paris who are meeting today followed Vermont's example and acted all of their carbon reduction plans and put them into practice tomorrow, the best case scenario for impact on global temperatures by the year 2100 is 0.17 degrees Celsius of mitigation. That's according to calculations by Bjorn Lomborg of the Consensus Center of Copenhagen. So our actions in Vermont, even coupled with our indirect influence, sparking similar action on a global scale will not save winter in Vermont or alter any future violent weather patterns. To lead people to believe otherwise, that is that this is the benefit that they will be getting in return for the sacrifice that they will make by paying a carbon tax is fraudulent. In fact, recent comments by Chris Recky and Asa Hopkins of the Public Service Department regarding Vermont's comprehensive energy plan affirmed that affecting global temperatures is not even an objective of Vermont's energy policy, nor is there any intention or plan to influence other states or countries through our actions. To quote Hopkins, the energy policy director for the DPS, and I quote, we are focused on trying to take a path forward that works for Vermont. We are not taking action in hopes of inspiring action elsewhere. End quote. Why? Because even if you accept the science, it's just not realistic. So if the objective here is to save the ski and maple industries to prevent future Irene's from happening or to otherwise preserve Vermont's climate as it is for our grandchildren to enjoy, passing a carbon tax is not the solution. It won't have any noticeable impact on climate trends. It will impact aspects of our environment locally, however, and these impacts will be noticeable. The economic impact study of a carbon tax done by Remi through VPurg and paid for in part by David Blitterstorf of All Earth Renewables touts that the carbon tax plan will benefit the state, end quote, mostly because of reduced imports of fossil fuels from other states and therefore more dollars staying within Vermont. In order for that statement to be true, it means that we have to develop a whole lot more renewable energy production facilities in state for those dollars to flow into. No doubt Mr. Blitterstorf would be happy to oblige. In fact, part of the revenue generated by the carbon tax would be used specifically to subsidize such renewable energy development according to proposals. In a talk before the Addison County Democratic Party, Mr. Blitterstorf envisioned 200 miles of ridgelines developed with 500 foot wind turbines. Now keep in mind Vermont is only 154 miles long and even this would require by some estimates tens of thousands of acres of solar panels to make up the difference in demand for power. All of this development would, although all of this development would not be subsidized entirely by a carbon tax, it is a stated objective of the carbon tax legislation to help us move toward the goals laid out in the comprehensive energy plan which does call for such development. Now the industrialization of so much wilderness and pasture land for energy production will have a profound effect on the aesthetics of Vermont. Bird and bat populations, deer, bear, and the migratory patterns of other animals. Construction of solar facilities on large large areas of land, for example, results in soil compaction. Potential alteration of drainage channels and increased runoff and erosion. The clearing and use of large areas of land for solar power facilities can adversely affect native vegetation and wildlife in many ways including loss of habitat and interference with rainfall and drainage. Long term, when the useful life expectancy of the solar panels comes to an end in 20 to 25 years will have a massive disposal challenge. A cost effective system for recycling solar panels has not yet been developed. So enacting a carbon tax will have a negative impact on the human population of the state as well as such a tax will harm the economy and in following the ability of our citizens to live and prosper in Vermont. Or at least the overwhelming majority who are not working for ventures that are specifically subsidized by the carbon tax. Proponents of a carbon tax will point to their RME study which theoretically anticipates some modest economic benefits over a decade. However, Australia recently repealed their national carbon tax that had been put in place, a real tax with real world implications. It was far less onerous than what we're talking about here. Prime Minister Tony Abbott described it as, and I quote, a useless and destructive tax which damages jobs, which hurt families cost of living and which didn't actually help the environment. The RME study believes, and I quote, the carbon pricing cases with the revenue options have a positive net impact on the Vermont economy mostly because of reduced imports of fossil fuel from other states and therefore more dollars staying within Vermont. End quote. This reminds me of a funny name somebody recently posted on Facebook that said why buy it for $7 when you can make it at home with materials. Trade is usually a much more economically efficient and beneficial way to allocate resources and advance prosperity. By enacting a carbon tax and reallocating the revenue through government programs that will end up picking winners and losers, a process that always invites cronyism and corruption, we will inevitably waste a lot of money that we would better off be spending elsewhere. John Erickson said of the carbon tax on VPR and I quote, the idea would be to place a tax on things that we don't like that we don't want so in this case carbon pollution. End quote. He just said something similar just now. Let's be clear under this tax what they are defining is what we don't like and want in real life terms is driving to work transporting goods and services heating our homes and places of business taking our kids to school soccer games and ballet lessons and keeping the working landscapes working with things like tractors and trucks. As a state our responsibility is to conduct a serious cost benefit analysis of this proposal. We have to weigh the benefits of burdening our state with a half a billion dollar a year carbon tax versus the negative impact such a tax would bring. In the end passing a carbon tax in Vermont even if the revenues are in fact used to subsidize the projects outlined in the various projects will not improve the global climate and therefore will not prevent tropical storms and other weather events nor will it save the maple sugar and ski industries decades down the road there is no discernible benefit here to counter the sacrifices of living under a carbon tax. On the negative side of the ledger however these policies will have an undesirable impact on our local ecology they will turn our economy upside down the proliferation of subsidized renewable energy plants throughout the state will lower our property values it's an assault on the Vermont brand as a place of open spaces and pristine landscapes and the rural lifestyle that is the number one reason people choose to live in Vermont. It is our analysis a carbon tax is a bad deal for the people of Vermont. Thank you. Paul and John four minutes for a rebuttal. Okay this is going to be fun wow so I laid out their side for you I think I kind of nailed it that was pretty good our side their side so this is where we're at wow so economists across the board left right center are in favor of a carbon pollution tax this 89 cents thing is a red herring right that I hate how this is used that's ten years out it's not even going to be 89 cents because most of the tax is going to get born by the fossil fuel profits there was a recent study done of the five states who raised their gas taxes in 2013 okay and of all five states you know how much of that tax got passed on to the consumer one third so this is an argument against Vermonters in four maintaining the status quo and protecting fossil fuel profits I don't get it I don't get the language about how this is good for Vermont we're always talking about in this kind of narrative about the endpoint the mysterious 89 cents a gallon protecting the oil industry and never ever talking about the benefits how do we make our economy more competitive in the bargain Australia is another red herring it are the tax policy that's proposed it looks nothing like the Australian policy it was an unpopular tax because it didn't do the tax shift part a much better analogy is British Columbia a sub national example that started a tax at $10 a ton ratcheted up to $30 a ton shifted the tax off of work and income and on to pollution right and as a result British Columbia reduced their fuel use by 16% while the rest of Canada increased their fuel use by 3% even if you don't believe in climate change that's a good deal to reduce your fuel use by 16% and in the bargain they cut their income taxes to the lowest in Canada so it made sense for the economy it made sense for working British Columbians it made sense for the future the argument is about our responsibility right the current emissions that Vermonters put out climate economists value those emissions right now at $100 a ton that's the damage that anyone admitting a ton of carbon worldwide makes that puts our responsibility at close to a billion dollars we are a $30 billion economy that's a big responsibility and a big onerous to get something done to do something for our current and future generations and lastly I'll say this is our state policy 90% renewables by 2050 our state policy is 75% below 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2050 so the opposition I guess is to all clean energy development and the proposition is to stay on fossil fuels until 2050 do you want to close? they certainly made the argument pretty clear right both sides here they not only don't believe in climate change they don't believe in clean energy in the state and so we are we do have a pretty clear split here the responsibility we have or this argument that Vermon is too small to make a difference is one that I think is so fundamentally wrong that my four and a half year old understands better than that when I pick them up sometimes at day care the room is a mess there are literally 24 year olds in one room together and at the end of the day there are toy trains and cars and puzzles and you know everything all over the place and he sometimes would say dad I can't pick this stuff up what's the difference? what difference is going to make? well we all do our part here and if you can get 24 year olds to get that concept that each one of them doing their part will leave the room and I think we all can understand as well that we all have a role to play here in cleaning up our climate together alone sure we can't do it but do you all have clean light bulbs efficient light bulbs at home of course you do because we're all doing our part you turn off the light when you leave the room you turn off the water you don't leave it running not because you can save the world yourself but because the world is not going to be saved unless each of us does our part let's try to adhere to the time limits thanks thanks to Paul one more minute for a rebuttal I heard the other side say that one side in this debate will embrace science and it clearly wasn't intended to refer to our side the moderator neglected to mention that I have a bachelor's degree in physics with honors and a master's degree in nuclear engineering and I spent 40 years since then reading scientific magazines and scientific works and I consider myself a very staunch of climate science which is not to be confused with the kind of propaganda that seems to have registered with our opponents but we're not here tonight to debate climate science we made that clear in the days before this event happened instead we're debating the carbon tax our opponents advocate in acting carbon tax on what Paul calls dirty fossil fuels meaning heating oil gasoline diesel propane and natural gas $10 per metric ton in 2017 automatically rising to $100 per ton in 2027 according to their RME study that should yield around $500 million in 2027 assuming energy dependent businesses in Vermont don't pack up and leave in 2019 the projected revenue stream would be about $100 million the bill promises that 90% of this after collection costs would be refunded to various people through various mechanisms the remaining 10% would go to fund the weatherization and renewable energy subsidies that the state can't make Vermont Yankee pay for anymore I move from the panel behind our opponents the slogan polluters pay and John Erickson says that attacks on fossil fuels would cause the fossil fuel companies to reduce their profits rather than increase their prices to consumers I have a hard time believing this what will actually happen in economic theory is that when a cost of production increases that gets translated into a higher price to consumers which are not the oil companies but everyone in this room one of the bill's backers has described this bill as essentially revenue neutral calling this tax revenue neutral is dishonest and calling it essentially revenue neutral is essentially dishonest this bill means more money for government to spend and less money for you to spend unless you're one of the lucky ones qualifying for state subsidies now let me put this to you do you trust the Vermont legislature to keep this deal for the past five years the legislature has faced enormous budget shortfalls it has desperately raised taxes and robbed funds to cover those shortfalls once again the legislature is facing a hundred million dollar shortfall this year due to runaway Medicaid spending with this bill in effect there will appear a big fat revenue stream from the automatically rising carbon tax legislators and I spent enough years there to understand this will be asking do we give 90% of those tax dollars back to the taxpayers as promised by the carbon tax law or do we grab it to cover this year's pressing deficit here's the letter sent to legislators November 2014 by the energy independence coalition now at the bottom of the letter it innocuously observes based on the legislative priorities carbon tax revenue could of course also be used for other purposes let me translate that for you even if you don't buy our carbon pollution argument this tax will raise tons of money that you can get your hands on to close budget gaps and reward your favorite constituencies that's like leaving a note in your windshield in a high crime neighborhood reading attention this car is unlocked and the keys are in sight we have arrived now the timer went off there you look like you were loaded for bear we could go on I didn't hear a timer we've arrived at the portion of this event where we're going to have some questions and answers in round one Paul and John we're going to ask Rob and John a question Rob and John will have three minutes to respond to that question followed by a one minute rebuttal from John and Paul thanks Pete I think this is primarily a John although you've both gone so far out on the ledge either one of you could take it the Ethan Allen Institute is of course on record denying that climate change is largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels John you've gone so far as to say that there is no evidence that greenhouse gases has any detectable effect on global temperatures you said that in October of 2013 it's true we're not here to debate the reality of climate science if you don't believe in climate science today there's little that we can say to you tonight that will probably convince you but John given that your disagreement with 97% of the world's top climate scientists on this issue I'm wondering is there any policy that Vermonters could propose by the year 2050 which is current state law is there any policy that could that Vermonters could propose that you would support to get us to that goal you know even a skill to propagandist as you ought to be ashamed to bring up that 97% of climate scientists scam so that's what NASA that's what the NASA website says today Paul I just wanted to make sure you're confused you got something else you want to say now are you going to stop let's respect the guidelines guys thank you I commented on that 97% issue about five years ago when it first became public and I'm not going to go through it all right now I am as I said a strong partisan of real climate science which not to be confused with a torrent of propaganda that keeps issuing from V-Purges offices to pass more bills to create big government and raise taxes on the people of Vermont as long as we got a couple a minute left I just want to get to that is there anything that we can do I think Vermont is already are doing something in this regard if you look at what's happening now gasoline consumption in Vermont is down 10% since the year 2000 and our oil consumption is down 34% since the year 2000 according to the EIA not E-A-I-E-I-A Vermont has one of the lowest per capita emissions of CO2 of any state in the country I think it's fair to say Vermonters are doing their part and what you're asking us to do is more than our part we're already doing it you're forcing us to make this the sole focus of our existence as a state and as individuals and I think that is not a reasonable request one minute rebuttal what we're doing now Vermont has made important progress in efficiency but we're not going to come anywhere near the goals that the state has already established or the goals that scientists the levels that scientists suggest that we need to get to in order to grapple effectively with climate change I suppose if you don't believe in climate change you have no particular reason to do anything about it but even if you don't believe in climate change this legislation one of the bills that the legislature is considering would result in a sales tax cut over the next 10 years of $600 million it would cut income taxes in the state it would have an additional $270 million protection for low income Vermonters it would cut $850 million for state employers businesses, government and nonprofits and it would save Vermonters $150 million each year in energy costs due to energy efficiency improvements so even if you don't believe in climate change this thing is going to leave more money in your pocket that's why we think it's a winner now it is Rob and John's opportunity to ask Paul and John a question 1,100 megawatt coal plant emits about 8 million tons metric tons of carbon a year The New York Times reported two weeks ago that China has permitted 155 new coal plants in 2015 totaling 123,000 megawatts electric that's the equivalent of 112 1,100 megawatt plants if Vermont somehow eliminated all 8 million tons of our CO2 emissions wouldn't all of those emission reductions be canceled out by one new Chinese 1,100 megawatt coal plant great question so you might note that Vermont doesn't mine coal produce coal burn coal for making electricity you might note that we don't produce refined drill mine fossil fuels you might note that the coal industry has little to do with the basis of our economy and that fossil fuels are imported to the state fossil fuels is a kind of dependence that we've talked about since the 1970s oil crisis to get off of fossil fuels fossil fuels ultimately creates a kind of economic dependence that holds Vermont back instead of pushes us forward so this makes and it's again why economists left right and center polluting things you don't want in this case fossil fuel dependence carbon pollution and putting the money in the things you do want homegrown local jobs local industry it's the fastest growing sector on our economy right now the green jobs industry you've heard the statistic we have more green jobs per capita than any other state in the country why is there a resistance to doing something that makes sense for our state in order to protect our interests and other state interests you've heard about the Remy study the Remy is an economic consulting group that I've known about for two decades since grad school they're a respected consulting group they're non-partisan they did a study on the Vermont policy Washington state's policy California Massachusetts all the states that are considering carbon taxes right now they actually did a national study as well and guess what it doesn't look so good under a carbon pollution tax because the basis of their economy is producing fossil fuels or as a state like Vermont comes out looking really good we got a little more time I got a comment on that one minute yes you're a but can you get that we still have a minute let me add that I think it is worth debating about what this law should look like you know there's two bills that are out there it's all for transparency in fact the British Columbia law that I cited they decided to put into law that if the tax rebates the tax cuts that were in the law did not occur the tax commissioner for British Columbia would see their own salary cut by 15% so it was a nice extra incentive I'd be fine with that right let's have some good transparency let's have good independent audits of laws like this when we put these things into law and we say we're going to radically reform the tax basis to make Vermont a more competitive economy let's make sure we do it one minute John I think you did a very good job restating the position you took in your opening statement the question I posed however was wouldn't one 1100 megawatt Chinese coal plant put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the entire state of Vermont in the course of a year the answer to that is clearly yes and that's all most I can expect from you we now move on around two of the question and answer portion this is going to be a little more rapid fire first we're going to have John and Paul asking a question to Rob and John they get one minute to respond and then a 30 second rebuttal well I'll build on Paul's question a bit it's clearly what you're against I'd love to hear what you're for I guess Bernie Moore Cole in China I'd love to hear how it is that Vermont is supposed to become more energy independent more competitive what would true tax reform look like in your mind or do you think the status quo is perfectly rosy scenario where we need to be where we protect the fossil fuel industry and we continue we continue to be dependent on something we don't produce one minute first of all I want to go on the record the sooner we get unhooked from coal the sooner the planet gets unhooked from coal the better we'll be but not because of the carbon dioxide emissions it's because of sulfur dioxide NOx, ozone particulates and other pollutants genuine pollutants that come from burning coal and plus enormous environmental damage both in tar sands and in mountain top removal so that it will end up the coal business the happier it will be beyond that what tax reform that I propose that goes far beyond the topic of this debate but I can say one thing about it and I've given a lot of thought to it it will not include your carbon tax 30 seconds Paul and John look again I just think it's pretty clear here that they appear not to be interested in moving forward with any kind of growth in the clean energy side of things they appear to be perfectly fine to continue our reliance we don't get a lot of coal in the state anyway so on fossil fuels, on oil, on gas I will point out that about 9 out of 10 vermonters disagree with that position 9 out of 10 vermonters support the state's long-term energy goal getting 90% of our energies on clean energy resources in the state thanks for the passion guys but let's leave the talking of these guys for now now it is Rob and John's opportunity to ask a question to John and Paul okay John and Paul can you look the people of Vermont in the eye and honestly tell them that passing a carbon tax and redistributing the revenue as proposed in your bill will directly or indirectly impact climate trends to a degree that will save snowy days in Vermont and mitigate to a noticeable degree extreme weather patterns in the future if yes please show your math yes now please show your math look this is not a problem that's going to be solved again I think my 4.5 year old understands this this problem is going to be solved by all of us acting together but it is not going to be solved by all of us you know in World War II Franklin Roosevelt asked all Americans to pitch in and had scrap metal drives and in October of 1942 there was a scrap metal drive in this country where all Americans on average gathered 82 pounds per person we could have said Vermont's contribution to scrap metal will be next to nothing that's not what Vermonters said at that time and in November 1st, 1942 the New York Times said we're going to do this for every man woman and child in Vermont because we had to do our part 30 seconds I want this one Paul, if everybody did their part according to what you're asking people to do the most climate mitigation you're going to get by the end of the century is a fraction of one degree 1.7 degrees 0.17 degrees mitigation everybody does their part you're still not going to impact the things that you say that you're telling people that are going to make a difference the temperature is still going to affect the ski industry it's still going to affect the snow in Vermont it's not enough to stop tropical arenas from happening so if we can't do this even with everybody working together what's the point thank you guys and that wraps up this portion so if you want to give both of them a hand feel free and now the best part is when they're going to field some questions that you guys have written down here one of the issues that has come up around this proposal is the impact on sectors of the economy in Vermont that are heavily reliant on the use of fossil fuels this question is for you Paul and John can you talk about the impact of the carbon tax on the agriculture industry forestry industry and heavy transportation industry which do make up a significant swath of the state economy what's attractive about what's been proposed is a phase in so British Columbia faced this as well and they phased in at $10 a ton then to 20 then to 30 and now they're regretting that they didn't go for a longer a longer time frame they have similar challenges in their state similar agricultural challenges similar dependence on fossil fuels that we do now their neighboring province Alberta is just announced they're going to a carbon tax to the north Quebec is looking at the British Columbia example to a carbon tax Ontario announced about a month ago that they're going towards a carbon tax there's a domino effect here we can do this if we transition things in we can do this if we use the money in a smart way to invest in a future that we want to help those who are disproportionately affected by a carbon pollution tax to help our economy transition to something that inevitably is going to happen whether we like it or not we are run on a non-renewable fuel it's time to move forward you want to add anything until about a year ago the price of gas in Vermont was about 90 cents more than it is today and for the preceding four years it was at least 90 cents and sometimes a buck 50 more than what we're paying for right now but that increased money was all going to oil companies outside of Vermont if after 10 years and we phase this in we see people who are seeing a higher price at the gas pump and probably unlikely to be 88 cents but what they are also experiencing is a dramatic cut to personal taxes employer taxes and sales taxes in the state and they are also seeing incentives financial incentives that will make it possible for them to save more money on efficiency, on transportation, on heating so instead of higher prices on fuels going out of the state every single year $2 billion roughly we could be investing that here and creating jobs in this state that cannot be exported as John says this is a phased in process and something that can work in the favor of Vermonters in part because any increase you're seeing at the pump is going to be offset to a large degree by tax cuts that you're seeing elsewhere in the economy if you want to weigh in jump in Rob would you repeat the question just impact on agriculture, forestry and other fossil fuel dependent industries in the state if a carbon tax does go into effect well it's certainly going to make it harder for them to compete I talked to a number of farmers before we came into this debate and they certainly need to use diesel fuel to power their tractors they have buildings that they have to heat it's going to make them much less competitive with their competitors in New York and New Hampshire Paul says that the price of gasoline was higher a couple years ago and that's true but it's come down for everybody it's going to be going up faster than it would be for everybody else until we do get to that 89 cents a gallon more or a dollar two if you're talking about the diesel fuel then everybody else so if it goes back up to four dollars a gallon it will be five dollars a gallon here in Vermont that's going to put our industries at a serious competitive disadvantage one of the aspects that they talked about you mentioned farmers and forestry is Burlington airport if you have a dollar a gallon tax on jet fuel which is part of the proposal it's going to make that airport which is a very strong economic driver for Chittenden county much less competitive I understand that about a third of our people who travel through Burlington airport come from Montreal and they might choose an airport either in Canada or in New York in order to get where they're going a deletorious effect on our economy there's no way that you can increase the costs of doing business in those kinds of industries without having a serious negative impact on the state and as I pointed out in my opening remarks if we want to have working landscapes in Vermont it takes tractors and trucks to make them working landscapes John and Rob I'll direct this question to you first then maybe ask a different version of it John and Paul in your view is it sustainable to power the state national and international economy on fossil fuels for perpetuity into the future you want to take it? is it sustainable well it's a finite resource so eventually it's we're going to run out of it and therefore we'll have to switch to something else in time for Vermont to move to a carbon tax essentially forcing us to spend a lot more money on generating power than we otherwise would and is that sustainable? is it sustainable to have an economy in which the cost of that fuel is much higher and I know that you give some of it back 90% of it back through various programs of course that's 90% after the government takes their bite in order to run the program but that's still a tax increase I mean to say that give me ten dollars and I'll give you nine back and talk about that as a tax cut is foolish can I add a comment please just a quick comment on the way down here tonight I passed my neighbor Gerard parked on the side of the road with the ten-wheeler towing a big excavator he was adjusting some of the rigging and it occurred to me how are you going to explain to Gerard how he's going to excavate and haul gravel on battery powered trucks you might want to ponder that question um and Paul and John are you envisioning a future where we phase out the use of fossil fuels entirely or do they always play some role in our economy however do you think they are to be well our state policy is 90% renewables by 2050 so I envision that future and I envision trying to I still haven't heard a policy yet besides a carbon pollution tax that would help us get there um I envision a future as you so aptly said of getting off of finite resources um I envision a future and you know when I look into my students eyes and I talk about what they're saying and what climatologists are saying you know they're their biggest question to me is if not now when and so we just hosted the second annual Vermont Youth Climate Summit at the University of Vermont over the last two years we've had over 30 of Vermont high schools come to Burlington and take to write climate action plans for their own schools and their own communities these are our 17-18 year olds now who've grown up learning about climate science who've grown up thinking about these challenges ahead of us and they're tired of waiting um one of those youth that right now is over in the conference of parties in Paris participating in a youth summit as a shadow summit of the Paris conference talking about what can we do now um the again red herring we're talking about a phasing in of carbon pollution pricing we're talking about taking the energy savings and if you decide to you know you can take those savings and use them however you want and getting money back through tax cuts to accommodate for the transition I'd much rather see us now take the time with a market based solution to create the kind of incentives for innovation in our state to move forward then to wait for the inevitable kind of you know gas price increases controlled by oil politics around the world let me just say I it is striking that um when we talk about what's do either of us envision a future without fossil fuels you know we say yes because we have to get there that's not us saying that that's science you know there is a statement out there that science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not and that's what we're facing here with the damage that we are doing to the climate every day by burning fossil fuels and having the oil companies profit by polluting our atmosphere for free it would be like your neighbor saying well for free I'm going to dump my trash in your yard it's a better deal for me so that's what the fossil fuel that's a deal the fossil fuel companies have had forever in this country and it's time to put an end to it we have lots of opportunity to make the policy the way we want it to be this is a community thing this Vermont legislature is very open to your ideas questions concerns and so when you talk about how we're going to deal with Gerard or farmers and so we should we should hear all of those concerns and take them into consideration British Columbia has exemptions for certain farm uses maybe we do that as well I was saying there's no magic perfect answer here but together we have to do something and throwing up your hands and saying there's nothing we can do to make a difference is not a solution can I respond to that quickly feel free John I think it's up to you to prove that what you're asking us to do will make a difference that will avoid all those horrors we keep telling us are going to happen with climate change that's a big topic but I'm not seeing any answers yet Peter if I could jump in to as well you're saying that we're not advocating doing anything that's not exactly true you're talking about maintaining the climate what can we do to preserve the climate as it is but in doing so you are wrecking the local ecology with the things that you're going to be investing in we're going to see 200 miles of ridgeline with 500 foot wind towers we're going to see between 30 and 90,000 acres with solar panels that is going to affect how the state looks that's going to affect how animals can travel through the state and if there's no benefit to how we impact the climate why don't we put our energy and efforts into saving the ecology of the state so we can pass that on to our children and grandchildren I'm going to address this next question to Paul and John and then you guys can feel free to weigh in based on their response this person talks about the federal and state gas tax already amounting to about 42 cents a gallon this person writes on my own I've weatherized my home I bought three Prius cars since 2001 but I'm retired I'm on a fixed income and the idea of a carbon tax scares me worries about what it'll do at the cost of living how do you assuage the concerns of somebody in that position who has some real misgivings about what this would mean concretely for her household finances let me take a first crack at this if you are a person who owns three Priuses or maybe just one now you're probably getting a you're just not visiting the gas station very often and that ultimately is the way that people are going to save money here is by using less fossil fuel and so that's the direction that we need to be moving in what we could do is help this person with her heating bill for instance and so perhaps we make it possible for her to install an air source heat pump perhaps that is powered by a solar panel on her roof and perhaps she would enjoy the benefits of other tax cuts this proposal will provide a $600 million cut to the sales tax over the next 10 years so we're going to see reduction in costs for all sorts of other items that are sold in Vermont you might also enjoy an income tax cut as well that would be significant and so what you're seeing is more money in the pocket and for a person who chooses to make some relatively small adjustments in their use of fossil fuels whether through transportation or heating this does not apply to electricity by the way if we haven't said that already then that is a person who's likely to be a winner under this policy financially well that's great, thank you very much but do you have an air source heat pump well wouldn't it be great if you could and that's what this is about if you could afford an air source heat pump then you would not only be spending less on oil but you would be sending less money out of this state into the hands of fossil fuel companies having more money spent here so you would be spending less in weatherizing and installing clean energy in your own home if not you then somebody else but that's what this is about well the problem is you're not taking the money out of the pockets of the oil companies you're taking the money out of your neighbors pockets in order to pay for that fuel pump and if you can live with yourself for doing that then I guess you're on that side of the table I'm going to direct this next question again to John and Paul there are a lot that are directed to you and I'm sorry to jump in after they respond this person says if past is prologue we can count on future legislatures to use money generated by this tax in ways that its founders didn't intend and while you talk about putting this carbon tax revenue into a fund that would go back to Vermonters now it will likely be pillaged by people in times of need in the future how can you provide any certainty that the purposes for which this money is being raised today will continue to be directed to that source in the future well John already talked about British Columbia you know the person who gives out the money there their salary depends on it being used in the way that it was intended initially you know you could do that here as well the fact is so this is what we're talking about the time is now for this kind of thing and if you were going to cut other taxes then you're using this money to do it that's 90% is returned to citizens of this state and other tax cuts and at least one of the legislative proposals out there 90 cents is returned immediately but you know some of the other money is used for low income weatherization a few years ago Vermont performed a study saying that we need to weatherize 80,000 homes and businesses in this state but so far the legislature hasn't really come up with the money to do that low income Vermonters right now have a two or three year waiting list in order to receive any assistance from the state in order to have their homes weatherized and in the meantime they spend money that they don't have to give to fossil fuel companies and why is that that makes no sense why can't we do more to help our friends and neighbors to weatherize their homes so that we can all benefit by polluting less and saving money keeping more money in their pockets that's the way to go and I don't think that policy is going to be changed by this legislature if they get this thing passed that's the way to support from Vermonters John Paul keeps referring to these colossal tax cuts that are going to come flowing back to everyone but you need to remember that what are those tax cuts coming from or coming from an even larger tax that the carbon tax laid on the economy you're not getting a tax cut from what you're paying now you're getting a tax cut back if you're lucky the carbon tax bill itself of course you're not getting it all back because there's that 10% skim off to pay for subsidizing somebody's heat pump economics are pretty bizarre to me but it seems clear that though British Columbia did put a revenue neutral requirement a very stiff one into their bill the fact that Vermont the backers of this bill tiptoed away from revenue neutral to bag some loot for their special programs ought to make you all pretty suspicious about the motives have I just added one point to what John was saying there because the original question had to do about how can we trust the government to stick with what they're going to do in the Remy study that these guys put out they called for an increase in jobs of about 1,000 to 3,000 jobs in the study which even they say are changes that are relatively small but they were predicated on there being a decrease in the corporate tax this measured the corporate tax does not appear the corporate tax cut does not appear in either of the bills that's currently being floated in the legislature so already we've gone from a job creation bill to something that's taken out the mechanism that accounts for most of what they're claiming to be job creation from a carbon tax so I don't think we can trust Montpelier one bit in which they promised in the press release announcing this bill a year ago the corporate tax cuts will come in this bill as a growth promoter but when the bill was actually introduced the corporate tax cuts disappeared I invite you to take another look at the legislation there is a tax cut for employers maybe you missed that but it is employers employers include businesses they include the government and they include nonprofits anybody who employs somebody deserves a tax cut under this plan so that's what it is so perhaps we're confused by the lack of the term corporate tax cut but there's an employer tax cut I have to also say to suggest that giving some means of support to low income Vermonters to weatherize their homes and have that characterizes skimming off the top for somebody's gain gain it's beneath you this question is for both of you and I like it because it attempts to begin to find a middle here I guess you guys disagree on this tax proposal is there any approach this specifies free market approach but let's say any approach that you guys could agree on are there things as diametrically as opposed as you seem are there areas that you could find agreement on that would advance both of your agendas as it relates to tax policy the economy and the environment we got a tough starting point because we disagree on the urgency and even the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so if we can't agree on that then I don't know why we're having this debate to be honest with you because the debate is about carbon tax and if you don't believe in a problem then why tax it I mean there's a lot of options out there from direct regulation to free market taxation through global through cap and trade there's a lot of great examples of how to use policy but the other side of this is if you don't believe in government I'm having a hard time here I understand the basic position of free enterprise institutes across the country but we've got some liberal economists and some conservative economists who are singing this chorus we've got folks like George Schultz who was secretary of treasurer and secretary of state for Reagan we've got a former economist from the Nixon administration the Bush administration, the Clinton administration the Obama administration Allen Binder from the Federal Reserve Larry Summers we've got Gary Becker who's a Nobel laureate from the University of Chicago the kind of caretaker of conservative economic ideas and Paul Krugman another Nobel laureate from the outside of things all writing op-eds extreme places like the Wall Street Journal talking about the necessity of taxing carbon and using those revenues to make our economy more competitive so there is a lot to agree on on how we can tax, waste and help our economy in the bargain I think the difference is that there are two environmental policies that the state can follow one is to go after the atmospheric pollution like putting CO2 into the atmosphere and the other is to look at our landscape how can we protect the ecology of the state, how can we protect the water quality of Lake Champlain, how do we protect our ridgelines how do we protect our open spaces and these two things are in conflict and these guys would say we should put our efforts into protecting the atmosphere and the way we look at it is if you make that investment of all those resources you're taking it away from other things you can do and you're not going to have any impact over the long term of bringing down temperature trends to have an effect the way you want to if that's how you invest your resources but if we invest state resources and cleaning up Lake Champlain cleaning up our waterways maintaining our ridgelines we think we can have an impact it'd be great to get you all on record that you're for things like Act 250, you're for a TMDL you're for putting money into upgrading our sewage systems, you're for cleaning up our rivers, you're for land zoning, land protection because these are also part of the kind of anti-government narrative that we're used to so I'm surprised you're using this as an argument in favor of your position because it speaks completely against your free enterprise platform I'm probably the only person in this room that actually voted for Act 250 thank you how do you feel about it today and I would do so again despite a checkered career that we've had since I was also considered in that house years ago as Fred Hackett called me the environmental radical which made me find very amusing because I was really tough on people who dumped pollution into our waters and contaminated our water supply including non-point source pollution which was a taboo topic 40 years ago but you're okay with dumping into our atmosphere I don't get it I don't agree that's a pollutant this is why I'm confused about why we're debating do you want to talk sulfur dioxide? yes clean air act? yes they have effects we weren't going to debate science and I just will note that there are some prominent Democrats in this state that would agree with you wholeheartedly that climate change is the threat of our time who do oppose this legislation so they're hey look when you point to a specific I actually think that's an unfair position you should let those people speak for themselves I don't think that's an accurate position to suggest that they oppose the idea of a price on carbon because they have said something about a particular piece of legislation is unfair correct but we were in the context of this we're talking about this legislation no no we're talking about the concept here and I think those very people who I've had conversations with might like the opportunity to explain their position on this issue and not have you agree at all? well that's not exactly what I said but fair enough we've got to get it right I think maybe that's what we can agree on we go down this road we've got to get it right we need transparency we need good effective governance behind it I mean that's the case for any policy that we pass but if you don't agree in policy that's another story all together for John and Rob and you guys got at this a little bit already but this person wants to know we spend over two billion dollars a year on fossil fuel imports in Vermont they're saying anything we could do to keep that money in Vermont seems like it would be a benefit why wouldn't that be a net economic benefit if you were able to redirect those expenditures to Vermont made energy and Vermont energy projects you want to take it or you want me to you check that one okay well I'll go back to my opening statement on this it reminded me of something I saw on Facebook this is why make it for $7 when you can make it at home or buy it for $7 when you can make it at home with $96 with the craft materials trade is one of the things that throughout history has shown is a much more efficient way to allocate resources if we can import something that we're not good and not efficient at which is generating energy and export and other things to people like tourism for example we're going to be wrecking tourism if we have all those wind towers on all of our rinse lines and solar panels for as far as the eye can see you're ultimately much better off to import it doesn't necessarily have to be fossil fuels it could be nuclear, it could be power it could be wind power that's generated from the planes if they could get it here where it's much more efficient to produce fuel I just don't see Vermont as the kind of place that should have an economy dedicated to the industrial production of power it doesn't seem like it's right for our economy, it doesn't fit in with our Vermont brand, it doesn't fit in with our landscape for wind and solar, wind is not very practical to build here because of the mountains and the transmission lines you need to get it down solar is not very efficient here because it tends to be cloudy it tends to be dark here in Vermont, so why don't we let states that are good and can efficiently produce electricity let them sell it to us and we will sell them something in return that we're good and efficient at producing and everybody will be better off you want to lock everything into everything has to be bought and produced and sold in Vermont we do that to Cuba to Iran, we do that to North Korea it's called sanctions and they're punishments 16,000 people in the clean energy industry in Vermont here might be a little disappointed in your response to hear that they should not have a job here building solar building wind or all those people working in efficiency those are jobs in Vermont, they're good jobs in Vermont, that is the future in Vermont, that's what young people want to get into now and why should we say we're going to just export that and all these terrible problems that you believe are associated people have to look at a solar panel we shouldn't have to look at them in Vermont what state should have to have those solar panels and have that terrible blight on their community just so that you can romp around in the woods without having to have to see a wind turbine or a solar panel here, thanks just on trade policy as an economist this is something I've studied for years I wish it were the case that we had free and fair trade I currently sit on Vermont's commission on trade in state sovereignty and it's our job to look at various trade deals like the transatlantic trade deal that's trying to go through like the trans-Pacific trade deal that is being negotiated trade deals that right now in the national debate left, right and center again fundamentally disagree with these trade deals because of they cater to corporate interest, corporate power including the fossil fuel industry so we've got a real real challenge ahead of us if we're going to kind of accept the rhetoric around free and fair trade when that's not the system that we live in I need to respond to that when we're talking about free and fair trade we're talking about free and fair trade between states not international free trade and the commerce clause guarantees that we have pretty free trade between states such as New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts where we tend to buy our power from but to Paul's point about these jobs yes we have fast growing jobs in the green sector because we're taking money out of people's pockets through government action and we're putting them into a sector and if you do that of course you're going to be able to create jobs unfortunately when a job is created through government redistribution of wealth you're going to find a job away from somebody else through their taxes I mean if you can't afford to hire somebody because you're paying higher electric bills or you're being taxed in another way that's not a way to create value for both sides if you have jobs that are created through the free market they're not taking one job away from somebody else you'll get better job creation overall can I comment on this briefly please John proposed can we find some common ground and the way I see it is that V-Purge and friends want a high price on carbon to discourage carbon fuels they want subsidies for intermittent and high priced wind and solar to make up some of that shortfall and they're ardently opposed to the nuclear plant which produced 600 megawatts of carbon free power our view of it would be we want cheap electricity cheap electricity will use the cheapest fuel and that would be generation 4 nuclear like a liquid fluoride modular reactor which you've never seen and that's a long story to that involving a lot of intrigue in Washington 30 years ago if we had cheap electricity people would migrate to buying electric cars they'd migrate to buying electric heat pumps and the market for fossil fuels would diminish dramatically and so maybe only my neighbor Gerard is using it for his excavator that would certainly make the other side happy and it's okay with me but to argue about a Vermont energy future that requires cheap electricity and to be ardently opposed to the most viable source of cheap electricity 10 years from now which is generation 4 nuclear doesn't make a slightest bit of sense and if you look on that board back there the people who support the carbon tax will see James Hansen the father of the global warming argument who is a strong nuclear electricity supporter unlike these folks because he understands that a civilized society needs electricity to maintain a standard of living and in the long run that is by far the best solution and that's where I think maybe reach out and try and find some common ground but as long as you say alright no nuclear we're going to subsidize 24 cents a kilowatt hour for wind and solar power solar farms and drive up the price of fossil fuels that does not compute to me that puts a burden on people that ends up with high priced electricity not low priced electricity I don't sorry but there was a lot there I will be brief and I don't often quote the former head of energy Louisiana but even he supports a price on carbon and I would note that in New England where you've got higher rates of renewable energy they have lower electricity prices now where you've got renewable energy standards in place so this is not the second lowest electric prices in New England right now with more on the renewable side of things so a lot of these arguments just don't pan out in reality when you hear them from our friends our time is running short and we still have closing arguments to get to so let's do that now it's going to be two minutes from each side and the proponents will go first we are together the proponents of trying to do something about a problem that we believe really does exist that is damage to our climate caused by the burning of fossil fuels we do believe with the world's climate experts and roughly 200 world leaders that climate change is real and that we all have a responsibility to do something about it it's not possible for us to imagine a world in which we proceed with solutions to climate change but Vermonters sit on their hands and say we don't have any responsibility to act that it is not our role to play or that we are too small to make a difference we have a moral responsibility to act here and the good news is that we can reduce our use of old dirty fossil fuels without relying on nuclear plants, thank goodness but by moving forward with a clean energy economy here a clean energy economy that will actually create more jobs in this state that cannot be exported to any place else more jobs that will improve the health our health, our children's health and that of future generations it will create cleaner air and cleaner water because when you burn less fossil fuels you have a cleaner environment and you also save money and keep more money in Vermonters pockets instead of sending it out of state to large fossil fuel companies that's the opportunity that we have before us here that's the opportunity that we think we should take we have some time to work on the details of this in the days ahead but the commitment has to be there and I'm proud to be working on this with so many other great Vermonters Robin John yes we too believe that climate change whatever that is is real whatever that means but in the cold light of a reason it seems clear to us that imposing a $500 million a year tax on beneficial plant food will cripple Vermont's economy place a special burden on people in rural areas and on truckers and equipment operators who aren't going to drive battery powered trucks and tractors especially when a desperate legislature diverts the promised tax reductions to pay for ballooning costs of ever bigger and especially when the effect on global temperatures will be utterly undetectable the renewable industrial complex of which V Purge is apparently a wholly owned subsidiary needs to make a living by satisfying its customers rather than trying to get rich on rigged sweetheart deals arranged by the interest promoting this bill at the expense of the rest of us yes sometimes Vermont should set an example like we did when we abolished slavery setting the example of crippling the shaky economy of our little state solely to advance this grand global crusade against climate change simply to get some kind of bragging rights is beyond foolish can we scrap this misbegotten carbon tax and focus on making Vermont prosperous again yes we can thank you all again for coming out tonight I hope it bodes well for the quality of the debate in Montpelier over these bills this coming session I hope you all enjoyed the evening and perhaps we'll see you up at the State House in January thank you