A bevy of climate and environmental organizations rallied behind Mayor Miro Weinberger yesterday in support of a Carbon Pollution Fee Ordinance going before the City Council next week.

The upfront fee would start at $150/ton of the project’s lifetime carbon emissions  and rise with inflation.

If enacted, Burlington “would for the first time in state history implement a science-based carbon fee on pollution from fossil fuels,” a statement issued by the Mayor’s office yesterday said. The fee would be assessed on heating and thermal systems in new construction and large existing commercial buildings if the property owner does not install a renewable system – builders and owners can avoid the fee by using electric and other high-performance cost-competitive modern technologies.

The Carbon Fee Ordinance was introduced initially by Councilor Ben Traverse (D-Ward 5), Chair of the Ordinance Committee, and Councilor Mark Barlow, Chair of the Transportation, Energy and Utilities (TEUC) Committee. The Ordinance was reviewed and approved by both Committees and is on the agenda for full Council action on November 20.

“Implementation of the Carbon Fee Ordinance is a big step forward towards our prioritizing clean energy and reducing Burlington’s greenhouse gas emissions,” said Traverse.

Weinberger first proposed a building electrification and carbon pricing policy in October 2020, and the City determined that implementing it would require a charter change. Voters approved the charter change proposal at Town Meeting Day 2021 with about 65 percent voting in favor.

The Legislature then passed H. 448 which Gov. Phil Scott signed on April 20, 2022. The Charter Change required subsequent approval by voters prior to implementing the carbon fee, and Burlington voters approved Question 2 at Town Meeting Day 2023 with over 67 percent of the vote.

The initial carbon fee for non-compliant buildings would be set at $150 per ton, and would be charged upfront at the time of permit based on the expected lifetime emissions output of the system being installed. The fee price will rise annually with inflation. Proceeds from the fee will support low-income residents in accessing clean heating technologies.

Organizations supporting the ordinance with Weinberger today included Renewable Energy Vermont, VPIRG, and the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

As described in a December 5 Burlington Electric Department memo, the fee emulates a current carbon impact assessment now in place in New York City:

We propose the fee would start at $150 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions, for permit applications starting in 2024. It would increase annually at the rate of inflation but limited to no more than a 5 percent increase in any given year. 

The fee would be assessed based on a net present value calculation of the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be produced by the thermal system over its lifetime and charged upfront at the time of permit. 

The goal would be to level the playing field for renewable technologies and represent the full societal, health, and environmental cost of the carbon pollution of the fossil fuel system. 

We note that some cities are using higher carbon alternative compliance fees in their thermal sector policies. New York is using $268 per ton, and Boston is using $234 per ton. On the other hand, Vermont’s Climate Council has looked at analysis suggesting $128 per ton for use as a social cost of carbon in Vermont.

Guy Page | Vermont Daily Chronicle

The post Carbon Tax on Buildings Goes to Burlington City Council Next Week appeared first on Granite Grok.

Much has been said about the rise of Nikki Haley to second place in New Hampshire, mainly as a vehicle for bashing a struggling Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has the second place spot almost everywhere but the Granite State.

Polls that were taken before Haley announced that she wanted her government to out every public speaker on social media.

“…every person on social media should be verified by their name. First of all, that’s a national security threat. When you do that, people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots, and then you’re going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say.”

And again, no. It is unconstitutional, and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa should know better (that’s her birth name and public information). I bring it up for two reasons. First, it should be the end of her campaign, but we’ve yet to see any evidence. And two, Ace wrote some words about “Wine Aunt Nikki Haley,” and I needed an excuse to share them.

This is a terrible policy idea offered only to achieve a trivial, stupid goal — “we want people to be nice on the internet!” — but of course Wine O’Clock Wendys can only offer this kind of deranged perspective-free obsessive nattering.

We’re grappling with serious, existential issues and you want the government to make sure your fucking Twitter feed is “nice”??!?!

Incivility is not a national security threat, while most of what passes for the American Republic (bastardized by generations of negligence and abuse) is. Hence, the ability of insiders to speak anonymously to the problem we see in government is essential and protected. The State cannot make social media require speakers to use their real names or associations, and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa would be going up against two bulwarks if she tried. (Related: She Didn’t Mean to But Nikki Haley Just Ended Her Campaign for President.)

First, without regard to ideological labels, SCOTUS frequently defends free speech cases unanimously. It is a problematic Amendment to crack. Second, we have the Bruen decision. America rose in the smoke and haze of uncivil discourse—a charge led by the anonymous pamphleteers. Using pseudonyms in public political discourse is a well-established American tradition. Haley can say she wants it, but she can never do it, so you’d be right to ask – after being repulsed by the mere thought of it – what else has she said for effect that has no chance of happening, and she knows it.

Additionally, because the government cannot force “social media” companies to require speakers to publish under their legal name, the platform owners would be left to decide – perhaps with some prompting from the CIA, FBI, IRS, or OSHA, to do it anyway. Their lawyers would never let it happen, and not just because – as noted – it is not something the State can force. It would be bad for business. Anyone who needed or wanted to speak freely but had to do so anonymously would do that “talking” somewhere else. The loss of subscribers could snowball into a loss of interest, revenue, and investors, and that Big Tech, Left-Coast lifestyle to which platform execs had become accustomed.

And maybe you can’t sell that to Google, so now what?

Well, you could begin by not voting for politicians who announce how they intend to use government force to violate the rights of free citizens. It is a long list that didn’t start with Nikki Haley but of which she is now included, and it should disqualify her for many offices but most certainly that of the President of the United States.

The post With Nikki Haley in Second Place in NH I Feel Obligated to Remind Voters That She is a Constitutional Threat appeared first on Granite Grok.