TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

Carbon cap/trade and all the proposals I've seen here cannot work without actual, less polluting forms of energy for transportation. So far. the only viable substitute fuel for transportation is natural gas. No other source, except nuclear power, has the ability to transport what needs to be transported economically. There are no "renewable" resources that are less polluting. They simply export or move the pollution around.

It would be a very good idea to remove the "carbon" appellation from the discussion. It hides the true nature of the problem which many perceive to be carbon dioxide emissions. The more research that is done the more it appears that carbon dioxide has more benefits than detriments. Each round of reports from the IPCC has reduced the amount of projected temperature increases and shown more off-setting benefits from somewhat higher temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide. It is, after all, the source of all our food.


Ethanol produces more actual pollution from production on the farm to delivery of ethanol to the transportation system than simply using fossil fuels directly.
Solar panels and windmills can only produce electricity sporadically, usually when it isn't needed and not when it is. Both would require collosal investments in huge batteries, concrete, rare metals and other highly polluting mining in third world countries, not to mention the removal and recovery of all the materials after they break/wear out. Recycling will probably cost nearly as much as the original production. Electric trucks would double down on the costs involved. The most potentially viable truck system would likely be dedicated electric truck driving lanes and overhead electricity, similar to electric trains. Powered by modern nuclear reactors this approach could reduce the amount of truck pollution greatly, but is only viable in dense urban areas. It took a century to get reliable electricity to rural America. An electric trucking system might only require 50 years.

Electric cars produce more dangerous pollution from raw materials production and simply move the pollution to poor countries. The cars themselves are only modestly more efficient overall than diesel or direct ignition Atkisson cycle gasoline engines. Electric cars require very significant subsidies to offset the negatives for anything but short work commutes(~20 miles) and all the daily accommodations needed for convenient use of the vehicle. To actually be functional the electricity has to come from hydropower or nuclear power. Solar and wind simply cannot supply enough power, even if every acre in the country had a windmill and a large solar array, with batteries.

So, rather than piling on loads of costs one everyone(including the people running this program) it would be much better policy to directly invest in speeding up the development and adoption of modern, 4th and 5th generation nuclear reactors. There are many design possibilities for nuclear reactors that are modular, scalable, safer, much more efficient, and much less liable to nuclear weapons proliferation than the current machines. Most are literally failsafe- if the reactor overheats it simply shuts down due to how they are designed.

I was a member of the group in Thetford that drafted our town's Enhanced Energy Plan. I fully appreciate how hard it will be for small towns to meet the energy goal that Vermont has affirmed: each town needs to be powered by 90% renewable energy from within its borders by 2050. The Transportation and Climate Initiative as one of the many actions needed to make that goal possible.

Needs to be more streamlined/lower emissions commuting; easier biking/hiking alternative transportation. Less accentuation on making roads easier for business and more on people.

Climate models are worthless mathematical constructs riddled with guesswork.

CO2-driven Climate Change is an Assertion / Hypothesis that cannot be proven or dis-proven and is, therefore, scientifically invalid.

Bad policy is based on bad information, UNPROVEN assumptions, and PROFIT for insiders.

HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST and WHO WILL PAY?

I and my family are opposed to the TCI. This tax in sheep's clothing is nothing more than and end run around the normal legislative process. The TCI is an affront to the common sense of Massachusetts citizens. We have had enough of "government" by bureaucratic fiat.

Of course reduction in GHG and related emissions is a worthwhile effort, however, I think this tax and trade policy will reduce the competitiveness of the states involved and result in more businesses moving from the area. Already many of these states are losing population and is jobs leave the area, residents will soon follow. This could have the impact of reducing GHG emissions by having less people on the highways, but the goal should not be to do anything to leave the states.

In addition I feel this does not address the high polluting older vehicles that are on the road by focusing on the GHGs. Technology could be developed to identify the extremely high polluting vehicles and getting them off the road. Perhaps high polluting vehicles could be targeted for purchase or removal from the states by some other method. Many times these are low MPG vehicles as well which results in more carbon generation than more efficient vehicles.

Lastly, the efforts to improve the traffic flow such as improved traffic light timing using developing AI could increase quality of life as well as reduce GHG emissions. This could be a technology that would bring high tech jobs and engineers to the area. Using other modern technology e.g. through Waze or other apps, employers could be enticed to stagger their employee commute to minimize traffic delays due to rush hour. The technology today lends itself much more today than in the time of the old Employee Trip Reduction Program. Besides flex hours, employers could be encouraged to let employees work from home.

In summary, I am against the GHG tax and trade program because I believe it will make these states an even less attractive place to establish a business.

Stop wasting our children’s money. These kids will be taxed to death because of your wasteful spending

The initiative as presented is simply a new tax without useful or demonstrable destination for the revenue created. By exempting jet fuel the initiative ignores a vastly more unnecessary and polluting element, commercial flights - many working people need to use their cars to get to work, a handful may need to fly to do so. As it happens I do ride a bicycle to work and deplore the proliferation of 300+ horsepower cars and trucks, but I do not see the TCI as having the mission or structure to actually make a difference. That, the tangible steps, if any, envisioned by the TCI should be front and center in any presentation of advocacy.