TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I strongly support the Transportation and Climate Initiative. It is important that regions begin to work together to put caps on emissions and to look forward in order to develop new ways to move around the region. I would hope that some of the money from additional taxes would be used to develop better public transportation alternatives in rural areas of PA.

The time for action on climate change was yesterday. Despite the scientists sounding the alarms on rising temperatures, elected officials have routinely failed to act. Greenhouse gas emissions must be tackled systemically for substantial reductions in output to occur. With consistent climate denialism emanating from the Trump administration, the onus is on state elected officials to enact bold prescriptions to this growing crisis. The onus is also on fellow citizens to pressure our representatives to make the correct decisions for us. I chose to attend Middlebury College because I believed Vermont is a national leader As an environmental policy major at Middlebury College, I have learned a great deal about the unprecedented attention this crisis requires; the Transportation Climate Initiative fits the mold for bold and sweeping action that the world desperately needs. The Global Warmings Solutions Act’s passing demonstrates the ability for this state to lead in the fight against climate change. Now, it is up to us on whether we continue moving forward on this issue.
The Transportation Climate Initiative’s declining emissions cap is a key step in reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the region, but the opponents of the bill routinely focus on the economic hindrances of the bill on low income Vermonters. In specific, they argue that increasing fuel prices would disproportionately impact their constituents. It appears the two sides are speaking past each other at times. On the third page of the Draft Memorandum of Understanding of the Transportation and Climate Initiative (MOU), the bill states that the benefits of a “cap-and-invest program flow equitably to communities that are undeserved by clean transportation alternatives… .” The bill sets the record straight; the goals outlined by the Transportation Climate Initiative ensures that lower income Vermonters will receive economic benefits through investments funded by the rise in fuel prices. It is designed to protect the most vulnerable citizens in the state. Moreover, if we fail to act with the looming threat of climate change, these same people will experience economic and environmental hardships. More extreme weather events, increased costs of food prices, and the degradation of the environment will impact underprivileged communities the hardest. Through a cap and invest system, revenue garnered from the program will supply the necessary mitigation reforms and economic subsidies for these vulnerable populations.
Opponents of the Transportation Climate Initiative must come to terms with the looming truth; if we don’t act now to protect poor and working-class Vermonters from the climate crisis, they will suffer in the long term. During this legislative cycle, elected officials will be choosing between two radical futures. In the radical future with the passage of the Transportation Climate Initiative, more Vermonters will economically benefit through subsidies, improved transportation services, and home weatherization. In the other radical future, in which the Transportation Climate Initiative is struck down by Phil Scott and the “economic pragmatists,” the most vulnerable in this state will have fewer amenities and tools to effectively combat the climate crisis. We are at a juncture in Vermont legislative history. The Global Warmings Solutions Act was a necessary step, and the Transportation Climate Initiative will build on the climate legislation that has preceded it. The passage of this bill balances on the eventual answer to these two questions: Will those who haven’t taken a side on this issue choose to fight the climate crisis with earnest? Will Governor Phil Scott side with the fossil fuel lobbyists or the most climate-vulnerable citizens of Vermont?

I urge Vermont to formally join TCI so we can create a clean energy future that works better for everyone, especially our most vulnerable. Thank you for the work you’ve done so far to advance TCI across the region.

TCI provides the opportunity to tackle the biggest problem of our day — climate change — by reducing emissions in our state’s most carbon-intensive sector, while diverting funds into much-needed transportation infrastructure that will benefit all.

We can either seize this opportunity to make monumental progress and have a chance to prosper in a clean energy future, or accept a status quo that is only becoming more and more difficult for Vermonters and more harmful to our environment.

Vermont, like other states, desperately needs additional funding to create innovative, equitable transportation options for all, including seniors/people with disabilities/people with low incomes, for whom transportation costs and accessibility are an added burden. TCI can provide this support.

As you know, Vermont’s participation in a cap and invest program is not new. Under Governor Jim Douglas, Vermont joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in 2008. This cap and invest program covers the electric sector in the Northeast, and it has proven very successful, reducing consumer costs and carbon pollution from the power sector by 40%.

Vermont has strategically invested the revenues raised from RGGI, directing the $2 million annually into weatherization programs that help Vermonters stop wasting energy and save money. We know this type of project works — there is no excuse not to adopt TCI as well.

I urge Vermont to participate in the Transportation and Climate Initiative so that all Vermonters live in a world where they do not have to choose between being able to get where they need to go and polluting the planet irreparably.

Dr. Michael Shank

Please include Maine in the Transportation and Climate Initiative because we can reduce congestion and traffic in urban areas while increasing public transportation access in rural areas. I'm in favor of plans for public transportation options that reducing risk of fossil fuel emissions, air pollution, and reduce traffic accidents by having less drivers on the road. I would like to see more taxpayer and grant moneys going to benefit all of us instead of the fossil fuel industry.

I believe this the another excuse to raise the taxes. We already have too many taxes. Its going to effective businesses, jobs, oil industries, and revenues . I am totally against this.
The claims for a positive environmental impact have not been proven. This proposal places the burden of new taxes in a disproportionate way onto the poor and rural communities.

This should be voted on it shouldn’t be something that the government just does Mr. Baker.