TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

As transportation is a primary emitter of fossil fuels, a focus on reducing that is imperative. Localizing economies is a start. Food is a good start to the start. Everyone needs to eat two or three times a day, and food has to get from farm to plate. Human beings do not need bananas from Ecuador or lettuce from California in order to survive! Re-educating people on how to get needed nutrients from things that grow locally can be of enormous help in reducing the hidden costs to the climate. Growing one's own food is best. Ten paces from garden to plate, freshness assured! Next would be a system of community gardens, then farmers markets, then grocery stores carrying local food at prices that reflect its true cost. Adding a carbon quotient to all transported foods would make local foods look a lot better.

Another educational effort could be put into edible weeds, seeds, flowers, and even insects. (80% of the world enjoys insect protein. Why can't we, in the West?) It might make people think twice about spraying dandelions with poison if they knew how nutritious they are. Unsprayed lawns abound in other foods and even medicines that are far more valuable than the aesthetics of a monoculture of Kentucky bluegrass. Think about how many homeowners rake up annoying acorns into garbage bags for the dump, when a couple hundred years ago acorns provided up to 50% of winter calories for some Native American populations. Going back to such useful local foodstuffs can eclipse the need for trucking in food from far away. This educational effort on local foods we already have could be enhanced and encouraged by having community based classes on cooking and preservation.

In Vermont, we have a lot of large lawns that are rarely used except from the seat of a riding mower on weekend afternoons. Grass, a perennial, grows on its own with little input needed. Put grazing animals on those lawns and they get fertilized nicely. Hoof action makes pockets that hold water rather than letting it run off. Hoof action also presses manure into the soil, sequestering that carbon. Grassland thus grows protein in the form of meat--a sustainable form. At the same time, any form of factory farming of animals should be transitioned as quickly as possible to grass-based. Grain is not a natural part of any ruminant's diet! They'll eat it, but it's bad for them in the long run. Valuable corn and soybean fields could then be converted to carbon-sequestering grasslands or some form of permaculture including fruit and nut trees, with some open land being kept for annual fruits and vegetables as needed.

Thanks for listening.

My family has only one car (a hybrid) and uses it relatively infrequently as we can walk, bike or bus most places in town. We would get rid of our vehicle altogether if it were possible to get bus or train service to various places in roughly 5 hrs driving distance (Portland, ME or Western Mass, for example). Currently our only public transit options depart Burlington at 3am (Greyhound) or 4pm (Megabus), both of which are disruptive to travel plans with small children. Our inability to get to and from other cities within Vermont (except by the commuter buses, which run so infrequently that they are not useful for errand running or partial day outings) is another factor. I would love to see the region develop a more robust public transit system between towns, preferably at hours that are convenient not just for those working a 9-5 job, but to accomodate tourists and traveling families.

I support TCI, and would like to see a strong emphasis on using the revenues from TCI to support sustainable transportation options, particularly walking, biking, public transportation, carpooling, electric bicycles, and other non-single occupancy vehicle options. I would like to see as high a fee as possible to help shift behavior and raise revenues to support alternatives.

Tailpipe exhaust is a major source of air pollution in Vermont. Auto ownership is a financial burden, and vehicle accidents have disrupted or ended too many lives. We need transportation choices, and development that coordinates with them!

https://www.zermatt.ch/en/arrival/Autofrei-GEX-MTT/Zermatt-is-car-free

Zermatt Switzerland has been car free for ages. It is a good plan and could be implemented in Burlington for a good start. See link.
Deliveries are made with electric trucks and traffic is not allowed into the city that is not electric.

We are working hard in the NEK ( Northeast Kingdom) to reduce carbon emissions- lots of driving in this rural area so we need the incentives that TCI would provide - can’t do much on a meaningful scale without it. As far as it amounting to another tax on fuel- the price of gas differs as much as 25 cents or more per gallon between St. Johnsbury and Lyndonville, the next town north. An added tax of 5 cents pales in comparison to these fluctuations. And the TCI takes seriously the impacts on rural and low income populations, which is a key strength. Vermont needs to be part of this initiative so we have a place at the table when decisions are made.

Every living former Federal Reserve chair, dozens of Nobel laureates, and chief economists from both Democratic and Republican administrations, have all signed an open letter calling for taxes on emissions of greenhouse gases. In my understanding, the Transportation and Climate Initiative's cap-and-invest strategy is an even more effective way to reduce the damage being caused to our economy and environment by our continued dependency on fossil fuels for transportation.

And why?

Because paying for the oil, and the subsidies we pay directly and indirectly to oil companies, costs us in Vermont over 2 Billion dollars a year that goes out of this economy. And the only return we get is in the form of earnings of stockholders in oil companies. If national averages on stock ownership are applied to Vermont, that means 80 percent of Vermonters get no return from the 649 Billion dollars we in the US have paid to oil companies in subsidies, to provide to us with a toxic product at an artificially low price.
One of the most common objections to the TCI is that it is seen as a regressive tax. If you're going to talk about regressive taxes, here is a regressive tax; the hidden taxes we all pay for fossil fuel production.
With TCI, we would at least be able to decide how the charges we add to fossil fuels can be progressively redistributed to help those most dependent on these fuels, those most impacted by their externalized costs.
As an economic issue, this is an action we can take to redress some of the absurd subsidies we pay to oil companies to pollute our air and soils, and to reverse Vermont’s dependency on these damaging products.

I share the caution expressed by some politicians concerning the explicit final details of the agreement. However, our response to these concerns must be to work now to make sure the agreement meets our energy goals. I urge our representatives in these discussions to stay engaged, and to focus on the highest objectives of the program, not short-term political expediency. The TCI represents our best opportunity to make real change and exert control over our energy future.

Vermont had one of the lowest carbon footprints in the region when they had Vermont Yankee operating. Now after the politicians and activist destroyed that resource they are going after our money for worthless pet “feel good” climate change projects. Until China and India ramp down their emissions these initiatives do nothing more than hurt Vermonters. Please end this veiled carbon tax and work on things that actually improve Vermonters lives.

I think part of your stated goal of capping carbon emissions is a poor goal to focus on. Yes let's move to reduce carbon emissions, but capping them with the TCI plan of authoritarian price increases in a product that many are dependent on in an attempt to motivate behavioral changes to reduce their usage of fuels is problematic and an inefficient manner to create behavioral changes.

I see the likely result of this is to cause pain for many who are trying to earn a living (transportation to work), get food to their table (transportation for food from warmer climates to the northeast, and transportation to get the food to the table), and heat their homes in the northeast (not all can heat totally with wood), while paying more in taxes that will be used to benefit only some. I don't see this as changing behaviors.

I do not support a tax and spend program given the already high taxes in Vermont. Even if this is instituted I still expect to heat my existing home with some non-wood sources, shop at stores to buy food, and drive a fuel efficient car to earn a living and to pay my share of taxes. Also, regarding electric vehicles, before you plan to tax, spend, and cap our use of fuel efficient cars, I suggest you consider what would happen to our economy and personal safety if with the current technology we have many stranded vehicles clogging our roadways in the winter as their batteries loose half their output when it gets cold.

I can reduce my personal emissions but cannot cap them and do not support a government "service" to disadvantage and cap the basic necessities of life!