This legislative session, amid statewide concerns about rising costs in the state, lawmakers are trying to decide whether to push forward with the state’s climate goals or pull back. 

Meanwhile, Patrick Parenteau, emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, has been monitoring the back-and-forth. Parenteau — a senior fellow in climate policy for Vermont Law and Graduate School’s Environmental Law Center and the founding director of the school’s Environmental Advocacy Clinic — said lawmakers should attempt to trod forward with climate policy, even if only small steps are possible. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

VTDigger: In Vermont, a few climate-related things are happening at once. We’re experiencing extreme impacts of climate change, such as flooding. Lawmakers are staring down a 2030 Global Warming Solutions Act deadline, which requires them to pass policies that will aggressively reduce emissions, which could have cost impacts for Vermonters. And meanwhile, the costs of health care, education and property taxes are going up, so Vermonters are worried about extra costs. How should we be thinking about this moment?

Patrick Parenteau: The real question is, what are you doing today — right now — to move incrementally? Not in huge jumps forward. I think, frankly, the environmental community and the Democrats in the supermajority overestimated what they thought was doable. And now I fear that they’re going to go completely the other way and say, ‘Well, nothing’s doable.’ That whipsaw, back and forth? That doesn’t help at all. 

What we need is steady progress. Maybe not the progress that the science demands — and, frankly, I would say, we are not going to make the progress the science demands. We’re already way behind the curve on that. And the damages are going to get worse. There’s no doubt about it, if you look at the climate science, and if you can understand what the climate scientists are telling us. 

You’ve just got to say, ‘Wait a minute. What can Vermont do?’ And this business of right-sizing policies to Vermont — I think the critics have a point there. I don’t think Vermont can change the world. Maybe Vermont used to think it could do stuff like that, but not on a problem like this. We can ban billboards. We can ban phosphate in the lake. We can require recycling. There’s a lot of neat things Vermont has done, and can do, but leading the world to a greener future? I don’t think so.

VTD: In some ways, it sounds like you’re saying that lawmakers and climate policy advocates in Vermont need to slow down. If that thinking was adopted more broadly, wouldn’t that have detrimental consequences for the climate?

PP: Yeah. I’m saying two things. I’m saying, number one, the consequences of going slow and incrementally are, I think, potentially catastrophic. That’s my personal belief. I can’t tell you the number of hours and years I’ve spent studying this stuff. 

But I don’t think that does any good, to talk like that. I don’t think it does any good at all in Vermont. And I’m trying to tell my environmental colleagues that. Screaming ‘crisis’ won’t work. Citing Greta Thunberg ain’t going to work. You’ve got to take account of the political reality, not only of Vermont, but this moment in our history, nationally. 

Yes, our failure to move more aggressively, to transition away from fossil fuel in every sector, every single sector, is going to have really, really serious consequences. But having said that, you have to figure out: What can you do right now about it? 

That’s far less than what I would like. Way, way less. But not nothing. That’s what I worry about, with this pendulum. Are we going to go all the way back to, ‘Fuck it, we’re not going to do anything?’ We’re going to repeal the law? We’re going to say, ‘Let’s see if we can make it by 2060?’ I mean, that’s insane talk. 

So, stop it. That’s my point. Stop talking like that. Get down into the weeds of, what does it take to help people electrify their houses and install heat pumps? Let’s just talk about that. What would it take to do that? 

VTD: The Scott administration has proposed nixing the cause of action in the Global Warming Solutions Act, which allows individuals to sue the state for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by its deadlines. Should lawmakers make that change?

PP: That’s an accountability question. The governor doesn’t want to be accountable. He wants the freedom to do what he wants to do, and his priority is lowering costs for Vermonters. His priority is not achieving what the climate science says is necessary. If it was, he’d be coming up with rules that were reducing emissions aggressively, right?

I think Gov. Scott is a competent governor. He’s far different from the rest of his tribe of Republicans. But he’s not showing any leadership on this, none. He needs to use his voice and his popularity to convince people that we are going to have to make — not huge, but some — sacrifice. Because if we do, we’ll be better off. I don’t ever hear him saying that, but he needs to say that.

VTD: Polls say Vermonters do want progress on climate action. What have you seen in terms of Vermonters’ appetite for bigger climate policies right now?

PP: I don’t think average Vermonters want to hear that we’re going to lead the world, we’re going to show the way, we’re going to be the model for everybody. I know they don’t in my town of Thetford. They don’t want to hear that. What they want to know is, how in the hell can I afford to send my kids to school? How in the hell can I afford a mortgage or credit cards? That’s what they’re concerned about. So stop pretending they’re not concerned about that. 

You either have to come up with a really convincing argument for why we can all do this, and it won’t hurt a bit — I don’t believe that’s true. And I think, if you try to push that line, and it isn’t true, then you’ve really lost credibility forever.

Here’s my thought: If we can start making some progress — although it’s baby steps, and doesn’t satisfy those of us who think we need more — but if we could do that, maybe then, we can accelerate later. 

That’s the only hope, is if we can show people, ‘Look, these changes we’re talking about, they’re nothing to be afraid of. We’re going to go gradually. We’re going to measure how well we’re doing.’ And if we’re right, that these policies make sense, that will become apparent. Cross our fingers, once that happens, maybe things can go really fast. Maybe.

VTD: Okay, so what does that look like? What should the conversations actually be about?

PP: It’s different than saying we’re going too fast; let’s move the goalposts. That’s the conversation now — let’s just move the goal post from 2030 to whatever. That doesn’t do anything. What does that do? How does that help?

Here’s the goal: Let’s weatherize 90% of the houses in Vermont. I think you can pick a date, because I think somebody could crunch those numbers and tell you when that’s realistic, with the right labor force at the right wage.

How do we bring down the cost of heat pumps? How do we make them affordable? What kinds of different incentives would it take to do that, recognizing we’re probably not going to get any federal money? I’m down in the weeds of this stuff, and I’m not smart enough to know exactly the answers to all these questions. I just know those are the questions.