There is No Logic to Vermont’s New Climate Law

There is No Logic to Vermont’s New Climate Law

June 10, 2024

Last week, Vermont passed the first state law of its kind. This unprecedented legislation mandates that fossil fuel companies bear the financial burden for the effects of what they define as “climate change.” Simultaneously, Vermont is aligning itself with a lawsuit, joined by two dozen cities and states, against Exxon and other entities. The suit alleges that these companies were aware of climate change as early as the 1970s and took no action.

George Sharpe, a seasoned Investment Manager for Merrion Oil & Gas, recently penned an insightful piece in the New Hampshire Journal, offering a compelling critique of the new law and the associated lawsuits. The four reasons Sharpe laid out include: There is no real consensus on how much CO2 affects the environment. Second, how do we logically determine the compensation of each city? Third, emissions come from various sources, including citizens who use fossil fuels daily. Lastly, had Exxon reached a consensus and acknowledged CO2 emissions in the 1970s, what were Exxon and the rest of the world supposed to do about it? 

Sharpe goes on to say,

“It is clear that had the supposed “energy transition” started in the 1970s vs. the 1990s, it would have made absolutely no difference. No matter how much money you pour into them, wind, solar, and batteries just do not replicate the abundant, affordable, essential, and always reliable energy from oil and natural gas. In closing, Vermont’s law and these lawsuits are disingenuous efforts to place blame on energy producers versus energy consumers for the impacts of fossil fuels.  Ironically, none of those cities or states are clamoring for more nuclear energy, which is the only real answer to a carbon free future. If Vermont truly believes it is being irreparably damaged by fossil fuels, it is welcome to quit using them whenever it wishes.”

These types of laws and lawsuits are dangerous and open the door for the eco-left to define any element of the weather as damaging because they know they can shakedown private industry for more cash. Clearly, the greenest thing about the climate movement is the money invested.