Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The sad spectacle of greens losing climate lawsuit after lawsuit has prompted Vermont’s legislators to create a special law to allow activists to sue the Vermont government.
Vermont Senate approves Global Warming Solutions Act
By Xander Landen
| 24 reader footnotesThe Vermont Senate approved legislation Thursday that would legally mandate the state meet carbon emission reductions targets in the coming years, and allow individuals to sue the government if it doesn’t.
The bill, H.688, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, has been a priority this session of the Democratically-controlled Legislature.
The measure, which was approved in a vote of 22-6, would require the state to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025. Emissions would need to be 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below by 2050.
Emissions have increased in recent years, with the most recent data from 2015 showing emissions 16% higher than 1990 levels.
…
Proponents of the bill say that giving Vermonters a way to hold the state accountable for reducing emissions is essential to make sure the government actually meets its targets.
“It’s about time we give citizens a tool, and it’s about time that we set up an actual process, to not just hope that we will get somewhere, but to, in fact, look at how could we possibly redesign our economy in a way that has us not importing fossil fuels,” Sen. Chris Pearson, D/P-Chittenden, the co-chair of the Legislature’s climate caucus, said on the virtual Senate floor.
…
Read more: https://vtdigger.org/2020/06/25/vermont-senate-approves-global-warming-solutions-act/
The section which describes the right to sue;
…
§ 594. CAUSE OF ACTION
(a) Any person may commence an action based upon the failure of the Secretary of Natural Resources to adopt or update rules pursuant to the deadlines in section 593 of this chapter.
(1) The action shall be brought pursuant to Rule 75 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of Washington County.
(2) The complaint shall be filed within one year after expiration of the time in which the Secretary of Natural Resources was required to adopt or update rules pursuant to section 593 of this chapter. However, a person shall not commence an action under this subsection until at least 60 days after providing notice of the alleged violation to the Secretary.
(3) If the court finds that the Secretary has failed to adopt or update rules pursuant to the deadlines in section 593 of this chapter, the court shall enter an order directing the Secretary to adopt or update rules. If the court finds that the Secretary is taking prompt and effective action to adopt or update rules, the court may grant the Secretary a reasonable period of time to do so.
(b) Any person may commence an action alleging that rules adopted by the Secretary pursuant to section 593 of this chapter have failed to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements pursuant to section 578 of this title.
(1) The action shall be brought in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of Washington County.
(2) The complaint shall be filed within one year after the Vermont Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and Forecast published pursuant to section 582 of this title indicates that the rules adopted by the Secretary have failed to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements pursuant to section 578 of this title. However, a person shall not commence an action under this subsection until at least 60 days after providing notice of the alleged violation to the Secretary.
(3) If the court finds that the rules adopted by the Secretary pursuant to section 593 of this chapter are a substantial cause of failure to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements pursuant to section 578 of this title, the court shall enter an order remanding the matter to the Secretary
BILL AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE H.688 2020 Page 37 of 39
to adopt or update rules that achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements consistent with this chapter. If the court finds that the Secretary is taking prompt and effective action to comply, the court may grant the Secretary a reasonable period of time to do so.
(c) In an action brought pursuant to this section, a prevailing party or substantially prevailing party:
(1) that is a plaintiff shall be awarded reasonable costs and attorney’s fees unless doing so would not serve the interests of justice; or
(2) that is a defendant may be awarded reasonable costs if the action was frivolous or lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under any law, including the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 3 V.S.A. chapter 25.
…
Read more: https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0688/H-0688%20As%20passed%20by%20the%20House%20Official.pdf
I’m not an expert in Vermont constitutional law, but if they wanted to surely a future senate and assembly could rescind this new law, before any claims could be brought before the courts?
It is not clear where Vermont plans to source the renewable energy they will need to achieve zero emissions. Vermont already has extensive hydroelectric power, so its likely most of the good hydro sites are already in use. Vermont is not exactly known for its sun drenched fields. I guess wind power may be an option – when the wind blows.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You could have fun with this. Like suing every VT pollie who travels in a gasoline vehicle, requiring them to buy and drive an electric Gaia-chariot. Forget about ever travelling by air. Amtrack only guys, gals and yxs. Paris in the spring time is right out unless you sail there like Greta. No heating in winter at home or work. No aircon in summer. Vegan food only in the State House cafeteria. Also instant impeachment on sight of a single plastic bag in their possession.
Or deliberately ordering a few tons of gasoline and burning it, to push the state over their emission limit, forcing more cutbacks in CO2 emissions by government agencies to maintain the court required threshold.
That is actually an interesting idea … what happens if a political group buys a property there does exactly that. From above it’s only 65,000 people so easy for a large scale industry emission to dwarf 65,000 peoples. Crowd fund a alumina smelter for Vermont 🙂
You need to read this carefully. The sections quoted impowers a lawsuit only if the government fails to make rules or if the rules made don’t achieve the goals – and the only remedy is a court order that they do so.
Not quite. IMO law would likely make it more difficult to block handouts to greens which were promised but never delivered, or if a green group say assumes competence for managing some patch of scrub, then demands more money. The court can order the government to remedy their inaction in helping greens maintain the weeds.
jagracer
That is how I read it too. The only remedy for ineffective rules is more rules. No financial damages.
“3) If the court finds that the rules adopted by the Secretary pursuant to section 593 of this chapter are a substantial cause of failure to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements pursuant to section 578 of this title, the court shall enter an order remanding the matter to the Secretary.”
I don’t know how a court could determine that. Maybe it would be an expert contest.
The whole thing seems like posturing and virtue signaling.
While this is steriodally enhanced nuts, it does open an opportunity. Anyone here from vermont? I recently texted one of my7 representatives and asked for him to agitate to have the government provide a “School report” on what it actually acheived in the real world with 30 years of 10 Billion plus spending and economic damage. That its, show us the outcomes, the actual reduction in Mauna Loa CO2 readings, and economic benefits from the 30 years of waste.
Vermont residents, Sue your government using this for failing to make real world improvements in Co2 or failing to acheive green jobs growth or other economic markers of green policy. Use the courts to prosecute the government for making investments that don’t reduce the temperature. In court they have to prove they did, (they can’t). The way this is written you might also be able to sue the government for making investments that are not warranted because the cost benefit of CO2 is actually positive (Plant food). That is you may be able to set up a legal precedent that prevents the government wasting your money.
They will throw out any case not based on “fact” and we know who decides what the “facts” are.
Lawyers’ paradise!
This development is so wonderfully absurd that I cannot let the post go without mentioning the portrayal of Vermont once satirised by the great Ben Hecht in the screwball comedy,“Nothing Sacred”(1937).
Vermonters of the fictional town of Warsaw who used only two words,“Yep”and “Nope”were lightheartedly laughed at along with an array of now PC issues.
Sleazy visiting New York newspaper man, Wally Cook ( Frederic March) is bitten on the leg by a young child while walking down the street!
To see how everything has changed in America since 1937, you need only watch this hilarious satire on topics now politically correct: racism, drunkenness, physical abuse, ballyhooing reporters, ersatz celebrity, famous for being famous etc.
(Well, perhaps the low opinion of the public on reporters remains intact).
The thought of what Ben Hecht could do with Vermonters suing Vermont gives me delight.
How will they determine which are VT emissions and not those straying from Canada, NY, Maine, Mas or NH?
That will tie up the courts in Vermont.
What’s the carbon impact of offering monetary incentives to move to VT?
As for power, they know they can just import it from Canadian hydro.
Why are people who don’t believe it called deniers and those who don’t recognize the period of good weather are not called deniers?
Why should the left be allowed to control the dialogue when their insatiable desire is power.
Democrats are financially supported by LAWYERS. This is where their donations come from.
This act is a way to indirectly finance Democratic Party from the state budget:
1) Allows lawyers to get rich from lawsuits against the state
2) Some of those money will end up in the pockets of Democratic Party, as lawyers donate to it
Would those targets improve the climate, and how could you measure an improved climate. And what is an improved climate anyway.