“…calling the fee that customers pay a ‘hidden tax.'”– Gov. Glenn Youngkin
“…the goals of the alliance are “ambitious and well-intentioned” but that they “conflict with Nevada’s energy policy objectives.””– Gov. Joe Lombardo
Finally, some common sense is returning to the climate change debate. Governors Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Joe Lombardo of Nevada are prioritizing the well-being of their citizens and the unique needs of their states over ill-founded climate alarmism.
In Virginia, Governor Youngkin recently concluded a review of new regulations, bringing the state closer to withdrawing from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) by the end of the year. The RGGI is a pact among twelve states that forces electricity producers to buy allowances for carbon emissions, a cost that consumers unjustly bear. Youngkin aptly refers to this cost as a “hidden tax” and seeks to shield Virginians from such unnecessary financial burdens.
On the other side, we have environmental groups and Democrats who argue that the RGGI is integral to Virginia’s carbon emission reduction strategy. They also celebrate the $500 million that the state has collected from allowance revenues. But these funds have been drawn from the pockets of tax-payers, and then repackaged as a necessary expense for climate change mitigation.
Out West, Governor Lombardo made the prudent decision to withdraw Nevada from the U.S. Climate Alliance. Lombardo acknowledges the alliance’s well meaning goals as “ambitious and well-intentioned”, yet rightfully asserts that they “conflict with Nevada’s energy policy objectives.”
These decisions by Youngkin and Lombardo illustrate a much-needed shift in approach to hysterical climate action. Overhyped, fear-driven policies often overshadow the fact that it is yet to be conclusively shown that human-induced climate change is a significant problem. This truth is overshadowed by global accords like the Paris Agreement or inter-state collaborations like the U.S. Climate Alliance that push for premature and potentially harmful actions, ignoring the unique needs, resources, and challenges of individual states.
Both Governors, prioritizing the welfare of their constituents and local economies, challenge these collective strategies. They highlight the importance of tailored, state-specific initiatives that balance environmental considerations with economic and social needs, all while questioning the alarmist climate narrative.
These sensible actions stir the climate change pot. They challenge constituents to ask: should we subscribe to the dominant narrative and rush into potentially detrimental collective efforts? Or should we take a step back, question the prevailing dogma, and strive for balanced, state-specific policies that prioritize the actual needs of our citizens?
It’s time for a reality check on climate action. What do you think of Virginia’s potential exit from the RGGI or Nevada’s withdrawal from the U.S. Climate Alliance?
HT/resourceguy for the twofer
You can explore more Climate Politics at our ClimateTV page