In this episode of Right Side Up, hosts Mike Taglia and Nathan Peats delve into current local politics, educational reforms, and the intricate discussions surrounding climate science and environmental policies. This summary encapsulates the main insights and discussions, providing a concise overview of the important topics covered in the episode.
Weekend Highlights
- Antique Snowmobile Event: Mike shares his enjoyable weekend outing to an antique snowmobile show in Washington, showcasing vintage models from the 60s, sparking conversations about community events and local interests.
- Church History Course Development: Nathan discusses his preparation for teaching a church history course beginning February 20th, highlighting the importance of education in shaping community narratives.
Education Reform in Vermont
Current Legislative Session
- Mike emphasizes the return of the Vermont legislature, focusing on educational funding and the need for a major reorganization of the education system to better serve students, whom he refers to as "customers" in the education business.
- He highlights the introduction of H89, a school choice bill intended to enhance competition and improve educational experiences for students. Nathan supports this notion, suggesting that school choice can benefit taxpayers, parents, and students alike.
Importance of Student Preparedness
- There’s a call for a better educational framework that prepares students for trade schools, colleges, and the workforce, thereby ensuring they are equipped for real-world challenges post-graduation.
Climate Science Discussion
The Climate and Environmental Debates
- The episode references an article from Granite Rock discussing the legal analysis of climate science, pointing out misconceptions in perceptions about carbon and its role in the environment.
- Mike and Nathan express skepticism regarding the consensus on climate science, criticizing the way climate data has been interpreted and the limited debate around it.
Manufacturing and Environmental Impact
- The discussion extends to renewable energy manufacturing, addressing the toxic byproducts created during the production of electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, and solar panels.
- Key Takeaways:
- Toxins and Pollution: The processes involved in creating renewable technologies often lead to environmental toxins, contradicting the aim of reducing ecological harm.
- Carbon as a Building Block: They discuss how carbon is essential for life and question the narrative that demonizes it, stressing the need for balanced views on environmental science.
Call for Educational Improvements
- Nathan urges a revamp of the science curriculum to foster critical thinking in students rather than indoctrinating them with predetermined narratives, particularly in the context of climate discussions.
- Encouraging students to think critically about scientific claims can lead to a more informed public and better policy decisions.
Political Dynamics and Public Safety
Legislative Priorities
- Mike emphasizes concerns around housing affordability and public safety in Vermont, noting feedback from constituents about the need for legislative action to address these significant issues.
- The hosts discuss the tension between industrialization, environmental sustainability, and community needs, questioning whether current policies truly benefit local residents or mainly serve corporate interests.
Conclusion
As the episode draws to a close, the hosts reflect on the vibrant discussions that are important for Vermont's future. They encourage listeners to stay informed and engaged with local politics, emphasizing that feedback from the community is vital in directing legislative priorities. The integration of educational reform, climate science awareness, and public safety discussions forms the crux of a meaningful legislative agenda.
Key Takeaways:
- Education Reform: Essential for equipping students with necessary real-world skills.
- Climate Science Scrutiny: Need for open debate and critical evaluation of environmental policies.
- Community Engagement: Importance of public feedback in shaping legislative actions.
Listen to this engaging exchange of ideas as Mike and Nathan tackle complex topics with insight and passion, encouraging a well-informed citizenry dedicated to improvement.
Was this summary helpful?
Good morning, folks. You're listening to Right Side Up. This is my name is Mike Taglia today. I have guest host, Nathan Peats with me. We're going to talk some local politics and what's going on in your neighborhood. But just before we get into that, I don't know what's been going on in your life, but I had a nice outing this weekend. Nathan, I went to a, I think it was called an old iron.
right in, I guess you'll call it, old antique and older snowmobiles at a farm up in Washington, the town of Washington. It was really good. How old are these snowmobiles? Well, some of them were pretty old. I didn't even realize Caterpillar made snowmobiles back in the day. Some of them actually look like they're big, you know, track machine, metal tracks, articulated, old,
I don't know if they were Kohler Motors, Wisconsin Robin Motors. Slow. These were old, you know, work for us. So what vintage are you talking like? 60s?
Oh, yeah, some of them probably, yeah, probably definitely 60s, you know, all the way up to probably today or within the past 10 years. But it was great, you know, young and old. It was good. It was beautiful weather, too. Yeah, it was a nice weekend to get outside. Definitely. So I don't know what's going on with you.
Well, I'm developing a church history course, which has nothing to do with life in my town or anything, but I'll be teaching that with a friend of mine who's a pastor in South Royalton, starting in February 20th. So I'm excited about that. But yeah, my weekend was mostly just studying for that and getting ready for the service this morning.
All right, well, I want to get into, obviously our legislature and Vermont is back in session and there's a lot going on. We've got the education, not only funding, but it looks like there's going to be a major reorganization. In fact, I hope there is because the model we have right now, I don't think, is serving our students who actually are the customer, if you ask me.
We're not serving the customer very well. Coming from a background in business. You don't stay in business if you don't provide a good service for your customers. So something needs to be done so that the customer at the end of their tenure in the school system can actually leave the school system and feel like they're either prepared for
trade school or college or just to step out into the work field and be able to maybe provide for themselves. Imagine that. Imagine that.
Well, I wish you well in that. And so do all of us here in this state. Yeah. Well, not to toot my own horn, but I did introduce H89, which is a school choice bill. I don't know if it will find its way off the wall, but I think one of the ways we can actually improve
education in this state, keep our kids happier, a little bit more content while they're sitting behind the desk, listening to the teachers, to have competition. I mean, competition into private business breeds quality and it helps to moderate the price. So maybe that's what we need in our education system. I don't know what you think about that.
Well, I think school choice where you're able to make an informed decision is obviously good for the taxpayer, for the household, for the student. I think it's a win-win or a win-win-win. I mean, if you're talking about the taxpayer, the parent, and the student, right? But we shall see. There's going to be a lot of debate. Actually, I hope the more debate, the better, right?
That's what I think anyway. So I want to get into an article that I found on Granite Rock by John Clark. It's called a legal analysis of climate science that renewables manufacturing pollutes is beyond any reasonable doubt.
With few exceptions, the common law upon which US jurisprudence is based employs one of two burdens of proof in litigation. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard used in criminal prosecutions, a very high bar requiring compelling evidence, or the preponderance of the evidence, standard employed widely in civil cases, a sort of 51% test that the claims of a party are more likely than not true.
These standards are usedfully transferred to environmental issues, including global warming and exotoxins. In science, there was once a logical process built on the IDF hypothesis, graduated to theory, and accepted as law, when proved by repeated evidentiary experimentation. In our current climate cult, the so-called
Climate science is treated as law by consensus Not by scientific proof at best science can be said to have surmounted the lesser legal burden of proof of preponderance surely not beyond a reasonable doubt now Nathan you and I were talking about this before we started recording and the idea that science has been kind of been co-opted by the grant system where people find
their, what is, the result of their experiment would actually find what you paid to find there. Yeah, that would be one way. But you know, that's, that's a problem when we're talking about
dealing with so many issues when it comes to this climate science argument. And how much of it do you think we could actually help to solve if going back to education, if our high school science programs actually were better designed to keep our kids
informed about, you know, real chemistry. Wouldn't that be something? How much of it would be debated even this climate science debated in chemistry class? Because I don't know about you, but
When I was in school, I was taught in high school chemistry that carbon was a building block of nature. And if that's the case, why is it, if it's treated that way today in school, why is carbon demonized everywhere else? So it's just, it's puzzling to me how we've gone so far off the rails when it comes to science.
Well, if education is viewed as a tool to direct society, then you already have subjected the academics to an agenda. I think that might be a part of what's going on. I agree with you. How is it that children know what they're supposed to say?
Isn't that what we call indoctrination? Because there's indoctrination. Yeah. In science, there shouldn't be an ought. There should just be an is. This is the science. Well, this is what we see. And the other thing, you don't have debate if you're taught what to think. The idea about how to think to me would definitely promote debate about this.
Right. And why not have this in, you know, students I'm sure would have all kinds of input and they, I bet they would be looking more forward to go into school if there was that kind of an atmosphere where even if you came up with your hypothesis and it was wrong, at least you can have a conversation and learn where you went wrong in your science project. Sure.
Right. So open and free inquiry is necessary. And also open debate. Yes, which is ruled out of hand by the consensus type of science that's been used to justify these climate agenda bills.
Yeah, let me see here. Let's get back to this article. Yes, I expect many will how that we don't have the luxury of waiting for the proof. But I hear propound the very opposite beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not possess the luxury of this toxic cult any longer.
In pursuit of the dubious, unscientific claim that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, humanity is releasing exotoxins that kill plant and animal, including human life, and that remain in the environment essentially forever. There may be equivocal science about how toxic or dangerous these various chemicals are, largely because they go untested and loosely regulated, even subsidized.
But there is now no question that they persist for generations, even thousands of years, and that they accumulate in the human body. The scientific evidence of microplastics in the human brain, the human heart, and the human reproductive systems is now established beyond any reasonable doubt.
All right. So he's saying that we're introducing eco toxins in order to be eco friendly. That's kind of done due diligence to test just how bad these are. We're not even really looking into that. So, um, in a, in essence, you're saying we're harming the planet in the process of trying to save it. Right. And I would say we're doing far more harm than good.
Well, how can we even give the lower standard of proof the proponents of evidence if we aren't actually testing what we're putting into the environment? Right. Well, we can't even make that argument. Well, I can say that there are groups out there because we've heard testimony. There is a lot of testing going on. My concern is
This testing for a number of things, you know, for nutrients, fertilizer nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen, mostly phosphorus in this state. But the problem is if you want to take out phosphorus, there's one way to filter it. First of all, you try to stop the erosion. But if you're trying to take out
PFOAs and PFOS, then it's a much harder chemical to remove. And in the process of removing it, you're actually using carbon using activated charcoal, which is been demonized. So here we go with this.
How do you take the scale and decide, do you like carbon or do you not like carbon? And to me, carbon is not something to be demonized. There's no actual scientific proof. How many times have we heard scientists say geologists and the like?
CO2 is at its lowest levels in the history that we've been able to study, whether it be geological studies of ice cores or whatever. 0.04%. If any of you are out there wondering, that's what the level of carbon dioxide is in our atmosphere.
And if it's the other, I'm not sure if you heard this, but what I keep hearing from scientists is that the warming comes first and then the carbon dioxide comes up. But with the carbon dioxide increase, I know you're going to know the answer to this. What happens? You get healthier plants.
We get more greening. We get more greening. So, like we discussed before we started recording, the greenhouse growers wouldn't need to put carbon dioxide generators in their greenhouses.
I'm wondering would our forests actually be healthier if there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? My guess is yes, but that's just a guess or a hypothesis as we say in science, right? One of the things that bothers me about this whole discussion is when people get
Onto the Demonization of carbon and carbon dioxide. There are too many pieces of the puzzle that are not taken into consideration That's the thing that bothers me most about this whole debate if you can call it a debate sometimes because sometimes there is none It's like you said consensus, right? What do they call those? That's phrase I heard on One news network that doesn't really
propagate the news, settled science. But if it's called science, then it's never really completely settled because we're constantly learning, aren't we? Right. Well, I was taught in school that Pluto was a planet. Yeah, and then they made a change.
There's a lot there's a lot more to this article We're gonna get back into it. We're coming up on a break, but lots to think about when it comes to The climate science that now is finding itself in the news more because of the new
new federal administration. So we're going to see what what that brings to the equation. We'll be back in a little bit folks.
Welcome back folks, here we're seeing the right side up.
This week, I have a guest host with me, Nathan Peats. Thank you again, Nathan, very much for joining me. It's my pleasure to be here. We're having a great conversation, both on air and off. So let's get back into a little bit of this on air stuff. We're talking about an article that I found in Granite Rock, written by John Clark, talking about the climate
What's he called it? He calls it the climate cult. A legal analysis of climate science published January 18th of this year. But we lawyers study facts because we are responsible for ensuring evidentiary integrity and litigation. Otherwise, we lose embarrassingly.
The facts of the IPCC intergovernmental panel on climate change reports are easy to assess. IPCC's reports do not claim the world is ending in 12 years or even 50. They provide a range of possibilities for future outcomes based on a series of priori assumptions.
about global warming themselves dubious yet assuming we humans are warming the globe the current anthropogenic response takes us in the opposite direction if our goal is to save our earthly environment I will here prove this unequivocally beyond any possible shadow of a doubt beyond a shadow of a doubt okay so there's a range of possible outcomes based upon the ice pcc's reports yeah
But only one seems to be based on a series of a priori assumptions, which means before any evidence is entered, you're already assuming something. Yeah. Well, right. Because it seems to be about the means justify the ends justify the means. That's what it seems like.
So renewables manufacturing, the proposed solution to the unproved warming hype is without any question toxic. Lithium and cobalt mining, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo and other less developed nations is irrevocably, excuse me, irrevocably, toxifying vast swaths of soil water and human bodies with forever chemicals.
Rubber tire dust is the main contributor to ocean microplastics. EVs increase the tire wear by 30-40%. Silicon for solar panels and EV aluminum are mostly smelted in China using coal-fired plants. Plastic wind turbines and heat pumps join the pack of polluting industries touted as climate saving but which are without doubt climate polluting in their manufacture.
All these chemicals spewing products in their lives in landfills or toxic storage. There is a lot of lobbyists money here to skew policies. That too is beyond any doubt. So there's a lot to digest in this. So the mining. Yeah. The mining is inherently ruinous to nature.
But it's not in our backyard, Nathan. So maybe that's part of why people are not willing to accept that it's as bad as it is. Although I think if we, if I were to say, I found lithium on my mountain and I wanted to start a mine, I think there would be a little bit of an uproar. Just a little bit.
Maybe there's lithium under the Pacific Palisades, who knows. There could be. That's a topic for another show. But the point about the ocean microplastics
mainly being derived from rubber tire dust. I didn't know that. Well, I don't know if it was the microplastics in the ocean, but I know there are microplastics. They've been finding them in just about everything. So rubber tire dust is the main contributor to that. And EVs have a 30 to 40% increase in tire wear over regular gas powered vehicles.
Yes, but one of the things that I didn't realize but apparently brake dust is one of the biggest problems we have with automobile pollution. That's and I didn't realize it. So that's in all vehicles, but you know who who I don't want to go giving up my vehicle. I mean, it's it's part of my life.
How am I supposed to, are we going to go back to horse and buggy? Is that what we're going to do? Are we going to de-industrialize? Is that part of, I never even thought about, is that part of the equation? Well de-industrialization isn't a problem if you have a lesser global population.
Well, there we go. We'll have to have that discussion on another show because that's very easily a whole show about that aspect of it. But yeah, I agree with you. That's why I've said in many conversations, back out to the 30,000 foot, and I got that from another conservative talker, who also I think we hear on WNTK.com a lot.
But if you back out and look at all the big picture, all the pieces of the puzzle, it seems to make more sense. There are a number of goals that seem to be for end goals that seem to be part of the equation. One of these days,
Nathan, we're going to wind up having to spend a whole afternoon and record a couple of shows because we've touched on so many topics that we just won't be able to deal with it in one show today. That's for sure. So let's see where the heck was I. The EPA is thus far identified 12,034 PFAS that potentially threaten human and ecosystem health.
The Biden administration has invested billions of borrowed funds in so-called renewables, manufacturing that has not implemented any legislation to reduce or eliminate PFAS generation. Only a multi-year plan to collect data about them.
What is beyond any reasonable doubt and is both a legal and scientific conclusion is that the manufacture of EVs, wind turbines, solar panels, and heat pumps all require the proliferation of massive amounts of these PFAS and other environmental toxins without sequestering a single molecule of carbon. And here we go with the carbon.
So we have a building block of nature which is necessary and all throughout our world has been for the entire existence of our world. And yet, in my view, we're doing more damage trying to deal with carbon than we are. We know it's a question of carbon. It's trees.
I'm glad you brought that up. And the trees and plants in general, they do sequester a lot of carbon. And they are one of the best carbon dioxide filters that we have. In doing our show and recording our show, we're providing nutrients for trees.
And in return, you know what we're getting. Through photosynthesis, we're getting oxygen. So it's a symbiotic relationship, a relationship that we have with nature.
I remember watching a show, and I don't think we talked about this on our show, but I watched something on television. I think if what in the world is that or something was the name of it? And the premise was they were curious, they were satellites that were taking photos of Earth, and they were looking, they were very light-sensitive satellite cameras.
And all throughout the midsection of the country, there was this bright blob of light that was being admitted, but they could not figure out what it was. And eventually they did figure out what it was. They figured out that it was our corn belt in this country is so massive that there was so many corn plants and I think other agriculture products.
that there was photosynthesis taking place and I didn't realize it. I never even learned it in my high school chemistry that photosynthesis actually emits a little bit of light. But there were so many plants that this light was captured on these sensitive satellite cameras. But one thing stuck with me that I never knew.
The person narrating this show said, our corn belt, when it's planted and it's in foliage, produces more oxygen than the Amazon rainforest. And I thought, this is so great, and why do we not hear this more often? But that really stuck with me.
So, you know, next time you think a farmer is a demon, maybe he's not. Maybe you can thank him for that dinner you had tonight. So, back to the article, the EV manufacturer, wind turbine, solar panel, heat pumps,
all dump massive amounts of these PFOS and other environmental toxins and yet none of them are sequestering a single molecule of carbon. So it's actually adding more to the problem. Yeah, it is. And so how can it be propounded as a solution?
Well, there we go again with what does the ends justify the means. I don't know what the end goal is. I don't think we really all do know what the end goal is. And to be honest with folks, I think I've said this on I am more than once. I live off grid, completely off grid. I use solar, I use batteries and I use generator. I had no idea about PFAS chemicals, PFAS, PFOS until a few years ago. And I didn't know.
that they were actually used in EVs, in regular cars as well, in wind turbines, in solar panels. I did not know that. And that's one of those things that they've been, they're ubiquitous in so many things that we use today. They're in carpet and stuff like that. I had no idea about it.
So, my big question is, what's the alternative to these? And that's a question that has not been answered. I do not believe there is an alternative. And that creates another problem. Well, de-industrialization would be an alternative. Have you read Wendell Berry? No, I haven't.
The use of all of these things that we pride ourselves on depends upon
Propping ourselves up above a natural system. So it is an unnatural way of life that's propped up, basically, by the advances, we call it, of industrialization. But it means you spend a lot of time, what, in a car? You don't know your neighbors. You don't transact in your local environment
in a local economic infrastructure. You could be working for some company across the country. Yes. You could be getting groceries from Mexico and California and Florida in their time up in Vermont. So life has become so dependent. Everything is remote. Everything is remote. Life has become so dependent upon this industrial system.
And it leads inevitably to more and more globalization because that's the largest possible market. And it leads to the total erasure of local identity, local relationship, and the human social ecosystem. Yeah. So I think de-industrialization is the way things worked before we propped ourselves up artificially above nature.
Well, I think deindustrialization is definitely not the way to go. From my point of view anyway, from my perspective. But there's a lot, I believe this article brings up a lot of
different subjects. Like I said, education, if we have education to me, folks, I believe is one of the ways we fix so many problems in this country and maybe even in the world. And our education system, I think, should be paramount because if we don't teach our kids how to think instead of what to think,
then not only are our kids going to look back one day on us and look down on us for how poorly we treated them, we are going to wind up in this maybe industrialized country that is really so great and right now I believe it's still a shining light in the world. And I hope it stays that way for well beyond my lifetime.
So, I don't know about you. I know you're quite a bit younger than me. So, but I think you probably in agreement will be there. Well, I wish America to prosper and do well, but I think we're already struggling in many ways and need to rethink some assumptions. Yeah, yeah. So, but we're getting, believe it or not, time is flying. We're getting to the end of our segment here.
I want to try to just read the last little bit. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that renewables manufacturing is guilty as charge for toxifying our environment forever. An environment polluting enterprise justified using sloppy ideological pseudoscience that has abandoned both the scientific method and any sense of logical proof.
So I think that sums up one of the things that is in forefront of everybody's mind, especially with respect to this clean heat standard that we'll be talking about. We'll be back, folks.
Welcome back, folks. You're listening to Right Side Up. My name is Mike Taglevier. Our co-host today is Nathan Peats. Again, thank you, Nathan, for joining us. Before we get back into our discussion, I want to just remind our listeners, Right Side Up Radio at gmail.com, if you'd like to drop us a line.
what else we got WNTK if you can listen to us on the radio go to WNTK.com click on the podcast button scroll down to right side up and you'll be able to listen to any number of our shows and by all means if you like it
send it to a friend so maybe we can increase our network because that's what we're all about, increasing the network of people who are informed, informed, excuse me about what's going on. So, oh, I can't forget, Granite Groc, thank you to Steve and the people at Granite Groc. Our podcast is also available at GraniteGroc.com.
So, Nathan pointed out to me on our break that I actually skipped over a fairly important paragraph in this article by John Clark that we pulled from Granite Rock. Before Al Gore's divisive, inconvenient truth barrage, there was widespread bipartisan agreement.
that certain man-made chemicals could be harmful to wildlife, soils, water and humans. Now, this is just before Al Gore went on his inconvenient truth tour.
The result of the shady climate cult shifting focus onto carbon dioxide and methane instead of PFOTS, phthalates, and a myriad of endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and obesity-causing toxins is that Americans are becoming sicker while industry profits on their borrowed renewables manufacturing tab.
So that was a mouthful. Yeah. But it brings up a very good point. And basically it was about profits. Americans are becoming sicker while industry profits. Yes. And are these weak and sickly Americans able to lobby Congress?
not unless they get over their apathy and they get out in massive numbers and vote and that doesn't always happen. We don't have lobbyists in the halls to throw money at our representatives.
Well, yeah, no, we don't. No, everybody's working hard. Most people are just barely getting by. Maybe they have one or two weeks worth of emergency funds, which is very sad in this day and age. So you're right. You know, the corporate lobbyists are the ones who are getting the ears of the people drawing up policy. And that I think is
It's a sad state. It's a sad state.
assessment of our system the way it's it's evolved but uh... i think there is there is a light at the end of the tunnel uh... i think because we have although social media in many respects has become uh... very stressful for our young people it is also become a very
effective vehicle for getting the truth out. And the truth, I believe, although sometimes it takes a long time to get up out of bed and put its socks on and get around the world, it never goes stale and it does find the light of day.
I think social media and some of the really truly free speech platforms are helping us stop some of the the Propaganda I hate the word misinformation because it gets to use so improperly all the time but yeah, I mean way to talk to people and Share the facts on the ground and share
Excuse me, the real science behind all of it, like I said, the big picture. Don't just look at one or two items in a debate. Look at more of the argument in a debate to see what actually in reality and practicality will work for us.
That, I think, is the thing. And going back to the beauty of our system and our constitutional republic, let's let the free market fix things for us.
I don't know. I don't know where else to go with this, but it's just if if we stay engaged and that's one of the reasons why Nathan and I come to you folks because we want to make sure that we can inform people about what's going on. A lot of you I know are listeners of podcasts. I know Nathan and I have talked about different podcasts on different
subjects and at different times, but people spend, like we said, they spend a lot of time in their car, whether it's an EV or a hybrid or an internal combustion engine vehicle. They spend a lot of time in their cars or maybe, maybe you're a carpenter or a plumber and you can manage to listen on a radio or with your
your little Bluetooth ear beads or ear plugs or earbuds, whatever you call them. Listen to podcasts. And this is one of the reasons why I'm so happy to have this platform to be able to share this conversation because that's how we inform our listeners and our listeners have these discussions over coffee or dinner with their friends and family.
to, you know, hash out what actually is really real science, what's the truth, and like this past election cycle, get out, tell your friends to get out of vote because it makes a difference.
I'd like to jump in and add this podcast, I think, is a little bit different than others that I've known of because you're the only one whom I know is an elected representative who's podcasting. Well, I'm sure that you asked the average listener, are you going to trust a talking hit on TV? Or you can trust some working Joe who's doing a podcast and just trying to suss out what's really going on. I would say the majority of people
are going to trust the Joe anymore than the professional talking head. Oh, yeah. But the working Joe is living it. Right. The working Joe has to pay the bills. The working Joe has to buy the car. So on your podcast, you solicit feedback from listeners.
Well, yeah, I encourage for discussion responses to previous podcasts. So hopefully people who are listening to your podcast, knowing that not only are you trying to talk about what's real, but you want to connect with your own constituents.
Yeah. Vermonters in general. And you know, even the things that we're going to wind up talking about, we never even got a chance to talk too much about education. We talked about it a little bit in context to this article. But education and education funding just across the Connecticut River with our listeners over in New Hampshire is a big deal too. I think it actually, some places it actually surpasses the spending in
in Vermont. So it's a big deal in a lot of states, but here in the Northeast, it seems to be a hot button topic. I hope the education system gets an overhaul in our state because it desperately needs it. I know there's some stuff that's been floated. And I know there's a lot more information and needs to come out. Is there any polling in Vermont as to what the public views as the most urgent for this legislature to address?
I think that the topics that a lot of us wound up getting elected to office for is affordability, public safety, and housing. Housing has a couple of different things, affordability for a number of reasons. I think one of the things that I hope one of the things that's floated is the idea
of relaxing or putting a moratorium on some of the active 50 regulations and maybe even some other regulations with regard to housing and even zoning and stuff like that because we really do need to jumpstart the economy.
If Vermont wants to keep its young people or attract young tradespeople and young families, then making affordability of housing and just the standard of living in Vermont, something for a startup family to decide that Vermont is doable for them, the only way we're going to do that I think is to have a moratorium on some of these horrible regulations that have
stifled our housing market and they've created this unaffordability issue. I wonder if any of your listeners are interested in giving feedback about whether they have thought of leaving the state and what was their reason? Oh, I got a lot of feedback on that yet. I got a lot of feedback out on the street and most of it was, you know, the
Hi, I'm so-and-so, and my kids can't afford to live here. Hi, I'm so-and-so. I'm this close to retirement. I'm three months from retirement, and I'm thinking about putting my house on the market because I can't afford to stay here on my retirement. And it's very sad to hear, especially hearing from people who are
Third, fourth, maybe eighth generation Vermonters who expected 20 years ago to be able to retire and live out their days in this beautiful state. Folks, this is not my home state. I was not born and raised here, but this is a gorgeous state. And some of the people in this state are some of the most incredible people I've ever met. So to hear people want to pack up and leave really breaks my heart. And I hope
this legislature really truly listens to what came out of this last election. I know it's early in the legislature. We haven't even gotten to the end of January yet, but I'm starting to get a feel for how it's going to go. I know, you know, like public safety is a big deal. You know, we keep, we hear
day in and day out now that it's not just in Burlington that the crime is an issue. We're finding in some of these rural towns that nobody ever thought that they would see this level of feeling unsafe. I talk to people all the time saying,
We never locked our doors. I left the door. You know, one quote is, we left the door open because we lived on a road and there was not that many houses. So if somebody got stuck, they could actually knock on the door. The door was open. They actually be able to call for help.
I never heard that before in my life except coming up here. That's the incredible part of Vermont. The people are absolutely incredible. So our legislature needs to step up and do what it needs to do for the incredible citizens of this beautiful Green Mountain State. It really does. So we can't leave them behind. And there are a lot of people who feel like they're left behind.
So this, this, you know, the clean heat standard, possibly, I think the, the, the puck, the, oh, every time I need to remember what it stands for, I can, but they, they, the number is 58 cents a gallon for home heating fuels. Well, that's just a start. So it never should happen. It shouldn't need that needs to go away. That thing needs to mean that's the lowest estimate. That's the lowest estimate. How high could it be? Well, the estimate was up as high as $4 a gallon.
I mean, what would that do to people? It would break them. It would definitely, I mean, how many problems would you find for sale? Do you think that's good? It's not good for the market. I think my family might make it through the year and we'd have to move. Well, so it would be detrimental to too many people unless, of course, you want to change the state into nothing more than a vacation state. Right. So, and I hope that doesn't happen. I hope that doesn't happen.
But yeah, no, the clean needs standard. It really needs to, it needs to go on the chopping block. It really does. It's not, it's not going to be helpful. We all everybody in this state wants clean air, clean water and clean soil. There are ways to get there. There are ways to get there, but we have to do it in a measured common sense way. So we're not destroying our economy. So, but I don't know if there's anything else you want to add to the conversation.
I'd love to hear some, some feedback from your listeners as to maybe one, two and three, the top one, two and three issues is at school funding or property tax going to school. That's very high on the list. Extremely high. I would imagine these two things are probably one and two. I don't know which will be on top. Yeah. And then is there a third, maybe crime?
Oh, yeah, public safety is definitely an issue. And how much of this do you think is reflected in what you're seeing so far from the legislature? You know, it'd be interesting to have that conversation based on feedback from your listeners as to do they feel that this legislature is addressing what are their top concerns?
Yeah, well, you heard it, folks. Drop us a line, right? Set up radio at gmail.com. Let us know where your top three are. It'd be interesting to see. We occasionally hear from our listeners, but we, you know, I'm finding out, just like you and me, it's tough getting us together and making the time because, you know,
There are so many things going on in our lives. So many things. Well, how many podcasters in Vermont are representatives? We've got that going for you. I don't know. Well, the more you can get feedback from, the more that people have a voice. That's all I'm dancing. You know what? And I hope I can make an influence, get people informed. So that's about it for us on this week, folks. Stay safe, stay informed. Listen to the right side up.
Was this transcript helpful?
Recent Episodes

Ask this episodeAI Anything

Hi! You're chatting with WNTK 99.7 AI.
I can answer your questions from this episode and play episode clips relevant to your question.
You can ask a direct question or get started with below questions -
What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?
Sign In to save message history