The Rest of the Story - The "Legally-Binding" Part of the Vermont Climate Action Plan Was Self-Imposed
Vermont made their climate plan legally-binding even though no state or federal laws require states to "sue themselves" if they don't reach their goals.
In the ongoing, often heated debate over Vermont’s climate policy, one fact is frequently obscured in the rhetoric: the legally binding nature of the state’s climate goals, which allows for lawsuits against the state, was not imposed by Washington, the United Nations, or any outside entity. It was a deliberate choice, a “self-imposed” mandate, enacted by a supermajority of Vermont’s own elected legislators in Montpelier.
For Vermonters feeling the pressure of ambitious climate targets and the potential for costly new programs, understanding the origin of these legal obligations is crucial. This is the rest of the story—a look at how the state legislature consciously decided to tie its own hands, and the hands of future administrations, in the name of climate action.
How Did We Get Here? The Veto and the Override
The story begins with the 2020 passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), known as H. 688. Championed by a coalition of environmental groups and a majority in the State House, the bill did something fundamentally different from previous climate policies: it turned Vermont's greenhouse gas reduction goals into a legal requirement.
The bill passed the House and Senate, but was promptly vetoed by Governor Phil Scott. His reasoning was clear and pointed. He warned that the bill's most potent feature—a provision allowing citizens to sue the state if it fails to meet its targets—was "an unconstitutional and unwise delegation of legislative authority." He argued it would lead to policy being set by judges, not elected officials, and would undoubtedly trigger "long, costly court battles." The Governor also raised red flags about creating a 23-member, unelected Climate Council with the power to dictate state policy.
But the legislature was determined. In September 2020, they returned for a special session with the express purpose of overriding the governor's veto. The House voted 103-47 and the Senate voted 22-8 to make the Global Warming Solutions Act law. This was not a narrow victory; it was a decisive, bipartisan act by Vermont’s elected representatives to legally bind the state to a specific course of action, fully aware of the governor's objections.
The "Teeth": Why This Law is Different
At the heart of the GWSA and its controversy is the legal enforcement mechanism. It fundamentally changed the nature of the state’s climate goals from aspirations to legally enforceable mandates.
This provision empowers any Vermonter, or a group like the Conservation Law Foundation which has already initiated legal action, to take the State of Vermont to court if the administration fails to produce a credible plan to meet the emissions targets.
Supporters argue this is the law’s essential strength, ensuring accountability and preventing the goals from being ignored by future governors or legislatures. They see it as a promise kept.
Critics, however, see it as a transfer of power from the executive and legislative branches, who are directly accountable to voters, to the judicial branch. They argue it creates a system where the state is constantly under threat of litigation, potentially forcing the adoption of expensive or unpopular measures simply to avoid a lawsuit, regardless of economic or social impacts.
Why Take Such Action? The Rationale vs. The Reality
The debate often circles back to whether Vermont, a small, rural state with the lowest total CO2 emissions in the nation, needed to take such drastic, legally-binding steps.
Proponents of the GWSA point to two key factors. First, while Vermont's total emissions are low, its per capita emissions are not. Data from the Energy Action Network has shown Vermont to have the second-highest per capita emissions in New England, largely due to reliance on fossil fuels for transportation in a rural state and for heating buildings through long, cold winters.
Second, they point to the tangible impacts of a changing climate on Vermont's economy and way of life. The 2021 Vermont Climate Assessment from the University of Vermont documented that the state is becoming warmer and wetter. This translates to direct threats to the state’s identity and economy, from a shrinking ski season and a struggling maple industry to more frequent and devastating flood events like the one that ravaged communities in the summer of 2023. For supporters, the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action.
Opponents counter that the economic burden of the transition mandated by the GWSA will fall heaviest on working-class and rural Vermonters who can least afford it. The introduction of a bill (H. 62) in 2025 to repeal the GWSA highlights these persistent concerns, arguing the law's approach is too rigid and its economic consequences too severe.
The debate over the Global Warming Solutions Act is a debate about Vermont's future. But for Vermonters to have a complete picture, they must understand that the legal framework at the center of this debate was not an accident or an external imposition. It was a deliberate, self-imposed choice made by their own representatives, a decision to hold the state legally accountable for its climate promises, for better or for worse. That is the rest of the story.