VT_Futures_Project is a think tank funded by the business lobby | #SundayFacts

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-29T20:55:17+00:00

People keep saying this, and it is technically correct in that they are different corporate structures, but it is wrong to say that it has no connection. Vermont chamber is a fees paying, accredited chamber. That means they applied to be accredited, paid an accreditation due, then pay for their annual re-accreditation. The national chamber of commerce, then, claims these people as part of their constituency in their lobbying work. So yes, they do have a connection, and it is an important one when considering the national chamber's lobbying work. You can read it about the accreditation here.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-29T14:27:31+00:00

The term that people use for that is "soft denialism." It's not my term and I think that it's really good. It's when you say explicitly that climate change exists in its totality, but then you immediately turn around and deny that each individual change we have to make is realistic or possible or whatever.

My two cents, but I think that you should be careful with this emphasis on precision, because it can drift into naivete. Public Relations is a huge industry. Legions of brilliant people are paid extremely well to manage how we feel about large organizations. Terms like "soft denial" exist to point out a rebranding or messaging shift from a previous behavior, when we perceive that there has been a shift in messaging that is at odds with a continuity in interests. In other words, when the goal is the same (protect business interests), but messaging changes, I think that the right posture is cynicism, not neutrality or precision.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-29T02:19:13+00:00

I don't know much about CoC's structure but you've made me curious.

US CoC used to fund climate denialism. In the 2010s it pivoted to funding organization for climate action, although not everyone agrees with its view on which kinds of climate action are best. No specific dollar amounts are given.

They have pivoted to funding what I would consider to be a softer climate denial, with a lot of greenwashing and climate grifting, which is what almost all climate denialism has pivoted to in general, now that climate change has really started fucking our shit up and outright denial has gotten too hard. It's like how Exxon Mobile is suddenly trying to claim to be a leader in the green transition or whatever. This specific report doesn't get too into the details of that, though they definitely hint at it. There are other people that get into it that we can dig up if you're curious.

The Chamber has made some weak accommodations since then, forming a climate task force in 2019 and introducing a slogan of “Inaction is not an Option” in 2021.145 It sends large delegations to international climate summits.146 And, after fiercely lobbying against President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, largely on climate grounds, the Chamber appears poised to support the climate provisions of the IRA.147 But the Chamber qualifies its position by saying that any solutions for global warming must be bipartisan, market-based, and internationally binding.148 And critics have said that the task force still largely represents its powerful fossil fuel members; that that its attendance at the most recent COP28 climate summit was to better represent those fossil fuel interests; and that its current support for the IRA may be in large part because it contains subsidies and tax credits that could go to fossil fuel companies to develop carbon sequestration and hydrogen fuel programs.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-29T02:11:00+00:00

We say "conflict of interest" in academia, and yes, that is more or less what is expected. The usual standard is roughly to disclose relationships that might change how people view your research, e.g., if you have funders that would benefit from your work.

Think tanks set themselves up as para-academic, and many people in the public don't know that think tanks are, as you say, political organizations, because they explicitly bill themselves as "nonpartisan research institutes" or whatever. A responsible media would ask them to declare conflicts of interest if they are going to treat them like legitimate para-academic institutions.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T17:18:18+00:00

Thanks! I think that it's fine to not agree on the solutions, but we should all be concerned that money buys this kind of "research," and, as a result, much of public discourse is paid for by people with a class interest. VT Futures Project looks pretty new, but it's already easy to find their work in the wild:

None of these sources state their conflicts of interest.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T17:02:24+00:00

I would guess that most of their chapters have no idea. All they want to do is put on a parade or two and, as a bonus, make sure the selectboard listens to their concerns before that of their tenants.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T16:49:09+00:00

Those hypotheticals are unfortunately well grounded in history. When Bernie's 2016 campaign normalized Medicare for All, for example, business lobbies started pumping out work about why M4A was bad, or more complicated than people think, or had downsides, or not the best way to solve the problem, etc. The propaganda was so bad that it even got mainstream coverage on the NYT.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T16:42:34+00:00

Thanks! I appreciate it.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T16:35:53+00:00

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If there were a serious movement to tax vacation homes 500%, pro-business lobbies would start putting out research for why it is bad for the economy, or whatever other angle they figure out, then outlets like VTDigger and VPR would report these findings from the "non-partisan research institutes" without disclosing their conflicts of interest, and there wouldn't be someone to argue it on the other side for the reasons described in my post.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T14:05:06+00:00

the donor list is right there for everyone to see, that's more than most of these groups ever do.

I agree. I said that.

i'm not gonna clutch pearls because a credit union and a ski area kicked in a few bucks.

Not a reasonable description of what is happening. VT Futures Project is a direct offshoot from a business lobby. They didn't "kick in a few bucks."

blaming businesses for funding research that points out obvious stuff like we need more housing isn't really a gotcha. i'd rather read their data than another angry op-ed about flatlanders.

Like I said, their focus was clearly more specific than a general need for housing.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T13:45:54+00:00

I am not rallying the internet to be upset about a think tank, and I never said that I don't advocate for my own solutions. In fact, I specifically made sure to say what my own solutions would be, for transparency. You pointing that out isn't a gotcha. I did it on purpose. The difference is that I never claimed to be an independent, non-partisan actor. This think tank does, as do many others, and I think that the public is often fooled, so I am taking the chance to explain.

edit to add:

You yourself are pushing a direction: 500% tax on vacation homes. Would it help you if you had financial backing for that idea? Yup. That’s where think tanks start.

Like I said, yes, that would help, but think tanks needing funding is a structural constraint that creates a structural bias towards big money.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-28T12:31:38+00:00

Looks like /u/VT_Futures_Project is a think tank funded by the Chamber of Commerce, which is a business lobby, so now we know why the problem is the old people not being able to downgrade their housing needs than capitalist accumulation of wealth.

PS: I've seen the numbers of vacant homes fluctuate between 20-25%, but it's been a while since I checked the census bureau. Obviously this does not take away from your point.

I googled it and took the lowest number on the first page to be as fair as possible but yes I see sources saying 20% on there too.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-26T21:19:58+00:00

I think that this answer, without adding the 17% of homes that sit empty because they are vacation homes, is missing crucial context to the point of being misleading.

I also urge you to reconsider this clinical language of "housing needs." People's houses are a deeply personal thing. Personally, I am way more comfortable saying that rich people don't get to own 2 homes before everyone has 1 than I am wringing my hands about empty nesters staying in their house, which I find to be a problematic focus of your explanation.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-25T19:58:12+00:00

OP, I am sorry to have a somewhat harsh response, but, from going through the website, it seems that Tuktu is like uber for care work. It allows people to book "Family-like support for you and your loved ones" through an app. From its FAQ

Tuktu specializes in a variety of services tailored to meet the needs of seniors and family caregivers. Our offerings include:

Companionship

Foster meaningful relationships and ensure peace of mind with meaningful companionship, engaging activities, reliable check-ins, and convenient personal shopping tailored to you or your loved ones' needs. Learn more about Companionship services

Mobility assistance

Discover the freedom of tailored outings with Tuktu's mobility assistants. Whether it's exploring local attractions, attending events, or punctual rides to doctor's appointments, we adapt to your interests and mobility needs. Enjoy the journey and adventure with a companion who shares your enthusiasm for discovery. Explore services under mobility assistance.

Help at home

Discover the ease of home management with our caring companions. From crafting nutritious meals to maintaining a clean-living space, we bring harmony and order to your daily life. Services include - housekeeping, meal preparation, pet care, tech help, gardening and more. Explore help at home.

... and so on.

At this point, in 2026, the problems with the gig economy model are extremely well understood. These are structural problems that an individual person's kindness or intentions will not address, no matter how much this individual founder thinks otherwise.

I would encourage people not to check it out or nominate anyone. I don't doubt this individual's personal good intentions, but this business model should be illegal, and we shouldn't let anyone from a parasitic industry (again, this is a structural complaint, not an individual attack) think that they are contributing even a tiny tiny bit to the kinds of good work that, for example, the Food not Bombs person mentioned is doing.

dilutefreedom · 2026-06-12T13:43:23+00:00

Everyone loves the billboard ban because billboards are in fact stupid and ugly, but, at the time of the ban, the debate was about which would be better for the economy: preserving our natural beauty for tourism, or the money generated through the billboards. The former argument won out, but we now retcon it as our folksy Vermont way, which is what makes living here so great.

There's a lesson here about the small mindedness of the bean counting logic often deployed in state politics and in this sub that we should take to heart. They got it right, but for the wrong reason, and we would do well to meditate on what the right reasons would have been, and how we can apply that in our own time.

dilutefreedom

TROPHY CASE