Trucks loaded with Connecticut’s trash regularly leave the state and travel hundreds of miles to distant landfills.
Since the closure of the Hartford waste-to-energy facility, more than 40 percent of the waste Connecticut sends for disposal is transported out of state. Those trucks burn fuel, generate emissions, and add costs that ultimately show up in municipal budgets and household expenses. Yet this reality rarely dominates the public conversation.
That pattern is familiar.
Connecticut residents hear a lot about rising costs. Electric bills. Insurance premiums. Taxes. These concerns are real. But too often our public debates focus on the wrong causes, leaving us arguing with each other while some of the largest costs affecting our communities go largely uncounted.
Regardless of political party, Connecticut residents want the same basic things. Affordable energy, safe communities, and a healthy environment for their families.
Affordability is not just about what appears on a monthly bill. It is about the full cost of the systems that power our economy and shape our health.
As a former First Selectman and a Connecticut insurance agency owner, I see how these pressures show up in both municipal budgets and household finances. Flooded roads, damaged infrastructure, rising insurance premiums, and emergency response costs are becoming more common realities for towns across our state.
Connecticut has experienced multiple billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in recent decades, and the pace of extreme weather events across the Northeast has accelerated.
These pressures have also been affecting insurance markets that protect homeowners and businesses. Across the country insurers have been reassessing risk in areas facing repeated climate-related damage, and those changes inevitably translate into higher premiums or reduced coverage options. When insurance becomes more expensive or harder to obtain, the financial risk does not disappear. It shifts to homeowners, municipalities, and ultimately taxpayers.
But perhaps the most important cost of all is one that rarely appears in the debate. Public health.
Air pollution from burning fossil fuels contributes to asthma, heart disease, respiratory illness, and other chronic conditions that affect families and communities every day. These impacts translate into higher health care costs, missed workdays, and reduced quality of life. When we talk about energy affordability, these health costs are almost never included in the conversation even though they are paid every day by families, employers, and the health care system.
The true cost of pollution cannot be measured only in dollars. It also includes the health of our communities, the safety of our neighborhoods, and the long term wellbeing of the people who live here.
During my time in local office, we experienced what were described as 500-year flood events, damaging storms, a tornado that cut through parts of the region, extreme snowfall, dangerous heat waves, and even public health threats like Eastern Equine Encephalitis carried by mosquitoes. This past winter’s heavy snowfalls are another reminder of how quickly weather events can strain local budgets as towns work to keep roads safe and services running.
Yet our public debates often focus elsewhere.
Programs that fund energy efficiency and assistance for vulnerable households are frequently blamed for rising electric costs, even though those same programs exist to reduce long term energy demand and help residents manage the transition to a more resilient energy system.
At the same time, proposals such as Connecticut’s climate superfund legislation, which would require fossil fuel companies to contribute to the costs of climate damage and resilience infrastructure, quickly become political flashpoints.
Historical research and internal industry documents have shown that major fossil fuel companies were aware decades ago that continued reliance on fossil fuels could contribute significantly to climate change. Well funded public campaigns have sometimes shaped the public conversation around energy and climate in ways that redirect attention toward other causes of rising costs.
These questions about accountability are not theoretical. In Washington, proposals have even surfaced that would shield fossil fuel companies from future climate liability altogether. Such efforts would shift even more of these costs from corporate balance sheets onto taxpayers and communities.
Recent global events offer another reminder of how interconnected these issues are. Conflicts in the Middle East are once again disrupting global oil markets, pushing energy prices higher for families thousands of miles away. When household energy costs can be influenced by geopolitical events across the world, it highlights how vulnerable our energy system remains.
Connecticut now faces an opportunity to confront these realities more honestly.
That begins with acknowledging that affordability cannot be measured only by what appears on a utility bill or a tax statement. Policymakers must also account for the hidden costs already being absorbed by families, municipalities, and the health care system.
This legislative session has seen renewed discussions around climate accountability, the state’s growing waste crisis, and ways to strengthen democratic participation through reforms like ranked choice voting and a proposed environmental rights amendment.
The danger is not that Connecticut lacks ideas.
The danger is that we continue arguing about the smallest pieces of the affordability puzzle while ignoring the costs that are already shaping our future.
Connecticut residents are capable of serious conversations about affordability, energy, and the future of our communities.
But those conversations must begin with an honest accounting of the costs we already face.
Because the most expensive problems are often the ones we fail to count.
Mike Urgo is a former First Selectman in North Stonington and founder of People for Planet and Democracy.