Ensuring that we meet our 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals
- Ensuring that every home and business in Massachusetts undergoes an energy audit within the next eight years .
- Increasing regional investments to expand access to public transit, and supporting the expansion of electric and other alternative fuel vehicles.
- Incentivizing smart – growth development, which combines housing, business development, and transit.
Developing new clean energy technologies
- Doubling the funding for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to expand access to capital and technical services for businesses.
- Building a strong clean energy workforce , including expanding clean energy curriculum in secondary and post – secondary education.
- Modernizing our grid and utility regulation to ensure that electric and gas utilities have the right rules and incentives to more rapidly deploy energy efficiency and renewable energy.
I know, I know, I’m Johnny-One-Note and have been since the Affordable Care Act passed. But given that Boston is considering its future as a soggy neo-Venice, I kind of think that the issue of climate and climate resilience is a big one. We have to start planning now, and we have to move as fast as possible to a post-carbon economy.
Read the pdf. Martha gets it; she hasn’t always given climate people the clearest impression of her commitment, but she’s pretty good.
I have not forgotten, nor will I ever forget, that Charlie Baker had a moment in 2010 to distinguish himself from the willful ignorance and denialism that characterizes his political tribe. And how did he answer?
The former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care first ducked a question on the human role in global warming after a speech last week at Suffolk University Law School. “I don’t think whether I believe that or not matters in this conversation,’’ Baker said. When a Globe reporter quizzed him further the next day, the Harvard-educated head of administration and finance under Governors Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci pled ignorance: “I’m not saying I believe in it. I’m not saying I don’t. You’re asking me to take a position on something I don’t know enough about. I absolutely am not smart enough to believe that I know the answer to that question.’’ Asked for more clarification yesterday, he again declined to state a conclusion but promised to read the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This still makes me spit. And look at his website — nothing about climate change or resilience, in this, the Bay State. He seems to grudgingly acknowledge that it’s real, which is a hell of a lot different than doing anything about it.
Oh, but he’s so much different now! That was four years ago! Well, what kind of man is he going to be four years from now? One year? Do you know? Can you tell?
Go Martha.
merrimackguy says
He’s the captain of your team.
Even if Coakley wins she’ll have no pull. Deval Patrick wanted $2B, the speaker gave him a quarter of that, and he’s the most popular politician in the state. Coakley’s not even popular in her own party as evidenced here.
The argument you should be making is “Hey we got a good thing going here. We run everything. Everybody we know is connected. Our friends and cronies benefit from this relationship. With Martha in, nothing will change and we don’t like real change.”
stomv says
There are these things called executive offices. DOER for one. While the itself may come from the lege, the actual expenditures are coming out of the executive branch, clearly influenced by the occupant of the connah office.
The lege matters. So does the gov.
merrimackguy says
all of the initiatives mentioned by Charley could be passed by the legislature and Baker’s veto overridden. There’s always the chance that Baker might work with the legislature and some of these things might happen (if DeLeo is on board).
Of course the legislature matters and for sure you’ll be wanting Coakley to continue Deval Patrick’s sterling record of appointing the people available to head agencies and departments.
I’m sure Coakely will be great on health care issues, as she has done with Partner’s et al. Oh, that’s right, what she actually does, what her character is doesn’t really matter, because she’s not an R.
merrimackguy says
typo
SomervilleTom says
This is an example of the perhaps (and only perhaps) unintended consequences of the way Mr. DeLeo stiffed a popular governor, and did so with ZERO consequences from our party.
The sad truth is that neither Mr. Baker nor Ms. Coakley will accomplish anything that requires increased government spending, including any significant progress on climate change mitigation, so long as Mr. DeLeo is Speaker of the House.
nopolitician says
I’ll be honest – the environment is kind-of a crappy platform upon which to base a campaign in this state at a time when the economy still sucks.
We have hundreds of homeless families being warehoused in hotels here in Western MA. We have a rising heroin epidemic. We have city unemployment rate of 10.3%. When you realize that only 58.3% of our labor force is working (instead of 2/3 which is the state norm), and you add the people who would normally be employed to our base, our city unemployment rate is 21.6%
Greenhouse gasses are not first and foremost on our minds. It’s the economy, stupid.
merrimackguy says
One of the things I liked about Obama was his bringing up the topic of smart grid, something I have been interested in since the big blackout. What has he proposed, let alone done? Zero, and with no follow up from anyone.
Charley on the MTA says
First, I wasn’t making any claim that this is the only reason one should vote for Coakley. But it is the lens that I see things through right now.
Two: Clean energy *is* the economy. It is jobs. It is nothing less than the economy of the future — actually the now, as far as we let it be. The state, under Gov. Patrick’s leadership and some very strong legislation, has nurtured a fast-growing clean-energy/conservation sector. Not green jobs; job jobs.
Would have been nice to have this 10 years ago, so that we’d be more insulated (hah) from the 37% commodity price shock of natural gas. You think that matters to people struggling to pay their bills? We should put burning stuff for energy in the rear-view mirror post-haste — not just for greenhouse gases, but for everyone who pays an electricity or heating bill.
Martha says double funding for the Clean Energy Center. Baker says … what I don’t know, but he’s lost his chance to prove anything to me.
Lastly … no, actually, whatever you and I are doing right now is not as important as climate. “Urgent” was 25 years ago. Now we’re just sitting around waiting to see how bad the damage is. I’m not going to accept that climate goes in the “important-but-not-urgent” square. All set with that thank you very much.
historian says
Coakley should be hammering Baker much harder on his climate flipping. He’s gone from asserting that he’s not smart enough to have an opinion to calming that he has not changed his mind. This epitomizes the basic message of his campaign: just trust me because I’m an expert on everything–except for those times of the day when I’m not smart enough.
As for minimizing climate,what ‘s the backup plan to avoiding meaningful action until Boston goes underwater just because it’s not an important enough issue?