Rather not too soon for a guy who lives on a tiny peninsula on the coast, the Speaker has announced spending $1 billion over 10 years on climate resiliency and infrastructure. This sounds good, though not enough for the massive, daunting challenge. Gov. Baker has filed separate legislation to raise another $1 billion for resiliency.
What I fear is that this will take up all the time and effort reps are willing to spend on climate, without dealing with emissions at all. They will pat themselves on the back and say at the end of the session, well, bringing down emissions was just too big a lift. Translated from Beacon Hill cant, that means it went against the wishes of fossil- and fossil-related interests, like the New England Power Generators Association and gasfan Gordon Van Welie of our grid operator, ISO-NE.
While welcome, DeLeo’s proposal is no substitute for hard emissions targets, with interim targets in the years 2030 and 2040 to keep us on track; a 3% Renewable Portfolio Standard increase to continue to clean up the power sector; addressing climate justice and economically/socially vulnerable communities; strong action on transportation emissions — and that means funding the MBTA so that it may thrive, not just crumble more slowly.
In other words, pass the Senate’s very good energy bill from last year, and fix the T already. Same old same old. I’ll believe DeLeo has gotten religion on this when I see it. It’s one thing to give communities tools to deal with the fallout from climate change. The necessary and harder part is to transform our economy to zero emissions. DeLeo’s shown little interest in that.
gmoke says
“Let’s adapt to the inevitability of climate change rather than mitigate the pollution and inefficiency that is causing it because too many important people with too much money don’t want to do anything that might inconvenience them or get in the way of their making more money, more money, more money.”
Global school strike for climate on March 15.
Extinction Rebellion week of action from April 15 through April 19 (although they’ll take off Patriot’s Day here in Massachusetts).
And then, of course, will be the unusual “weather” events that will continue to happen once a quarter, once a month, once a week….. somewhere, even here.
petr says
This is, quite exactly and comprehensively, just throwing money at the problem. Well, yeah, money needs to be put to the problem, granted, but not inna ‘here ya go, spend as you see fit.’ manner. To paraphrase (that is to say, mangle) Einstein, that’s a piece of the same consciousness trying to solve the problem as created it… A situation whereby a thousand different smaller mitigations try to tackle the thousand and one different smaller problems is only going to accidentally match problem with mitigation, if at all…
Or, to put another way, Herbert Hoover, when he was President in the aftermath of the crash of ’29 said, “Economic depression can not be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement.” He lost the very next election to FDR who, deliberately and carefully made many executive pronouncements and pushed effective legislative action that, indeed, proved the cure.
This problem is many orders of magnitude larger than the ability of any single municipality — no matter the largesse they have to hurl at it, nor how many of them there are, acting individually — to affect a cure.
SomervilleTom says
One billion over ten years is $100M per year.
I note that Massachusetts spends $1.9 Billion PER YEAR on highways. Similarly, the MBTA spends over $2 Billion PER YEAR on the MBTA.
So this proposal is to spend a total of $1B over ten years on climate change, while the state can be expected to spend $40B just on highways and the MBTA during the same period.
This is literally proposing to wash the wine glasses in the first-class restaurant of the Titanic before the scheduled New York arrival.
Mr. DeLeo demonstrates his contempt for the environment and for each and one of us with this kind of rubbish.
stomv says
It’s true that $100M a year isn’t enough. But it’s not all that is happening, either. There are loads of other programs, policies, and requirements at the state level. You’re right — those aren’t enough either, not by a long shot. We must continue to work for more.
This money is specifically for municipal government. Not residential, commercial, or industrial. And, as communities start to tally up the projects that are relevant and we quickly realize that $300,000 per community per year isn’t enough, there may be a clamor for more. I sure hope so.
I support this bill. It’s movement in the right direction. No, it’s not enough. We’ll need more of this, and more of so many other policy initiatives focused on cutting carbon through efficiency, conservation, fuel-switching, and more.
P.S. The grants allow for PV, EV charging, and other infrastructure that reduces carbon emissions. It’s not limited to mitigating the consequences of our pollution.
SomervilleTom says
I’m reminded of the celebration about increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour as a solution to wealth concentration.
I’m glad you support this bill, and I hope it passes.
I just think it’s irresponsible to leave the impression that this “sweeping $1 billion environmental grant program” will make any tangible progress at all. It won’t.
I think responsible reporting of this proposal would, for example, remind readers that the state currently spends ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS per community on highways and public transportation.
Every little bit helps, and so it’s excellent that Mr. DeLeo is willing to do a little bit. It’s the pretension that this proposal is “sweeping” that troubles me.
Christopher says
Given how strict our campaign finance and contribution laws are here in MA, how much influence can a special interest like the fossil fuel industry really have?
gmoke says
Check out the previous employment records of those whom Baker has appointed to the regulatory commissions which have oversight in the power sector. I know at least one prominent solar advocate who, based upon his personal experience, calls Charlie Baker a wholly-owned subsidiary of the utilities.
Christopher says
But I think that stems more from ideology on Baker’s part than being paid off.
gmoke says
A distinction with little difference in my estimation. Baker is a member of the club and expects, I presume, a very soft landing in the private sector when he leaves politics. Perhaps he’ll be on the board of a utility or two a year or so after leaving Beacon Hill. It’s not a payoff but it is remuneration of a kind from a grateful sponsor.
Trickle up says
It is an ounce of cure.
SomervilleTom says
Heh. I was thinking a gram.