I just visited Tom Reilly’s website and discovered his “Vision for Responsible Stewardship of Our Environment”. Realizing the mainstream media’s penchant for giving candidates’ policy initiatives little to no coverage, I thought I’d share it with this forum. From the Reilly website:
Reillyâs âVision For Responsible Stewardship Of Our Environmentâ lays out concrete initiatives to protect our environment and natural resources. Among the proposals include: signing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); enforcing the âFilthy Fiveâ regulations without loopholes; reducing and ultimately eliminating mercury emissions and exposure; promoting Smart Growth by restoring funding for the Brownfields Redevelopment Fund; and actively promoting and marketing our state park system.
If you are short on time, click here for a quick summary of Reilly’s initiative. Otherwise, the link above will take you to the policy paper.
If you are really in the mood to catch up on what Tom Reilly is proposing policy-wise, you can also read his math and science education and youth safety plans.
The RGGI is craziness. Well intentioned of course, but craziness nonetheless. Regional emissions programs are like holding back the tide with a sandcastle, especially in the Northeast where we are downwind from the coal burning plants in Ohio and western Pennsylvania. They just do not work in practice. It is a symbolic gesture that the enviro’s hold up as their litmus test. One could say that RGGI is to the enviro cause what Roe v. Wade is to abortion advocates. They expect slavish and dogmatic submission to the plan no matter the consequences. If it was just a symbolic thing that would be ok, but RGGI will make it more expensive to operate a business in New England (Massachusetts in particular). That is why Romney wisely pulled the plug at the last minute. He learned that this program just kills cogenerators like Raytheon who employ thousands in Massachusetts at very good wages. I have read that RGGI would cost Raytheon more than $1 Million/year in additional energy costs. Yikes. Anyone know if that figure sounds right?
“They just do not work in practice.”
<
p>
Cite cases, please.
<
p>
“I have read that RGGI would cost Raytheon more than $1 Million/year in additional energy costs. Yikes. Anyone know if that figure sounds right?”
<
p>
Where did you read that? And who knows?
Charley,
<
p>
I suspect you won’t be getting any answers to your queries.
<
p>
Another thing you didn’t challenge, so I will; who are the “abortion advocates”? do you know any? I’ve certainly never met one. I’ve met lots of people who believe that the government has no place interfering with (often painful) personal medical decisions. In fact, I happen to hold that view myself. But I don’t know anyone who advocates for abortion.
RGGI itself won’t do much to deal with global warming, but it doesn’t need to. Once MA is in RGGI, every business in the state that is currently lobbying against regulation of carbon emissions will suddenly send all their lobbyists to DC to demand federal regulation. With California and all the Northeast states regulating emissions, interstate businesses will become the driving force behind national legislation because they don’t want to deal with different standards in different states.
I’m so pleased to see that Tom Reilly is finally putting some policy proposals out there. I look forward to a lively debate on the merits, and will be studying them in anticipation of the first live debate this Thursday.
<
p>
What I’ve seen so far from Reilly has been disappointing. Long on identifying problems, short on proposing solutions. But, I’m willing to keep an open mind, and I hope Gabrieli will also join in the discussion by releasing his own positions.
<
p>
btw, how does Reilly propose to pay for things like restoring the state parks after he reduces state revenues with the income tax rollback?
btw, how does Reilly propose to pay for things like restoring the state parks after he reduces state revenues with the income tax rollback?
<
p>
From Tom Reilly’s environmental plan under the pointheading “Parks and Open Space”:
<
p>
<
p>
From my reading of the proposal, that appears to be a proposed funding source for restoring our park system.
<
p>
The state has a self-imposed bonding cap (I believe it is in the $1.2 billion range). I have only seen proposals from Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick, both of who appear to use bonds sparingly, which is fiscally responsible.
Most of his plan, from what little I’ve read, looks very good. I like his enforcement angle, which plays well since he’s AG. What I don’t like is what he left out. As far as I can see he made no mention of Environmental Justice issues — did I just miss it? I’ve heard that he isn’t against wind energy, just the particular Cape Wind project, but I also must have missed an alternative proposal either farther out or elsewhere in state waters. Overall, it seems like a good plan with a few major gaps.
I Googled and found a website for the American Wind Energy Association that lists three existing wind energy projects in Massachusetts and seven proposed projects. I have absolutely no idea how accurate their information is (as if the words “I Googled” weren’t enough of a disclaimer, right?), but I found it interesting in light of your question.
But I haven’t found that in his plan, can you? Deval Patrick actually has a proposal to create alternative energy here in Massachusetts that will decrease (albeit slightly) our dependence on foreign oil. It will generate some jobs (somebody has to build and maintain the windfarm), and set up a model off of which other states can build. It’s something concrete. Moreover, Patrick’s plan discusses the problem of inequalities in our society that play out in our environment. I don’t think Patrick goes far enough (he only mentions it close to the end of his plan), but he at least acknowledges the issue.
<
p>
I just want to take this moment to say that I don’t think of Reilly as a Republican-lite or any candidate as a caricature. All three are dedicated public servants, and have proven that in very different ways. My main problem with Reilly isn’t that he takes policy from Republicans, it’s that he doesn’t offer as wide a vision as Patrick. That doesn’t mean he lacks vision, it means he hasn’t articulated one. And I don’t see that his is a broadsweeping vision that brings the debate to the real issues facing our Commonwealth.
on page 3, which directs you to a more detailed discussion of his renewable energy proposals:
<
p>
<
p>
In reviewing both candidate’s plans, I think Reilly’s vision has plenty of breadth and substance, albeit a less glossy presentation. (Reilly should hire Patrick’s graphic designer.) The Patrick plan focused more heavily on third-party data when identifying the problems, but both candidates offer equally detailed proposals when it comes to solutions.
There are a number of unresolved issues with Reilly’s wind proposal. Reilly has little substance in the plan you link to. He supports “community based” windfarms. But how will small, decentralized windfarms generate enough energy to power their cities? How will they get enough wind? Where will municipalities put the wind turbines? How can communities afford small scale wind projects?
<
p>
Next he says that he supports off shore wind-farm in deep waters. Okay…where? Won’t it cost more to do deep water work? If so, where will the money come besides the “public/private sector”? That is, are there any private companies out there willing to do this? If so, have they created as comprehensive a proposal as Cape Wind? Cape Wind is a proposal that needs thorough investigation, but sofar I haven’t heard any good arguments against it. I have heard that it needs to go through the process of making sure it won’t do harm, which is true and I’m all for that. But I’m not convinced that Reilly really does have a plan for renewable energy.
<
p>
Still no word yet on Environmental Justice issues, which is a shame.
I am hardly a windfarm expert, so I emailed the Reilly campaign to get some feedback on your questions. Here is my summary of the response that I received. . .
<
p>
[Reilly] says that he supports off shore wind-farm in deep waters. Okay…where? [Etc.]
<
p>
<
p>
[Reilly] supports “community based” windfarms. But how will small, decentralized windfarms generate enough energy to power their cities? [Etc.]
<
p>
<
p>
I hope this is helpful.
Eileen McNamara wrote a column in this morning’s Boston Globe (“Wind farm needs airing”) that addresses many of the concerns that Cape Wind opponents share, including Tom Reilly:
<
p>
<
p>
The “motive” issue seems to be of paramount concern to many Patrick supporters, but this column gets to the substantive arguments that are actually motivating Senator Kennedy, Tom Reilly, and Governor Romney.