From CA's former environmental chief:
As mudslides on the west coast and an epic blizzard on the East Coast competed for news coverage last week, nothing could dim the glow of an economic report that contained a remarkable conclusion: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is trying to make California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a carbon girlie man.
According to the Eastern Research Group, Massachusetts is on target to cut carbon almost 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, thanks largely to significant programs that improve energy efficiency in factories, buildings, and transportation. Those programs will save money, making Massachusetts more competitive than, say California. Governor Patrick is also doing it with wind and solar energy incentive programs, creating jobs and new domestic energy sources.
Right. The important thing is energy efficiency, saving money, and reducing greenhouse gases. These things are the same thing!
Massachusetts is showing that this stuff can and should be done — and how to do it. That's not a small thing. It may be the biggest. Just flat-out good news. Enjoy it. Trumpet it. (Compare and contrast to the alternatives …)
Link to Energy and Environmental Affairs press release.
that at least some of the Independents who voted for Brown can recognize these types of achievements as praiseworthy. Most progressives already care about “green issues” and can probably already be counted on for Patrick in the clutch. Voters impressed by Brown’s truck? Not so much, I fear.
The two takeaways he needs to push in Brown areas:
<
p>1. These improvements have created good jobs, both union and non-union.
<
p>2. These improvements have/will help keep your water bill and your electric bill lower, helping you keep more of your money.
<
p>
<
p>Of course, it would be nice if the results had already hit, and if he could cite them… I don’t know if that’s the case yet or not. For example, the improvements to water treatment facilities will go out to bid very soon, but probably won’t have resulted in a lower rate (as compared to what it would have been) until 2011 or even 2012…
I didn’t know the Gov has been working on this for all that time. No he hasn’t. Charley is trying to give kudos to the Governor like Obama getting the Nobel… all on potential.
<
p>Call me in 2020 and if we achieve those goals then I’ll give him (and his successors) credit. I have not been impressed with the DOER in recent years and will not be able to say “congrats” on the recent press release since it is nothing but hyperbole until we see it. THe early talk is there is a big emphasis on residential conservation (insulation…) and a big de-emphasis on renewable energy (solar, wind…).
<
p>If the gov wants to be serious, how about he institute a program where home electricity producers can sell the electricity they produce back to utilities for a premium cost like Germany does to encourage more residential and commercial PV systems.
Subsidizing the premium (like in Germany) is a power-feed-in-tariff. While it does work over time, the problem is that the up-front capital costs are a huge hindrance, and to overcome that sticker shock, it makes more sense in the USA* to subsidize the purchasing.
<
p>More to the point, even if he did implement such a program, you’d then turn around and complain that he’s making your electricity prices go up to subsidize solar in a state with clouds.
<
p>In 2007, solar make up less than 0.05% of MA’s generation. Electricity makes up roughly 1/3 of consumption. So, you claim that “if the gov wants to be serious” he should implement a program which pays folks a few cents per kWh generated from solar cells on their roofs over the next 25+ years. Even if the program added the current amount of solar cells installed statewide every single year, by 2020 we’d have 5% solar… way to reduce our carbon approximately 1/3*1/20 = 1/60th. His programs are on track to reduce by far more than that.
<
p>
<
p>If you want to be taken seriously, do your homework. Solar is a long term part of the equation, but we can’t start there… we start with energy efficiency programs (check!), better building codes (check!), wind power (sorta-check), expanding rail (check!), cap-n-trade CO_2 (chcek!), RPS (check!). He also proposed raising the gas tax, which would have a substantial impact over the range of just a few years by influencing which vehicles people purchased and drove, but the lege wouldn’t touch it.
<
p>Solar is good, but it’s a long term project. In the mean time, we can cut energy use (and pollution, CO_2, etc) much more efficiently in the short term with other projects. And we are. Projects you went out of your way to pooh-pooh (ineffectively and incorrectly) just a few days ago.
<
p>
<
p> * As compared to Germans, Americans are much more short-term-thinking, tend to have tougher zoning laws, and tend to live in their homes for shorter amounts of time… all reasons why up-front subsidies are more effective for Americans.
<
p>Although I would open it to hydro (Hydro Turbine pico-hydro mini-hydro micro-hydro small-hydro little hydro…) since we do have a lot of water in our state. I’d also “go back to” Geo-thermal since we have a good climate to enjoy some great cooling efficiencies and some ok heating value.
Thought you should know that the quote Baker uses about people leaving MA may make for a nice “sound bite”, but it continues his trend of being loose with the facts.
<
p>The truth is that for the first time in 20 years, more people are moving back into MA than moving out.
Let me ask, does the recent unsual snow fall in Washington, DC or Dallas indicate that the Global Warming concern is over? No, I think in both the weather and the population movement, the trends outweigh the single data points.
<
p>Does that “new” fact from the last 20 years take into account these announcements?
<
p>
<
p>And this…