Tuesday night was a tough night for progressives of all stripes and climate activists in particular. From Mitch McConnell’s win in coal country, to the victory of Dan “the-jury’s-out-on-climate” Sullivan in Alaska, it’s hard to look at the election results and feel optimistic about our chances of addressing the climate crisis any time soon. Indeed, one can already anticipate countless more attacks on the EPA, more riders trying to attach approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to important pieces of legislation, and more maddening statements from public officials denying the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
At first glance, the election results from Massachusetts seem just as grim as the national picture. An effort to index the gas tax to inflation was narrowly defeated by voters, a recycling measure was thoroughly trounced, and Massachusetts elected another Republican over Martha Coakley. But the actual dynamics of the Massachusetts governor’s race suggest a potential bright spot. Charlie Baker, the state’s new governor, told voters just four years ago that he wasn’t sure if humans were responsible for climate change. This year, he called climate change a “real threat” and said that clean energy would be a priority for his administration. He promised to expand efficiency programs, offer incentives for emissions reductions, support local climate adaptation plans and increase spending on the environment to 1% of the state’s budget. Indeed, when Baker spoke at a gubernatorial forum sponsored by environmental groups, the host noted that he had never seen so much alignment on this issue among gubernatorial candidates.
This four-year shift is no accident; Baker is a skilled politician, and he is responding to the electorate. A majority of Massachusetts voters think that the government should take action to address climate change. Over the past few years (thanks in part to the work of Better Future Project/350 Massachusetts), the Commonwealth has become a hub for the country’s growing grassroots climate movement, home to countless climate meetings, forums, protests, demonstrations, and vigils. Ten cities and dozens of faith communities in Massachusetts have passed resolutions or taken direct action in favor of fossil fuel divestment, more than in any other state, and hundreds of Massachusetts residents have risked arrest at demonstrations calling for the shutdown of coal plants and a halt to the construction of Keystone XL. Thanks to strong local and statewide organizing by the Coal Free Mass Coalition (among others), there will be no coal burned in Massachusetts after 2017, and proposed new natural gas plants and pipelines are facing historic levels of opposition. (Indeed, with all of this public support and pushing, the current Governor, Deval Patrick, even went so far as to call for a “future free of fossil fuels,” language the state government has started taking to heart in its planning.)
Of course, Baker’s leftward tack on climate still isn’t good enough — not even close. Baker continues to sing the praises of polluting natural gas, and he has not come out clearly in opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline or other new natural gas projects. Despite his pledges to promote clean energy, his policy proposals have been vague at best, without almost nothing in the way of concrete specifics. Recognizing that climate change is a “real threat” is still a long way from calling it an existential threat. Saying that clean energy will be a priority is not the same as pledging to quintuple this growing sector of our economy, which is already responsible for close to 90,000 Massachusetts jobs.
Now that he is elected, Baker has a chance to reveal his true colors: he can put the people of the Commonwealth first, and start to lead the Republican party out of the climate wilderness — or he can prioritize the interests of oil and gas lobbyists, push more natural gas into the state, and ignore the urgency and opportunity of the climate crisis.
Either way, the Massachusetts climate movement, stronger and more energized than ever, will be watching. If Baker chooses to lead, we’ll be cheering him every step of the way — and if he falls short, we’ll be ready to take to the streets to demand the bold action that Massachusetts needs.
Massachusetts must follow VT and CA in calling for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the disastrous Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Citizens United and McCutcheon. In the 18 districts in Massachusetts where this question appeared on the ballot (thanks to the efforts of citizen activists), the worst result was 68% in favor of restoring government of, by and for the people by getting money out of politics. Unless we can do that, we might as well give up on effective measures to reduce GHG emissions. The fossil fuel industry will spend whatever it takes to defeat measures that reduce their sales, so their ability to use their massive financial resources to confuse the voters must be curtailed. The only way to do that is to amend the Constitution to say that corporations are not people and money is not speech.
I’m not sure Alison “I disagree with Obama on coal” Grimes would have been much better except possibly as a vote to keep Dems in the majority and thus a key committee gavel out of Inhofe’s hands.
I would not use questions 1 and 2 as evidence that MA voters are anti-environment or climate deniers. Many, including me to some extent, would prefer different solutions.
What are your preferred different solutions? How will you raise money to fix our crumbling transportation infrastructure?
What measures do you propose to clean up the litter mess? Don’t bother saying “more recycling bins.” They wouldn’t make a dent in litter, because the people creating it are not on foot, and they aren’t going to leave their vehicles to recycle those bottles.
…and I’m open to raising taxes for that.
Regarding litter, there are fines for that, right? I must say though I feel like the argument for question two was a bit of a bait and switch. Before the election it was 80% vs. 23% get recycled so I said let’s universalize recycling. I feel like the litter focus at least on BMG has only come out after the election, leading me to think NOW you tell me! Plus, I don’t completely accept the premise that strategically placed recycling or even trash containers won’t make some dent in the litter.
What programs do you want to defund to pay for highway and bridge maintenance? Why should the people who benefit from those programs subsidize automobile travel?
If you seriously “feel like the litter focus at least on BMG has only come out after the election,” then you weren’t paying attention, or you were only paying attention to the opposition, who kept denying it was a problem. Wait a minute — you even responded to a comment that was all about deposits and litter, back on Oct. 20! Are you having memory problems?
Your strategically-placed containers would only be used by pedestrians, and I doubt that they contribute much of the litter.
I said I was open to raising general revenue, which I prefer to what sounds like a user fee. Plus I have said plenty of times that I want to actually reduce consumption and increase efficiency, not just penalize those who have to consume in the meantime. As for why subsidize, that’s how taxation works. We all subsidize a lot of things we don’t use, but that is how society should function.
It wasn’t that nothing was said about litter, but it is the case that the 80-23 ratio is what stuck most strongly in my mind.
Considering this is a post about climate action, can we stop pretending gas taxes are only about funding infrastructure?
Even after the Q1 and Q2 losses we need to continue the fight for higher taxes on polluting waste, including gas and bottles, so I’ll refrain from the tempting hyperbole about where the money could as well go.
Let’s extend that question with:
How will you reduce consumption of fossil fuels, particularly gasoline? How will you reduce the pervasive (ab)use of disposable plastic containers? How will you reduce litter?
Focusing all our attention on elections is not a useful tactic. It deserves some attention but not all of it.
What is the positive vision of the future that we can present to our family, friends, and neighbors? How do we get there starting from now? How do we do it in our own daily lives, in our communities, businesses, and institutions, including our local, state, and national governments? My observation is that we’ve spent less time on these important parts of the solution than debating the problem and appealing to politicians who, almost by necessity, follow the money more than the voters.
The crazies call their reps, mail their reps, make public comments and get their voices heard and not just at election time. Let’s come up with a legislative strategy for this coming session.