In Tuesday night’s State of the Commonwealth speech, Governor Baker made a pledge, and used some well-framed and welcome language on the urgency of climate change (my emphasis):
“From fishing and farming to critical public infrastructure and basic necessities like clean drinking water, there’s no dispute that the consequences of climate change are real and potentially devastating.
“Thankfully, despite significant steps backward in Washington, we in Massachusetts continue to lead …
… “But yesterday’s solutions and yesterday’s plans are no longer sufficient. We must continue to take bold action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
“Tonight, I’m committing the Commonwealth to achieving an ambitious climate goal: net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”
So, besides the very welcome TCI, and the yet-to-be-realized wind power initiatives: If Baker wants to be a climate leader, all he has to do is follow, and lend his vocal support to legislation that is teed up and ready to go. The State of the Commonwealth would have been a terrific opportunity to support this legislation — and he passed it up. Why?
So, the first thing, the most immediate and high-impact thing he could do, is cancel the Weymouth gas compressor, which is the equivalent of 1.1 million cars on the road, according to BU Professor (and protestor) Nathan Phillips. Baker and MassDEP have refused to take these duties of public protection seriously. One cannot claim to be serious about climate change and let this thing through.
2050 is frankly too late to go net-zero — and “net” zero is not the same as “zero”, as Ben Hellerstein points out in this thread. (If you throw your trash on your front lawn, while fixing up your back yard, your home beautification is “net zero.”) We must start making immediate, drastic cuts in emissions, racking up big wins right now. That means interim goals. Why doesn’t Baker come out and support the Garballey/Decker/Eldridge 100% renewables bill (H.2836/S.1958), a bill with 102 co-sponsors in the House? A bill that requires 100% renewable electricity by 2035, and everything else by 2045?
And why doesn’t he come out and support the H.2810, the Jen Benson/now Bill Driscoll carbon tax/investment bill, which will raise funds in an equitable way for a wide variety of green infrastructure priorities (= JOBS)?
The bill (H 2810) calls for 70 percent of the money generated by putting a price on carbon to be delivered back to households and employers through rebates, and 30 percent — an estimated $400 million to $600 million a year — to go into a Green Infrastructure Fund to support clean transportation, climate resilience and renewable energy projects. The carbon pollution charge would start at $20 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions then increase by $5 annually until it reaches $40 per ton.
… [Clean Water Action’s Cindy] Luppi said the Benson bill is “specifically formatted to be compatible with” the regional Transportation Climate Initiative, which is still taking shape.
There’s so much he could do, just by saying yes, let’s do this. Why doesn’t he?