Massachusetts planned to address climate change in 2020. Now, time is running out.
"All we need is to demonstrate the political will to act."
Taking on climate change was supposed to be a top 2020 priority for lawmakers in Massachusetts.
The House had passed a bill. The Senate passed several. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker committed the state to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in his State of the Commonwealth speech. And leaders in the Democrat-controlled legislative chambers backed him up. The Senate’s package of legislation even created a roadmap for reaching that goal.
Then the coronavirus outbreak hit and — like so many plans — the calls for aggressive climate action were derailed as legislators were forced to reckon with another existential crisis.
Suddenly, as the Massachusetts economy slowly reopens after beating back the virus, there’s only a month left in this year’s legislative session — and advocates say the issue of climate change is as pressing as ever.
“Our ability to address daunting financial obstacles and ensure equitable public health in disenfranchised communities depends on the passage of bold climate action policy,” state Sen. Marc Pacheco, a Taunton Democrat, wrote in a letter that his office began circulating last week.
Pacheco is calling for “bold climate action” before the session expires on July 31. And according to his office, more than 35 legislators representing a broad ideological spectrum have signed on in support. The list — which Pacheco has continued to update on Twitter — ranges from Rep. Mike Connolly, a Cambridge Democrat and democratic socialist, to Gloucester Sen. Bruce Tarr, the Republican minority leader.
“All we need is to demonstrate the political will to act,” Pacheco said.
The letter deliberately does not advocate for any specific bill.
“That is by design,” Pacheco told Boston.com in a statement. “There are a number of excellent legislative proposals still before the Senate and House that, if passed, would achieve significant progress.”
However, it does call for certain provisions, including the net-zero emissions by 2050 goal, which House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Karen Spilka both support. Pacheco says that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is “the driving force behind our efforts to address climate change and embrace the clean energy future.”
“This requirement is so critical because it reinforces the Net Zero goal for future administrations and sends a signal to the clean energy marketplace that Massachusetts is open for business and ready to expand,” he said.
Pacheco also said that any climate legislation this session should include “provisions that provide the tools necessary to achieve these new requirements,” such as language aimed at fueling investments in offshore wind, solar expansion, and increased energy efficiency.
In addition to the health and environmental costs of not lowering emissions, failure to act would also put Massachusetts at an economic disadvantage, according to advocates.
An aerial view of morning traffic coming into the city during rush hour on the Tobin Bridge.
A pro-solar energy group said that last year Massachusetts was already “losing jobs” in the fast-growing sector to states like New York and California, which have passed laws committing to 100 percent clean energy by 2040 and 2045, respectively. And as The Boston Globe reported earlier this year, the rate of clean energy job growth in Massachusetts declined for the fourth-straight year in 2019 to just 1 percent, the smallest rise since state officials began tracking the numbers in 2010.
“We continue to fail to protect our public health from greenhouse gas emissions and fail to seize upon major economic opportunities that could be achieved if we act now,” Pacheco said in his letter.
Still, the push for climate action before the session ends comes as legislators juggle a number of other pressing items, from protecting the state’s upcoming elections from the coronavirus to police reform to dealing with the continuing public health and economic ramifications of the pandemic, including a potential state budget shortfall of $6 billion.
It also faces renewed resistance from industry groups.
Last week, a coalition including the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and several large statewide business groups wrote a letter to DeLeo and Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, urging them not to pass the Senate’s climate legislation “in light of the many consequences of the ongoing pandemic.”
The Senate bills would set near-term carbon limits beginning in 2025 and every five years after on the way to net-zero emissions in 2050, along with standards for specific sectors, like transportation and buildings. The package would also allow the governor to implement a carbon-pricing system, such as the regional Transportation and Climate Initiative championed by Baker’s administration.
However, the coalition — the Mass. Coalition for Sustainable Energy — objected to the bills, arguing that only the legislature should have the power to enact a carbon-pricing system and accusing lawmakers of making “unrealistic assumptions about the costs and availability of clean technologies” that would lead to a near-term increase in emissions, due to increased reliance on propane heating.
“We believe the bill would have negative environmental consequences for the Commonwealth while seriously exacerbating our housing costs and affordability challenges at a moment when our economy already faces a sharp downturn in productivity,” the group wrote.
The coalition said it supports the shift toward clean energy and “ending our reliance on the dirtiest fuels, like oil and coal,” but also wrote that “low-emitting sources of energy like natural gas have important and positive roles in reducing emissions where renewable sources cannot fill the void.”
In response, state Sens. Mike Barrett and Jason Lewis — who both worked on the Senate bills — shot back in a joint statement Tuesday, referring to a 2018 article revealing the coalition as a “front for gas interests,” including Eversource and National Grid.
“The Senate bill hardly mentions natural gas per se, focusing instead on a widely-accepted bottom line — the need for truly dramatic reductions in Massachusetts emissions,” the two Democrats wrote. “If this means relegating natural gas and its various hybrids to a much-reduced backup role, so be it. As for any voids that may be left by today’s renewable resources, we certainly intend to see them filled — by tomorrow’s renewable resources.”
Barrett and Lewis also defended the five-year emission-reduction targets and sector-specific standards as necessary for actually achieving the goal of net-zero emissions in 2050.
“For one thing, we appreciate that this far-off goal, however imperative, will not motivate near-term change, so we direct the Executive to set interim limits at five-year intervals starting in 2025,” they wrote. “We insist on sector sublimits, too, so that transportation, buildings et al are asked to hit custom-fit benchmarks, and progress can be readily checked.”
Pacheco’s office plans to host a virtual hearing Wednesday — coinciding with the deadline to sign onto his climate action letter — featuring an array of legislators and experts on energy and the environment to discuss what the future holds.
In the House, one key lawmaker suggested Tuesday that additional negotiations may be necessary.
Rep. Tom Golden, the House Energy Committee chair, told the State House News Service that his chamber was “eager to move forward,” but needed to consider “what has happened over the past few months, with the financial concerns or financial catastrophe that we’re now experiencing.”
“I’m looking forward to working with Senator Barrett on moving our vision as well as the Senate’s vision towards a final, rectifying … piece of legislation,” Golden said Tuesday. “I think it’s vitally important that we finish this before 2020 ends.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com