As our City Council reviews adoption of the Climate Action Plan, I see a great deal of thoughtful and impressive work, but I have to admit to some reservations. I’ll mention one section to get the discussion going:
Existing residential and commercial buildings in Newton are responsible for a majority of the City’s GHG emissions. The City will work with homeowners to increase energy efficiency and reduce reliance on natural gas and heating oil in the City’s existing building stock. Moving the needle for existing buildings will require the City to put in place “carrots and sticks” to incentivize significant action by the private sector.
This clause apparently goes beyond the use of advocating for a change in the state building code to encourage new energy efficient buildings or renovations to existing buildings. I had trouble finding the exact nature of the “sticks” being proposed. Is it just this: “We will work with the City Council to adopt a requirement that sellers of buildings provide the previous year’s electric, natural gas, and heating oil bills to prospective buyers at the time of sale?” Or is it more? If more, I don’t think people will appreciate being told that the City will impose a cost on them if their house happens to be fueled by oil or natural gas. If just this idea, the goal would seem to be to drive down the relative market price of fossil-fueled homes, certainly a cost to those who would be selling.
I worry more generally that the folks behind the Climate Action Plan are misreading the public’s appetite to spend more in the cause of reducing greenhouse emissions. The take-up of the all renewable option for Newton Power Choice, for example, is only 7%, even with an extra cost of just a few dollars per month compared to the default service option. This after extensive publicity by the Mayor and other advocates for the all renewable option.
I’m talking both politics and substance here. I hear City Council members and candidates telling us what we “should” be doing as individuals in our homes, cars, and the like. I think such terminology invites backlash and resentment, especially if the general language in a plan gets translated into requirements that are viewed as burdensome by members of the public–or are viewed as insensitive to those on limited or fixed incomes.
Thank you for shining a light on this. The city has a number of these strategic plans in several different areas. Virtually no citizens pay attention to these plans while they are deliberated and approved, but they should. They are filled with great-sounding platitudes but they become concrete when the planning department uses these to guide all the subsequent vision plans, and zoning and planning recommendations. In my experience, the city councilors tend to defer to the planning department guidance, and accept the strategic plans as unchangeable.
The other issue with platitude-filled plans is that nobody wants to challenge them. Who wants to come across as against Climate Action? That would be fine if they were nice vision statements that sit on a shelf or website, but they become more concrete in time and have real-world legislative consequences.
The City Council would not know a carrot if it was delivered to them by Bugs Bunny himself.
It is a short trip both intellectually and physically for most of these do-gooders from e.g., requiring homeowners to maintain city property (i.e., shovel their walks) upon penalty of fine to suffering some other type of taking for using the “wrong” source of energy to heat their homes and cook their food. And for what? A reduction in GGE of no significance regionally much less nationally or internationally so that these folks can feel good about themselves.
How about this? Fix the roads, renovate the schools, expand the commercial tax base, build some housing (or better yet, let the private sector build some housing) and **then** we can talk about the rest.
Right now if you go through the significant cost, effort and discomfort of renovating your to be more energy efficient the only thing you get from the city is a higher property tax bill. The only exception that I’m aware of to this is solar panels.
Currently the town only offers a disincentive to update your home. Perhaps they could start there?
They certainly should not be using a “stick” to will homeowners to update their homes.
Point of Clarification: the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) Paul refers to and cites above is described by the current administration as a 5 year plan. Though developed in its context, that plan is distinct from the “Newton Citizens Climate Action Plan” (NCCAP available here http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=98477) which is a 30 year plan written by the Newton Citizens Commission on Energy (NCCE) at no cost to the City.
A Historical Note: The Citizens Commission on Energy was established on October 24, 1979 by city ordinance, and is described there. Its meetings are public and non-appointed members have attended.
@Kyle: Your opener is one of the economically perverse problems the NCCE wrestled with when considering what a climate action plan might achieve and which of the possible-to-consider objectives were feasible for Newton (if any). The NCCAP (the 30 year plan) “conclude(d) that it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the IPCC targets in Newton” (see internal Page ix), where “IPCC” refers to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and goals for achieving, among other things, carbon neutrality by 2050.
To those rightly and reasonably concerned with opportunities for governmental overreach and the possibilities of significant increases in City tax obligations, the overview presentation of NCCAP (https://bit.ly/32vS7HT), made at the August 26, 2019 meeting of the Public Facilities and Zoning And Planning sub-committees of the City Council, puts a point to it: most of the progress called for will not come from government spending. From Page 1, the NCCAP “outlines the roles of its government, residents, institutions, and businesses in setting various actions in motion. While reaching the IPCC goals is feasible, it will require tremendous political leadership and an active, informed citizenry to implement policies and modify behavior”
I’m sick of the know-it-all city councilors who come to that board with private agendas and conflicts of interest. The “job” of a city councilor is to represent the interests of their constituents within the boundaries of Newton…
This council often focuses on the wrong things, choosing to wage their own war on grocery bags [both paper and plastic], cannabis [both medical and rec], and tobacco cessation devices [like Juul]. Some members of the council even managed to co-opt municipal distribution of electricity, [the golden goose which could have provided $25-50M in annual revenue for the city], into a feel-good “green” program that did nothing to lower taxes or make Newton more affordable…
Now comes word that these electeds plan to take a “carrot and stick” approach in dealing with their constituents. No problem here. Bring me the carrot and I’ll tell ’em where to stick it!
All we need is for theNewton “Green Guard” ( analogous to China’s Red Guard) to come out and shame people who have older homes that are difficult and or expensive to upgrade. Also shame people for not liking Kale.
@Stephen Thank you for sharing the information on the Newton Citizens Climate Action Plan. I was just trying to find the link. I would add one additional plan people should read “Newton’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan” http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/98185 I participated in the working sessions for this plan that lays out the tremendous risk to life and property from Climate Change. Extreme heat events can be deadly to many residents, especially given aging populations and especially if these were accompanied by disruptions to the power grid. Flooding can cost the city 10s of millions of dollars in losses to municipal and private properties as shown in the flooding of 2010.
Leadership is needed to get consensus on the combined climate action plan that will ensure Newton meet key goals and mitigates risk to residents and properties. Definitive action on the climate change is not a nice to have but a must have.
Paul, I appreciate your reading the policy being discussed and bringing this punitive part to our attention. I try to keep up with issues before the city council but they are so varied and complicated now, it’s hard to pay attention to them all.
I agree with your assessment of the punitive aspect of this policy. I think the city has been leaning toward using monetary punitive measures in many of its policies of late which is not the way I have found works best in most situations.
@Stephen, thank you for your very informative post. You mention that implementing the NCCAP will not raise taxes in Newton. Does it increase costs for residents in other ways? If so, which residents and in what ways?
Thanks @Paul Levy
Maybe you are starting to get it?
Some city residents are not feeling the love for the-
Preaching, Hectoring, Nagging, Lecturing and overreaching. What’s next storm troopers?
I was initially thinking about changing
to the Newton Power source.
I received the packet months ago,
and set it aside for a time when both my wife and i could discuss it. It wasn’t a priority, so I forgot about it.
In the meantime, I have received at least 6-8 more packets. There are signs littering berms in Wards 6, 8 & 5 where i walk,
bike and run, and Councilor Deb Crossley has been hounding people on Next Door Newton, which is supposed to be a neighborhood resource, not another outlet for politicians. No matter how much more I have to pay, or how much i could save, there is not
even a small chance i’m changing now.
Why? Precisely because people like Sean Roche, Deb Crossley, Alicia Bowman et al are telling me I “have” to.
I know that not changing my behavior and doing what they want me to will drive them insane!! It’s a small but satisfying victory..
Here’s the deal…and its really important for our city leaders to get the message sooner than later:
municipal pols and activists
are going to fuel a lot of blow back and antagonism towards their agendas if this the way they want to legislate going forward. Beating people over the head, and ramming policies down their throats will fuel resentment and engender the exact opposite reaction and behaviors to what these folks want.
Just saying…
Paul is absolutely correct. Generic support for action on climate change is very strong in Massachusetts, but we had even greater generic support (88 % percent) for reducing automotive pollutants when I was working at EPA in Washington just after the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act became law. I was part of a regulatory task force that was charged with proposing state and regional “transportation control strategies” to achieve federal health standards for these pollutants by 1975, We were in a bind because the technology to achieve these standards simply could not be in place by that date. We were forced to propose and promulgate far reaching restrictions on automotive travel throughout the country. . I was one of the stalwarts at EPA who believed the public would readily accept these controls because of that high level of generic support. It didn’t turn out that way. We put out regulations that were draconian, unfair and clearly unworkable. We took a real thumping in the press, the Congress and with state and local authorities. Public opposition was strong and it just overwhelmed our program to the point where the whole thing simply fell apart.
There was an old timer in EPA’s press office who humbled me with this quip— “The problem with you Burke is that you started believing your own press”.
There’s a lot bunny rabbits in my yard. Carrots would be better than sticks.
@Alicia- what is your opinion about all the development in Boston that is going to be flooded ( or be often flooded) and is driving the need for housing?
Perhaps it would be more persuasive if we knew that the councilors and candidates led by example. How many of them, for instance, have forgone air conditioning in their homes? Which ones use mass transit to get to work? Which ones purchase carbon offsets when they fly?
“Definitive action on climate change is a must have”. Copy that. Message received.
Here is one simple question that I’ll ask each individual on the entire climate action plan working group or committee:
What PERSONAL sacrifices
are you willing to make, not just impose on other people and businesses, to address “ the urgency of this moment” in order to reduce climate change?
Beyond the papers, platitudes, plans and posturing, accepting and adhering to some immediate actionable steps wouldn’t be a problem, would it?
We can give my plan to reduce climate change a snappy memorable name like the ASNC (All Stick No Carrot) Plan:
The ASNC Plan would mandate the following –
Completion of a detailed, itemized carbon footprint assessment of your family home, vacation home, vehicles, travel, spending and consumption habits.
No ownership of second homes
No air travel
1 car per family
Complete divestiture of fossil fuel owned or supported investments
A limit on the square footage and
size of your home. No more 5 bedroom,
3 bathroom, 3 story deals..
Car pooling or bicycling to work. no exceptions.
No single driver car usage
No consumption of meat
Car pooling to city hall for council meetings
Car pooling to city hall for committee meetings…
A limit on the size, type and model of the one vehicle you can own
One day per week no use of car
One day per weekend no use of car
The ideas are just bubbling up,
Please feel free to add your own…
@Paul Green, and which councilors and candidates immediately spoke up in opposition to the Administration’s initial plan to take parkland for NewCAL? Not just responded after the fact to several thousand petitioners, but on their own, once it became evident this summer that six of the largest green spaces in the city were targets for a 2.5 acre building and parking lot.
@Paul Levy-
It’s about credibility, honesty,
and commitment. If personal sacrifices
are not willing to be made by the people
that are shouting the loudest, then these people should be ignored as they have zero credibility.
It’s a really simple question,
what personal sacrifices are each and every climate crisis crusader willing to make today, right now, not after the ink dries on the next climate crisis plan.
These rubber meets the road choices would demonstrate to others how committed they are to the “urgency of this moment”.
This is the question voters should be asking candidates like Alicia Bowman
@Laurie – RE: “Cost”:
@Paul – RE: “Sacrifices” and That All-Stick Feeling:
(Two notes:
1. This response reflects my personal views and opinions and should not be understood as representative of any organization’s view; and
2. Valuable as Village14 is, comment posting threads are a sub-optimal medium for deep-diving into this .. so contact me in the real world and we can discuss further …
)
You are not yet familiar with a “have your cake and eat it too” scenario that can be carved-out of aspirational climate action planning. To get there, let’s set aside everything anyone has said about saving the planet or about mandates, and instead focus on money. Particularly, let’s talk about your money as a homeowner (… and for credibility sake, when in-person, I’ll relate some verifiable details about my money in these regards.)
(If you rent your living quarters, please skip to the last paragraph now …)
Let’s agree that “cost” means “Total Cost of Ownership”. Now, here is a counter-intuitive insight. NCCAP can be implemented in a way that results in every Newton resident homeowner having more money at the end of the day than they do today, all other things being equal, AND in achieving the IPCC 2050 carbon goal within the City’s limits. (To any professional economists reading, “think ‘monetary velocity’ in the local economy …)
Two simple facts about hard dollars suggest that can become true (though before anyone goes “there”, be assured that the NCCE’s work was much more detailed and complicated than such simplifications made for communications purposes):
Fact #1: Approximately and on-average one-third of the money we now spend on putting energy into our houses is wasted (depicted as “Rejected Energy” in this diagram https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2014_United-States_MA.png) “heating and cooling the outdoors”. That is more true the older a building is. In Newton, the average age of a house is ~80 years. So, significantly reduce the waste and significantly reduce (operating) costs. That puts a focus on what can be done to residential structures built using “old technology” to make them perform more like they were built using more modern methods. And “no”, it isn’t nearly as simple as buying a high efficiency furnace.
Fact #2: Buildings that waste less energy are worth more and command higher sale prices. So, make an 80 year old house significantly (not 3-5%, but more like 25-30%) more energy efficient (without tearing it down, of course) and it is worth more (capital) money when it is eventually sold. And, funnily enough, the useful lifetime of the asset has been increased too … so, are you worried about tear-downs in your neighborhood? Investing more in the energy efficiency of each building should (that is a hand wave, because there is no data available that can prove or disprove this assertion) slow the rate of teardowns.
Key Question: is the sum of the years of operating cost savings plus the additional increment in the sales price greater than the cost of doing the home improvement (minus any consumption value you might extract from the improvement before selling it)?
My answer is this: Yes, if the NCCAP is implemented as that document lays out. Without NCCAP, problems like what @Kyle highlighted will continue to undermine rational decision-making (thus labelling it a “perversion”) by homeowners. There are some not-obvious-to-most-readers things in the NCCAP that make the plan hang together, realistic, and workable. But, if you start to cherry-pick aspects you love and winnow-out the ones you don’t prefer and all bets are off … (those are my nice words for “you’ll run the risk of losing money for everyone and yourself by trying to be that smart”)
These are extraordinarily difficult topics. Please don’t take too much offense when I assert that the NCCE might know and might have worked through a thing or two that is over the horizon of the radar imaging technology on which you’ve based your All Sticks No Carrots Makes Jake A Dull Boy scenario. So “let’s talk”!
Fair? I hope and trust you see it as offered ..
@Stephen Grody-
Thank you for taking the time to explain.
I‘m not questioning the science of Climate Change, and your cost/benefit
analysis makes sense.
The most important sentence in an earlier post you made should cause alarm bells to go off in every household:
“Most of the progress called for will not come from government spending”
Everyone should read that statement twice, and let it sink in.
This is where government overreach will become a huge problem, because there will be some very real and substantial financial costs to adopting any new climate standards. It will all come down to how the climate panel and our local pols will force businesses and homeowners to pay for adherence to these these standards whether they want to or not. My guess is most of it
won’t even have to be measurable.
Rest assured there will be some carrot,
but mostly stick, or rather baseball bat.
A small group of elected and appointed
folks are already crafting a new set of standards and rules that they alone will decide and everyone else in the city will play by these rules and adopt, or submit
to them or they will be punished. They’ll make the rules and you’ll follow them or else…
Most of the progress called for will not come from government spending because this new set of standards, laws & rules, crafted by an infinitesimal portion of our electorate will insure that if a given business, or home owner is not in compliance they will be punished. Financially.
It’s really that simple.
If you have an older house or business that doesn’t comply with the climate change plan, the city wont need to spend any money because every non-
compliant business or home owner will be forced to, immediately, and if they don’t they will be fined. Heavily.
It’s pretty clear to me that our city government will be prepared to strong arm or impose its will on anyone that doesn’t fall into line with whatever set of rules or standards the climate panel makes, and that is frightening.
@Stephen Grody, I had exactly the same concern about that sentence, for many of the reasons @Paul Green gives.
Here, too, we will have a general Plan approved by the Council, but it is in the form that is not quite legislation–leaving implementation decisions in great measure to city department heads. I’m not a municipal government lawyer–or any kind of lawyer!–but that kind of discretion leaves me concerned.
@Paul: The work on display during last night’s combined meeting of the Zoning And Planning and Public Facilities Committees of the City Council (a public meeting anyone was welcome to attend … I did) would have had you calling into question key opinions you’ve given voice to above. Here is but one example (though the following will not do justice to the topic or to the people working the one topic cited) …
Disclaimer: the topics being worked at the meeting are situationally complex. Yet, the discussion among Councilors, representatives of City departments, and citizen experts engaged those details (and added still more) in the wrangling of a set of change proposals aimed at enabling resident-homeowners to achieve the long term goals included in the City’s draft CAP (including proposed quantitative metrics proposed for marking and reporting on progress).
The Illustration — “By-Right Encroaching Into Property Set-Backs”: NCCAP calls for allowing specific cases of these. The City’s draft CAP calls for allowing specific cases of these. The City’s professionals presenting described the exact wording for changes to City documents that would implement (at least several of) those specific cases. In one case (from memory) …
If a resident-owner wanted to increase the insulation thickness on the walls of their house, but the house is already built (let’s illustrate using just the sides) to the fullest extent allowed within the City-required-by-zoning’s set-back (e.g., 15′, 20′, … depending on whether your property is S-1, S-3, .. whatever), they might NOT BE ABLE TO at any cost because of the physicality of existing building and the (lack of) available space in the lot.
Proposed was an allowance that up to 8″ of encroachment be allowable AUTOMATICALLY (i.e., no special permit required) for certain approaches to adding insulation. One such approach discussed (including pictures of the examples) was “continuous insulation”. Most people would recognize that as the green “ZIPSystem” boards and black seam tape often used in new construction (http://www.huberwood.com/zipsystem/home-zip-system). “Why 8 inches and not 4 inches?” one Councilor asked … and there ensued a deep-dive into how modern exterior walls are constructed and why that implied the 8 inch allowance was the most appropriate for the proposal. (The meeting was recorded so go online and listen for yourself ..)
SO –> and here is the pushback punchline that ought to give pause to anyone too deeply embracing several of the opinions to which you gave voice most recently above <– progress was being made by REMOVING OBSTACLES TO DESIRABLE HOME IMPROVEMENTS that do not serve a greater public purpose.
No mandate, no arm twisting, no government intervention in private affairs, no . Instead, approximately 35 people spent 2 hours of a weeknight working on making government more responsive to what some citizens would want to achieve if only government weren’t the problem.
I do not mean to suggest that all of the NCCAP and draft CAP proposals cut that way. But those are the “low hanging fruit” getting attention now.
QED.
@Paul: I was typing, so my comment above passed yours in the night.
We really ought to do this offline, if for no other reason that reducing the amount of electricity required to run the computers being used to mediate what, in an earlier time, would be an in-person discussion.
[bye for 5, then down for good on this thread]
Thanks, @Stephen Grody, for the play-by-play. Reassuring, true. Now, let’s get back to the carrot and stick I first quoted. What was meant by that?
@Stephen Grody-
Much appreciated. Thank you
@PaulL: “Carrot and stick” is phrasing not in the NCCAP. So I’ll encourage you to ask Jennifer Steele who is the City employee I have seen presenting the draft CAP …
@PaulG: Easy peasy … the in-person offer stands …
The vote is on the CAP, not the NCCAP. Jennifer, are you out there? Please comment. Maybe someone reading this can pass along the word to her, or to one of the other many drafters of the CAP.
Sending an e-mail to the Mayor, City Council or Councilors in Committees is always a good idea – particularly if attending the meetings is not possible.
Or check out the city website.
From the above page:
To see a complete calendar of all climate planning events and opportunities to engage click here.
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please send an email to [email protected].
If you would like to stay informed about any of these planning processes, please sign up for newsletter updates via the button below.
@Paul Levy has rendered up dour scenario of perceived insufficient means being the core restraint on this community’s responses to an utter emerging called by the UN and world leaders. Well, this may be true picture of civic’response in Newton to our children’s emergency, we will see.
The entire human family is by the UN IPCC and the overwhelming science-based consensus, going to urgently be putting brakes on dumping greenhouse gas pollution. Highest dumping humans are tasked with far greater reductions. We’re wealthy nation with investments to sell so not given much time to lay off the fossil fuels, as more time has been given to poorer nations.
But the climate emergency was never about money. It is about the irreversible damage we’re doing, and have been doing for decades. The many unfixable unrecoverable, hideously carelessly violated life support systems are what this crisis is about. And in a decade, maybe longer, it won’t matter at all whether we wish to spend our money trying to halt the chaos. Money already is not going to fix extinction of living species, Antarctica and Greenland melt, the loss of drinking water from Himalayan glaciers! We may not get to buy back civilization, or our children’s ruined lives. Call this an emergency now and pray enough of us will volunteer to help young people simply survive.
Want to help young people and not spend a dime to do so? Call the Governor and demand that no permits are to be Issued for a massive Fracked gas for export pipeline station that represents a
dangerous explosion hazard and harmful pollution source in Weymouth MA. Why are Americans largest producer of oil and gas, as well as largest per capita consumers? Our children’s emergency is our addiction to lives only fossil fuel use makes available to more. Authorize build clean safe energy generated at huge scale we use energy, we can pay for it by use. As we do roads, schools, police fire government services, clean water and safe wastewater? We don’t have to destroy young people’s lives ahead, we only need to turn our heads hearts and hands to helping raise up our families.
Have you seen this?
https://apps.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/26/cape-cod-climate-change/story/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link
Paul,
This is now the third time (at least) that you’ve staked out this “well-off-suburbanites-shouldn’t-have-to-take-responsibility-for-the-climate-crisis-if-they-don’t-want-to” turf. Is there some endgame here? Some upside for you becoming the hero of Newton’s self-centered cranks? Not getting it. I thought you might be at least as concerned about our children’s future as you are about earning mega-dittos from the climate Trumpers.
@Susan Albright – yes, I have seen it.
However, as I’ve said before, there’s another set of issues people are ignoring- the over development of Boston, especially in flood zones. This development of office spaces for the “high tech ” jobs is one of the drivers of the demand for housing. The demand for housing isn’t caused simply by people, I don’t know, wanting to live closer to Fenway Park. It’s caused by large companies moving into a Boston, being attracted by tax incentives etc.
In less than 20 years, when all those streets and buildings start to get flooded, who’s going to pay for the cleanup? And it will only get worse before it gets better ( if ever).
@Ralph, not every one in town is a well-off suburbanite. Your comments about me are unwarranted and disrespectful, not only to me but also to other people that you group together as “self-centered cranks?” I don’t know what you mean by “end game.” This is a forum for exchanging ideas, presumably in a fashion that doesn’t involve ad hominem attacks on anyone’s motives. You are a former writer, so you know the power of words, and I have to assume that you’ve chosen them carefully in order to exaggerate and demean.
I have been involved in advocating and actually implementing energy conservation, demand, management, and alternative resource development on and off since 1974. Read again what I said in the original post before you submit obnoxious comments about my motives.
My conclusion stands: “I hear City Council members and candidates telling us what we “should” be doing as individuals in our homes, cars, and the like. I think such terminology invites backlash and resentment, especially if the general language in a plan gets translated into requirements that are viewed as burdensome by members of the public–or are viewed as insensitive to those on limited or fixed incomes.”
Debate that if you wish.
This doesn’t sound like anyone is ignoring the problems to me
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d1114318-1b95-487c-bc36-682f8594e8b2
@PaulLevy as you wrote of some reservations and express desire for discussion, and also yourself a thoughtful and knowledgeable leader, I wanted to emphasize to you that I have also forebodings about meager responses of residents to recommendations made for reducing the use of fossil fuel energy in their homes. Experiences have shown me that even with excellent professionals involved and with repeated efforts made within well-constructed older buildings, there are enormous expenses. And in addition to modifications to the building envelops to seal energy within, I’ve encountered circumstances with heat pumps, gas hot water boilers and oil burners that lead me to conclusion that net greenhouse gas pollution reductions are not going to be principally by new heat pumps replacing gas boilers. That abrasive fact sticks with me and I don’t expect many without actual long term experience with heat pump heating in their home to share it.
We have as an older householder generation come to the end of a long flirtation with high temperature indoors living in the Northeast. The grid power is dirty and will remain so until truly transformative societal energy is released on a person by person basis. There are NOT many terrawatts of electricity ready to jump on the grid because signs go up for NewtonPowerChoice. The top end home heat pump my family has run over four full winter gave Electricity Bills that are staggering despite 3 iterations of home sealing, best people I could find. I’ve net metered home electricity account to actual solar panels to pay for production I use in home. But.. – reality is the grid is dirty and immense electricity consumption to keep homes warm as many keep them now, is not anyway doable without immense fossil fracked gas generation of electricity. We are not even talking yet about generating clean safe energy at huge scale we use energy.
So I found your rendering of the costs being a constraint on residents here as being an accurate prognosis of the ill health for climate action. People will resent expectations and prodding to make huge purchases that frankly are not evidently going to make great cuts in home fossil fuel energy. The grid is dirty and the generation of winter time electricity in this state is Largely from gas! NewtonCityCouncil is hiding a dirty and getting dirtier grid behind the Power Choice option. Even if the heat pumps are bought and installed, many newcomers to heat pump heating will experience confusion in finding the costs will not be less than gas boiler cost, and the heat output when coldest weather arrives is not comparable between a heat pump and the forced air furnace.
We have to really go where we’ve not gone before and must lead our children there. The heat must be turned off, thermostats must be drastically lowered, and our bodies have to become heat sources for living. Honestly, my family rejects that and I don’t go live in the garage to prove a point with them. But we must shut down the fracking industry or Nature is coming to do that and sooner than anyone wants to accept.
With Nature’s Climate Action Plan there are no options we will relish. Many will find electricity or gas heat will be unobtainable in a dismal future mapped out by the science based projections for our soaring greenhouse gas pollution. But worst of all, will be having regrets that we had not built clean safe energy generated at huge scale we use energy and made our lifestyle fit to be served by that energy. It cost us nothing to make investments for what we actually Will use and need! Soaring greenhouse gas pollution is not caused by the lack of clean safe energy, no. It’s caused by burning fossil fuels. Why are we burning fossil fuels? We don’t drink the water from the Charles River! We don’t have outhouses! Why go on like this, destroying our lives ahead to keep burning fossil fuels? We have to change or accept ultimatum delivered by Nature to shut it all down.
Please write Governor Baker and demand the manifestly unsafe and unnecessary fracked gas pipeline compressor in Weymouth not be permitted. The endangerment of Massachusetts underway for the sake of more fossil fuel infrastructure In service to worldwide fossil fuels consumption!
Thanks @SusanAlbright
Good resource, interesting reading.
Tsk, tsk, Ralph.
You need to clean up your act, dude. I know the global climate crisis is an existential threat to us, to our children, to vulnerable populations around the globe, but can you just dial back the rhetoric a little? Even as our planet is destroyed, we will still have civility. We must have civility.
Also, it’s not fair to attribute Paul’s observations to him. Read carefully. We don’t know if he’s for or against requiring people to internalize the cost of their energy choices. He’s just giving, in his role as eminence grise, some helpful advice to those who might be a little too enthusiastic in pursuit of their climate-change mitigation. Beware the backlash.
That’s it. Just some guidance. I’m sure he’s not intending to enable or embolden or sanctify the backlash.
So, please apologize to Paul for unkindly attributing to him a desire to become the hero of Newton’s self-centered cranks. He’s just warning us how the self-centered cranks are going to respond. Because, that’s what thoughtful people do.