Mayor Ruthanne Fuller recently published an extensive Five-Year Climate Action Plan (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100191). Green Newton has also weighed in with its Citizens’ Climate Action Plan (https://www.greennewton.org/citizens-climate-action-plan-for-newton-now-available/), with some overlap and other distinctive features. Anyone who takes seriously the dangers of global warming would be well advised to review these proposals.
Both citizens and city government are already taking steps to meet the climate threat. For example, many of us have purchased electric or hybrid vehicles, and some homeowners have placed solar panels on rooftops. The city has promoted green energy, begun to make its buildings more energy-efficient, and placed solar panels on or near municipal buildings. These changes don’t arrive free of cost. The long-term benefits, however, outweigh the short-term price tag. In my case, our solar panels generate far more energy than required to supply my home’s electrical needs. Even with an electric car and electric dryer soaking up the surplus, we continue to amass credits with Eversource. Consequently, we have decided to purchase an electric stove and water heater, and we will soon install a mini-split, heat pump system for hot and cold weather.
As a homeowner, will I recoup the expenses for all these changes through energy savings? I have already done so, more or less, with the solar panels. My electric automobile is almost five years old, and because its engine has so few moving parts, almost nothing goes wrong with it. Its initial price, after tax breaks, was comparable with most other new cars in 2014. We have gotten our money’s worth, to say the least. More importantly, through these small personal steps, we have reduced our carbon footprint.
Though no one begrudges me the right to make these personal choices regarding my private property, the city’s efforts have generated more controversy. Sometimes, competing interests within the green movement claim the primacy of their particular approach. With limited funds, sometimes the city has to prioritize one method over another, to the fury of the slighted interest group.
For example, in the last several years city government has proposed cutting down some trees to place solar panels on public buildings or in the adjoining parking lots. These plans inevitably inspire pushback by some tree advocates, who decry trading any tree for a solar collector. The city almost always responds by revising plans, limiting the number of trees to be felled, and planting an equal or greater number of trees elsewhere. That’s the way politics should work: plan/pushback/compromise/progress. Unfortunately, bitter feelings sometimes linger in the aftermath. For some reason, solar panels become the target of anger for those “betrayed” by the city plan.
I am also involved in Bike Newton, a nonprofit that encourages citizens to ride their bikes whenever possible. That can be a tough choice in the Garden City, given that our major thoroughfares are decidedly unfriendly to peaceful coexistence between cyclists and drivers. The various climate action plans place some emphasis on creating safe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians as one way to reduce gasoline-consuming automobiles on the road. They also recommend, as noted, the proliferation of electrical vehicles and the construction of an infrastructure to encourage their use.
Sadly, the expense of redesigning Newton’s roads for bicycle safety seems too high for much progress. Washington Street and Needham Street, fortunately, will soon be renovated, and as of now, bike lanes are part of the plans. These projects will be exemplars of future improvements to crowded roadways.
But change takes time, and some cyclists attribute the slow progress to the emphasis on electric vehicles. Once again, one method of reducing the city’s carbon footprint gets pitted against another, and bitter feelings arise.
Good plans generally offer more than one approach to solve a problem. In some European cities, major roads have been reconfigured to the point that a third of their residents commute to work by bicycle. At the same time, many other residents use electric automobiles and mopeds. These phenomena are hardly antithetical. Both bicycles and electric vehicles contribute to the ultimate solution, not either/or.
Similarly, planting more trees certainly helps to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. But solar panels also help. Furthermore, local panels on rooftops and parking lots reduce the need to cut down trees for powerlines from remote energy-production sites like wind or solar farms (read Alan Nogee’s article: https://village14.com/2019/01/18/nogee-facts-about-newtons-energy-choices-and-trees/#axzz67uARSGVm).
Admittedly, I am disappointed that Newton’s efforts to improve biking conditions fall far short of those in Brighton, Brookline, and Boston. But rather than blame electric automobiles, I suggest that the city include funding for road safety for cyclists in the override now under consideration. All of us will benefit in the long run.
When it comes to fighting climate change, it’s both/and, not either/or.
If we are to be intelligently serious about fighting climate change, we would recognize that the human race didn’t succeed in handling big challenges in the past by upgrading yesterday’s technologies or passing new laws. The human race solved big problems through basic research that led to radically new technical solutions that changed everything.
Installing solar panels on a parking lot is probably the best example of our city’s (and really our country’s) backwards approach to climate. Installing solar panels doesn’t do much to solve our climate crisis. You know what does help? GET RID OF THE CARS. IT IS THE CARS. THE CARS ARE THE PROBLEM HOW IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
I agree with most of this, Bob, but don’t feel that not everyone is arguing “either/or”. We do need to set priorities with regard to policy.
Lois
Oops – i wrote a double negative- just delete one of them.
@Bob – thank you for a thoughtful analysis. I completely agree – there are many roads to get to the goal, and none are *the*only* right one. We shouldn’t let “best” be the enemy of “good”, and need to pursue multiple avenues to reach our goal.
@Jim – again, these aren’t mutually exclusive options. Major basic research leading to large tech changes takes time. While we are pursuing these larger goals, we need to make the more quickly feasible changes that are currently available – many of which were not available technology just a few decades ago.
Meredith, I enjoyed meeting and conversing with you at the V14 Holiday Party.
I really think these little local actions trivialize what’s at hand if combating climate change is to be taken seriously, especially considering NOTHING is being done viz a viz China’s negating a million fold what’s being done here which may be “feel good” measures but have no proven SIGNIFICANT impact whatsoever.
Bob, I’m pleased you are seeing savings from your solar panels, as I and others helped pay for them. To the tune of $1500 from every man, woman, and child in the state, as of last December: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/has-the-mass-solar-gamble-paid-off/
MrButch,
Rid cars and the need for cars?
OK, how about you suggest actual realistic concrete measures or a series of concrete measures to do this (including in Newton). Otherwise your admonition about cars is folderol.
Re solar panels in city parking lots.
It seems to me one of the most offensive examples is the library parking lot. Trees will be lost, and profits gained by an outside vendor/ city “partner, while the extensive roof of the library itself stands bare.
Put the ugliness where it’s least offensive, is the most efficient, and maintain what little public tree canopy we have left.
AND,.. if the city must have them, invest in them outright, own them and enjoy their benefits outright100%!
@Jim – I agree with you about a lot of the little local measures, but not all, and I disagree that we have to wait for new tech/research breakthroughs.
For example, the most effective way to get rid of most of the plastic that ends up in the ocean would be to stop fishing crews from dumping their gear, nets, etc. That accounts for almost HALF of the plastic there. Note that requires no new technological breakthroughs, no major research.
And I enjoyed meeting you too 🙂
@Jim my proposal is rebuild all the rail lines which once existed in newton and add bus lanes where street parking now exists.
Meredith,
I’m NOT talking about non-global warming environmental issues like plastic ending up in the ocean, which of course we are and should be addressing. I was merely talking about global warming, so if you want correctly to gear your remark to my comment, you may want to do that.
Mr Butch – yes! We are so close to Boston, much of Newton is already fairly dense that this could be really practical for Newton.
Jampol response
Nice post, Bob. The only way we are going to solve the climate crisis is with multiple solutions, small and large, low-tech and high, that add up to a transformation of energy, transportation, and land use.
Jim makes an important point about research. We need more, especially to decarbonize large industries. But let’s also appreciate that decades of R&D on wind and solar drove down their costs to where economies of manufacturing scale could take over in the last 15 years.
That’s what Paul leaves out. It was the concerted efforts of Massachusetts, along with 28 other states with renewable energy standards, EU countries using other subsidies, and most of all, China, that created those economies of scale.
And these policies have been spectacularly successful, driving the cost of wind and solar down another 70-90 percent in the last decade, to where they are now cheaper than new fossil fuel plants, and increasingly cheaper than running existing fossil fuel plants, in a fast-growing number of places. That’s why our solar subsidies have rapidly been able to come down from 30 cents per kilowatt hour to 20 cents and now 8.5 cents, as Paul observes.
And why decarbonizing most of our economy using renewable electricity to also electrify transportation and heating, might actually save us money in the long run, according to credible recent studies. https://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/media/press/
And yes, Jim, China went on a terrible coal binge, while renewables were still more expensive, to pull nearly a billion people out of poverty. But no one has been working harder than China to reduce the price of renewables so that the equation could change for everyone. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/15/climate-china-global-translations-1662345
And Paul, I am sorry you feel so bad about what you accomplished at the Dept. of Public Utilities. You were a national leader forcing the utilities to use competitive solicitations that fostered technology, market and financial innovations that brought down the cost of gas turbines as well as renewables. Yes, the pioneering projects were much more expensive than later ones, and the pioneers have paid a price, but the process worked and is continuing to work. And you will always be one of my heroes for the role you played in it.
These tech solutions are essential, but so are low-tech ones. We could have zero-emission transportation with everyone driving a solar-powered EV all the time, but we’d also have total gridlock. By improving efficiency, having denser, more walkable villages, creating more transportation options—including safe bike lanes—we can meet our needs with fewer cars, wind turbines and solar panels. We can have less congestion and preserve more open space for trees and wildlife.
It’s all about a diversity of solutions, people, not fighting over a single best one.
Alan,
China’s not going off coal anytime soon. In 2018, for example, China newly commissioned coal-fired plants equal to the entire US coal-fired base!
“China is placing a global bet on coal.” https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal