One note on yesterday's State of the Commonwealth climate announcement by @MassGovernor:
It's possible that a "net zero emissions by 2050" target will result in little to no improvement over the state’s existing legal mandate to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. [thread] #mapoli
It's possible that a "net zero emissions by 2050" target will result in little to no improvement over the state’s existing legal mandate to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. [thread] #mapoli
@MassGovernor The Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2008, requires the state to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. This requirement has been interpreted as an 80% reduction in gross emissions -- i.e., reducing the amount of carbon we release, mostly from burning fossil fuels. 2/
@MassGovernor “Net zero emissions” sounds like it’s taking the "80% by 2050" target and getting rid of the last 20% of emissions — but there’s a big difference between “zero emissions” and “net zero emissions.” 3/
@MassGovernor A “net zero emissions” target generally allows for the use of carbon offsets. Currently, offsets are not counted toward meeting our Global Warming Solutions Act “80% by 2050” target, because the GWSA is measuring gross emissions, not net emissions. 4/
@MassGovernor A wide range of activities can potentially be counted as carbon offsets. Some offsets involve reducing carbon emissions elsewhere in the world — e.g., helping people in developing countries to obtain more efficient cook stoves which use less wood. 5/
@MassGovernor Other offsets take credit for the carbon that is sequestered by natural ecosystems — e.g., as trees grow, they take carbon out of the atmosphere — or better soil management practices. 6/
@MassGovernor Many carbon offsets are worthwhile projects that should be supported. None of them is a substitute for what we need to do most urgently in Massachusetts, which is to stop burning fossil fuels and transition rapidly to non-polluting forms of energy. 7/
@MassGovernor Under a “net zero emissions by 2050” target, some (all?) of the last 20% of emissions reduction could be met with offsets. 8/
@MassGovernor “But offsets still take carbon out of the atmosphere. Isn’t that just as good?” you might ask. My answer is: Well, maybe. 9/
@MassGovernor A lot would depend on the type & quantity of offsets allowed. Verifying emissions reduction from carbon offsets is tricky. How do you ensure that the reduction wouldn’t have happened anyway even if you hadn’t bought the offset? (The problem of determining "additionality.”) 10/
@MassGovernor Moreover, some things could be counted as offsets that don’t represent any additional carbon reduction over the status quo. For example: Have you noticed that there are a lot of trees growing in Massachusetts? 11/
@MassGovernor Seriously, though. New England is heavily forested. According to a 2010 report from Acadia Center, Massachusetts’ forests sequester up to 13.4 million metric tons of CO2 per year. That’s about 14% of our baseline 1990 emissions levels. acadiacenter.org/document/fores… 12/
@MassGovernor So, just by counting all of the forests already growing in Massachusetts as an offset, you could achieve “net zero emissions” with as little as 86% emissions reduction. That’s before including other potential sources of offsets. 13/
@MassGovernor Changing our 2050 target from 80% to 86% emissions reduction would be a fairly modest improvement. Will @MassGovernor and his administration choose to interpret a “net zero emissions” target in this way? Can’t say for sure, but it’s definitely possible. 14/
@MassGovernor For truly bold & ambitious climate action, I suggest three steps that would really make Massachusetts a national/international leader: 15/
@MassGovernor 1. Accelerate the timeline. The world as a whole should get off of carbon sooner than 2050, and Massachusetts as a leader should certainly move faster. My colleague @craigaltemose has made this case well. 17/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose 2. Set “zero emissions” targets rather than “net zero emissions,” at least for the sectors where we have a pretty good sense of how to get to zero. Electricity, heating, and ground transportation are a good place to start. 18/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose Six states have already passed laws to eliminate carbon emissions from their electric sector by 2050 or sooner. Last week, the governor of RI pledged to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. (Under current law, MA won’t get to 100% renewable electricity till ~ 2095.) 19/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose 3. Take every step possible in the next 1, 2, 5, 10 years to reach these targets. There are no shortage of ideas. Net zero building code, go big on solar & offshore wind, more efficient appliances, all-electric buses… 20/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose To @MassGovernor’s credit, I was encouraged to see his spirited advocacy for the Transportation Climate Initiative in last night’s State of the Commonwealth. It’s a key initiative to reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector and I’m grateful for his leadership. 21/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose But we need more. That’s why we are advocating for 100% renewable energy legislation filed by @MarjorieDecker and @SeanGarballeyMA in the House, and @JamieEldridgeMA in the Senate. 22/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose @MarjorieDecker @seangarballeyMA @JamieEldridgeMA Their legislation would require 100% renewable electricity by 2035, 100% renewable heating and transportation by 2045. Bold, but achievable — if we start today. 23/
@MassGovernor @craigaltemose @MarjorieDecker @seangarballeyMA @JamieEldridgeMA So let’s go big on climate action. Let’s go 100% renewable. There’s no time to waste! #mapoli 24/24
