Charting our path to 100 percent renewable energy
And why options such as “net zero by 2050” misses the mark
In a time when Massachusetts faces new challenges presented by COVID-19, one big challenge hasn’t changed: Burning fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, still pollutes our air and water, makes us sick and warms our climate. Given what we know about the impacts of using these dirty fuels on our health and our environment, state lawmakers should commit to a goal of rapidly shifting the commonwealth away from fossil fuels.
Lawmakers in the commonwealth are currently weighing two competing approaches to long-term clean energy and climate action: 100 percent renewable energy or “net zero by 2050.”
What’s the difference?
The 100% Renewable Energy Act, filed by Reps. Marjorie Decker and Sean Garballey commits Massachusetts to achieving 100 percent renewable energy. If passed, the state would phase out fossil fuels for electricity production by 2035 and set a goal of powering all our heating and transportation needs with renewable energy by 2045.
A majority of legislators in both the House and Senate have endorsed the approach set out in the Decker/Garballey bill, along with more than 50 environmental and civic organizations, 150 city and town officials, and dozens of health professionals and clean energy industry leaders. Across America, 13 states and territories and 170 cities and counties have already set 100% renewable or clean electricity goals and many of these jurisdictions are also looking at how to achieve 100 percent renewable energy for heating and transportation.
A competing approach sets a target of “net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” While net zero may sound sensible, it falls short of what we need.
Massachusetts should not stay hooked on fossil fuels
Under a “net zero by 2050” scheme, fossil fuel fired power plants, such as the Mystic Generating Station in Everett, Mass., could keep operating for the foreseeable future. Carbon accounting is tricky business, subject to manipulation. Fancy accounting schemes could open the door for communities that live near fossil fuel infrastructure to continue to suffer disproportionate health risks indefinitely.
A higher death rate from COVID-19 is not the only risk that people living near oil, coal or gas-burning facilities face. Particulate matter and smog-forming pollution from burning oil and gas is linked to a wide range of health problems, including asthma, heart attack, stroke, and cancer. For pregnant women, exposure to air pollution is associated with a higher risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, and stillbirth. Long-term exposure to particulate pollution is also associated with a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia.
It’s no secret that communities of color are more likely than white people to live near these facilities. To ensure that all communities, including those that are predominantly Black and Latinx, have clean air to breathe, state lawmakers need to aim for a full transition off of fossil fuels.
Massachusetts needs clarity of intention
If lawmakers pass a “net zero” goal, they keep the door open indefinitely to new fossil fuel infrastructure and drag out the retirement of existing power plants and pipelines.
Let’s be honest: We face a public health crisis exacerbated by the burning fossil fuels and a climate crisis fueled by burning those same fuels. It’s absurd to perpetuate those crises when solutions abound. Renewable energy sources are as abundant as ever, and we are able to harness them and capture them more efficiently and cheaper than ever before.
It’s time to be clear about the future we envision — a future powered entirely by renewable energy from sources such as the sun and the wind.
Massachusetts should be a leader
The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global carbon emissions need to reach net zero carbon by 2050 to have a good shot of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. The net zero proposal currently gaining traction on Beacon Hill has Massachusetts, a historic leadership state, reaching net zero by 2050.
That goal sells Massachusetts’ clean energy legacy short. The commonwealth was the first state in the country to limit carbon pollution from power plants in 2001. We have led the nation on energy efficiency, solar energy and reducing vehicle emissions.
Our state, with its historic legacy of leadership aiming for a global minimum of “net zero by 2050” would be like a champion Red Sox team aiming to win half their games. We must set our sights high. Massachusetts must adopt more ambitious goals and commit to eliminate fossil fuels sooner than 2050. This must be done to set an example for other states, and to account for the fact that other places won’t reduce emissions as quickly.
The legislature wraps up on July 31. If you want Massachusetts to move toward 100 percent renewable energy, now is the time to act. Please contact your lawmakers and ask them to weigh in with Speaker Bob DeLeo and Chair Thomas Golden. We need them to move the only bill that will break our fossil fuel dependency and advance a healthier, pollution-free future for all communities in Massachusetts: the Decker/Garballey 100% Renewable Energy Act.
This article originally appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.
