| Several of Greater Boston’s richest communities want to cleanse their blocks of fossil fuel pollution by banning natural gas hookups for new buildings. But why should this admirable impulse to fight climate change locally stop there?
From Concord to Cambridge, residents and politicians are clamoring for state legislators to let them take a mighty swing at carbon emissions from commercial and residential buildings. Together, these made up a little over 18 percent of the state’s carbon pollution in 2017, according to the most recent official data.
Only by starting with new buildings, they argue, can these sources of planet-killing carbon dioxide be eliminated in time. After all, existing buildings will take time and money to convert from heating oil and natural gas. And state data shows this sector’s emissions have hardly budged since 1990.
The real estate industry contends that heating and cooling technology – particularly in Massachusetts’ golden goose, its life science sector – isn’t ready to affordably take up the slack if natural gas is eliminated. A gas ban would, industry trade groups contend, effectively kill new lab construction in the towns that choose it. Perhaps those eager for gas bans see that as a feature, not a regrettable casualty – it’s difficult to tell amid stout denials from some and stony silence from others. Either way, it’s emerged as a serious sticking point in Beacon Hill negotiations over how to get the state on a path to stop cooking the Earth.
But we wonder: Are these towns and cities really doing all they can to fulfil their carbon-cutting dreams? Why not think even bigger by targeting the real driver of CO2 pollution?
If Massachusetts’ bastions of liberal thought and Democratic political donations really want to shrink their personal contributions to looming global destruction, we offer the following program. First, close-in communities like Cambridge and Somerville should immediately raise their maximum allowable building heights in residential neighborhoods to 6 stories, eliminate most setback requirements and eliminate any caps on the number of housing units per lot. Second, suburbs with good MBTA service like Concord should do the same within a mile of train stations and major bus corridors.
Next, take away most on-street parking in favor of a robust network of bicycle lanes equipped with physical barriers to protect cyclists from rogue cars and push e-commerce companies to use bicycle delivery services wherever possible.
Last, demand the state set up new regional transit agencies or grow the MBTA’s remit to build frequent bus services outside the urban core.
The most recent data says emissions from transportation make up 80 percent of Massachusetts’ contribution to global warming. Ought Bay Staters not be focused on that, instead?
Letters to the editor of 350 words or less may be submitted via email at editorial@thewarrengroup.com with the subject line “Letter to the Editor,” or mailed to the offices of The Warren Group. Submission is not a guarantee of publication.
