Top legislators and activists were over the moon when Gov. Charlie Baker proposed making Massachusetts carbon neutral in 30 years, but they can’t forget that density has to be a key component of how we get there.
Baker’s challenge came during his State of the Commonwealth address last Tuesday night, where he proposed getting Massachusetts to the point known as “net zero,” where the state has effectively removed carbon dioxide-generating activities from its economy.
“I’m thrilled,” Senate President Karen Spilka told reporters, days before introducing a large package of legislation that would turn the governor’s commitment into action.
Baker’s “crucial directive puts Massachusetts in the vanguard,” Conservation Law Foundation President Brad Campbell said in a statement.
We wholeheartedly share this enthusiasm for Baker’s goal – climate change is the single biggest threat to the planet at present, and the world desperately needs examples of how to tackle it.
But our cheering is tinged by anxiety that the legislature won’t pass one of the most important carbon–reduction measures out there: making sure municipalities can allow for dense, walkable development in places like their commercial centers and around transit stops.
Without tackling density, the Senate’s legislation and Baker’s commitments implicitly assume electric cars will be able to solve our climate problem. But if all Massachusetts’ cars were converted to electric vehicles, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute estimate the state’s electricity generation needs would go up by up to 42 percent
Its inaction for years on this key topic is made even worse by the long shadow cast by land use decisions. Buildings designed today that are forced by auto-centric zoning and minimum parking requirements to be anti-pedestrian will be with us for decades, driving up auto use at the very same time we need to be reducing emissions from this, our biggest contributor to carbon pollution.
Research by scientists at the University of California, Berkley shows the impact of how we build our communities on our carbon emissions. An average household in Braintree produces 53.9 metric tons of CO2 every year. The average family in Concord generates 65.8 metric tons. The average family in Weston generates 86 tons per year. But the average household in Boston’s Back Bay only generates 34.4 tons. The key difference? Car use.
Without tackling density, the Senate’s legislation and Baker’s commitments implicitly assume electric cars will be able to solve our climate problem. But if all Massachusetts’ cars were converted to electric vehicles, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute estimate the state’s electricity generation needs would go up by up to 42 percent, equivalent to adding 2 million homes. That is a massive increase in generating power that would be difficult to meet without commensurate cost to the public.
Crucially, none of the above figures account for the congestion problems that will be caused by the 88,000 more people the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute forecasts will live in the Bay State by 2035.
The good news is even modest densification can go a long way. The National Household Travel Survey shows over 45 percent of Americans’ car trips are 3 miles long or shorter – it’s clear many already live reasonably close to important destinations in their communities. If our future growth can be channeled into walkable, bikeable neighborhoods connected to job centers by public transit, and if we can make modest changes to our existing communities, we can set ourselves up for a more sustainable, low-carbon future.
Letters to the editor of 100 words or less may be submitted via email to 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.
