On pursuing carbon net zero goals and offsets, some proposals take us in the wrong direction
I write to urge the City Council to adopt strong measures for carbon emissions reduction in Cambridge.
I support the Ordinance Committee’s vote to adopt 2035 as the target date for net-zero emissions for large buildings in Cambridge. But I am concerned about proposals by business and university representatives presented at the last committee meeting for 100 percent global offsets. While some may be needed to reach this target, global offsets are very questionable. Extensive criticism of many global offsetting programs has pointed out that such programs often fail to achieve any measurable carbon reduction, and may have additional negative effects – such as the displacement of indigenous peoples to allow go-betweens to profit from forest offsets. Some effective offset programs do exist, but they need to be evaluated carefully and used with caution.
Much better are local offsets, such as the “alternative compliance credits” proposed by the Community Development Department. These provide for measurable, verifiable local reductions in carbon emissions and have other potential local benefits, such as reducing heating costs for low-income residents and providing local employment in “green” jobs. Reducing local emissions also has environmental justice benefits, since harmful pollutants resulting from fossil fuel combustion are often present in higher concentrations in low-income communities.
But best of all is actual reductions in emissions by large polluters. Clearly there is resistance to the necessary investment required for such reductions. This business position is consistent with the major utilities’ strategy of continuing to rely on “natural” gas (a misnomer, since there is nothing natural about fracked gas). Rather than shifting to more efficient heat-pump and geothermal systems, 100 percent global offsets would allow major emitters to do nothing about their current emissions while buying low-cost and possibly ineffective global carbon credits.
An effective strategy, therefore, should place first priority on actual, verifiable emissions by current major polluters. The second priority should be local offsets. If global offsets are allowed at all, they should be only a small part of the total strategy, and should be permitted only after a rigorous process of evaluation of specific programs.
Otherwise we risk finding out, after implementing a 2035 “net zero” program, that in fact there has been no reduction in Cambridge carbon emissions and other pollutants (and possibly an increase due to expansion of commercial properties and labs), while the global offsets that have been bought are at best ineffective and perhaps actually harmful.
Please vote for a rigorous and effective policy for actual carbon reduction.
Jonathan Harris, Marie Avenue
Jonathan Harris is a visiting scholar at the Tufts University Global Development and Environment Institute.
I’ve a lot of questions. What if you’ve no land area and cannot do geo or have no space for a transformer and switch gear because network power only goes to 800amps? Is eversource getting off easy on this? How would one imagine some older buildings complying with this? Zondervan is an activist not a councilor so I take what he says as essentially white noise but this policy will effect more than MIT and Harvard or the “evil” buildings owned by monoliths … are we attacking this from the right angle? Does anyone on the Council or CDD for that matter understand the real world limitations of this?
Net zero goals. In theory that is just great.
In reality, it is just virtue signaling, something that Cambridge does very well. No matter what Cambridge does, it makes not the slightest bit of difference to the world’s climate.
Three things. Why, after cleaning the streets in an area of Cambridge, do the workers sit in their trucks for an hour or so, and let the trucks idle?
A simple thing to correct. Why isn’t Councillor Zondervan seeing that this practice is stopped. Perhaps he doesn’t get out very much. This idling pollutes the air, and no one seems to care. It is an easy thing to correct and doesn’t cost anything.
Second, China and India are the biggest polluters.
Coal is important to both countries, particularly India. Poor Indian families are finally able to get coal. They are not going to give it up.
Third, why does the city allow private snowplowing companies to go round and round and round on the same street, after it has been cleared. On my street, during the last big snowfall, the truck went around 20 times. That is unwanted and unnecessary pollution.
I’m all for climate control. I’m not for wasting money to make the City Council and many Cambridge residents feel good about themselves by implementing costly goals that have no real meaning. We need that money for affordable housing and other crucial items. And we need an ombudsman to see that what is enacted, is done properly.