Ten ordinances to enact this session to combat climate change locally
We have just gone through a summer showing us some ways climate change will affect us. While there’s no way to avoid many of its consequences, we can slow its progress. There are numerous existing and successful “model laws,” many of them inexpensive to implement, that could be adapted easily for use in Cambridge. While some would require permission from the state Legislature via home rule petitions, these are often rubber-stamped if brought in by our state representatives.
Cambridge once led the way for cities and towns on human rights and housing protection. It can become a regional and national model again on ameliorating our impact on the planet and combating climate change – by taking immediate action to adopt these and other measures.
Zero idling
Car and truck idling wastes fuel, destroys exhaust systems and needlessly produces global warming gases. Diesel idling is especially toxic, producing exhaust with known carcinogens and toxins. Idling is also the easiest source of global warming gases to eliminate. Right now, state law prohibits idling more than five minutes, but this is rarely enforced. But how much should be permitted? Some argue the answer is zero, except perhaps at traffic lights and by trucks that need to keep an engine running to operate a lift gate or refrigeration unit. Implementing a zero-idling ordinance would start with putting signs where it is rampant (taxi stands, in front of schools and at at the Department of Public Works).
Computerized traffic lights
Cambridge had computerized traffic lights decades ago but gave up on the system despite numerous advantages: Emergency vehicles can override the signals, allowing them to respond faster, potentially saving lives. Buses can travel more smoothly. It cuts idling at traffic lights. Traffic can be set to flow at a specific and safer speed, such as 20 mph, eliminating the urge for drivers to speed up for green lights.
Computerized traffic signals are the norm in most large cities throughout the world. (In some cities, such as Copenhagen, lights are timed at 12 mph for bicycles.)
Mandatory construction recycling
California is among the world’s leaders in diverting waste to recycling. In Massachusetts, construction and demolition debris, the contents of all the roll-off dumpsters around the city, are sent to landfill, even if they are made up of recyclable materials. There are many model ordinances we could adopt – one from San Diego that has been copied in numerous communities simply requires any building permit application to include a recycling plan, and that roll-off dumpsters be accompanied by a recycling container. Recycling cuts down on global warming gases.
New-construction solar mandate
California has a model state law – the first of its kind in the United States – that requires rooftop solar photovoltaic systems to be equipped on all new homes. It could be adapted here easily.
Solar protection
The California Solar Rights Act says a neighbor or the municipality cannot plant a tree that would put an adjacent rooftop in shade. There are many appropriate trees that grow to heights of 25 feet or less, including many native species, that would provide shade but not block a neighbor’s rooftop. This ordinance would allow the installation of more solar panels and protect existing ones from being blocked. The 75-foot behemoths (such as the ones offered by DPW in its oddly misguided initiative) would be allowed only if they wouldn’t eventually shade any neighbor’s rooftop.
Only hybrids or EVs for municipal vehicles
The city should not be buying vehicles and equipment that exacerbate climate change. Furthermore, we should require that all municipal passenger vehicles be hybrids or EVs. This should additionally ban large SUVs (those over 3,500 pounds) for passenger vehicle use. Emergency vehicles could be exempted.
No to diesel vehicles, yes to combination trash-recycling-compost-yard waste trucks
This would require that the city stops buying diesel equipment unless there are no alternatives. Diesel is dirty; it produces excessive levels of CO2 and thousands of known carcinogens. While heavy trucks used to be equipped only with diesel engines, they are now available as models that burn alternative fuels, or are hybrid or electric. Public Works’ four single-stream trucks (trash, compost, yard waste, recycling) cover 125 miles – the total of Cambridge streets – every weekday, adding up to 130,000 miles annually. Add snow plowing and street cleaning and the trucks travel more than 250,000 miles per year, the distance from here to the moon. Commonly available combination trucks could save almost 100,000 miles of truck travel annually, sharply reducing emissions.
No gas in new construction and major renovations
Natural gas use in homes is unnecessary and avoidable, an issue Brookline recently brought to the forefront. Gas stoves emit more than just CO2 – they can fill a home with toxins. The state is running a “no-new-gas installation” trial in 10 communities; Boston asked to be included, and with Cambridge’s housing boom, we should too.
Reinstitute a Public Works reuse center
Reduce, recycle, refuse, reuse, repurpose – the “Five Rs.” Sadly, public works eliminated “reuse” and “repurpose” when it eliminated a section for it at the Hampshire Street recycling yard. Many people have gotten books, cookware, kitchen equipment, tools and other useful items from reuse-repurpose tables, but now it all goes in the trash. More emphasis needs to be placed on “reuse and repurpose,” and the section should be reopened.
Parking permit fees based on fuel efficiency
Charging parking permit fees based on fuel efficiency – using the “combined EPA average” of a vehicle’s make and model as the base – is another idea discussed in numerous cities and towns. It could be structured to add significantly to the cost of driving an oversized, non-commercial vehicle in the city, and reward those significantly who choose EVs and hybrids.
I urge the council to consider adopting these measures as a start toward combating climate change.
Phillip Sego, Norfolk Street
Phillip Sego was an environmental advocate at the State House for 15 years.
So smart! This is a terrific post and I urge the City Council to enact these as soon as possible. Another important item is to require require outdoor on-site parking areas to be surfaced with water permeable (water-absorbing) pavers to prevent increasing water runoff problems.
Great ideas!
But why do even emergency vehicles need to be SUVs? Cops used to drive sedans no problem!
And why not encourage biking and parking for city employees by subsidizing T passes and biking while eliminating or charging for parking at city hall, firehouses, schools and other public buildings.
NYC has citizen rewards for reporting things like idling vehicles and illegal parking, we could consdier that too.
These are all very good ideas, and I hope the city adopts all of them!
None however addresses the disastrous die-off of our tree canopy, or the fundamental problem of our city government’s abasement to any and all developers (who call trees “weeds”) except for those interested in affordable housing–from local development companies to the carpetbaggers from Colorado set to build labs on the Alewife wetland and in the asbestos-laced soils nearby (potent traces of years of chemical company abuse in the area).
I wish someone had ideas about to how to reign in the power of development, in a city without an elected and thus accountable mayor, and whose elected councilors have only an advisory role.
Great list, Phil! My only edit would be that I’d insist on pure EVs, not hybrids, for vehicles. There are plenty of available pure EVs to choose from, and by their very nature, municipal vehicles do not require the extended range of hybrids. City vehicles also have plenty of city-owned parking spaces that could host EV chargers
Isabel – so true. NB Boston’s mayor created a city forester, and there is now a Boston forestry plan (see link). I feel our government is moving in the opposite direction, pushing to replace large mature trees with saplings that we know rarely ever survive. Alas too often people here say (falsely) that it is an issue of homes versus trees. Not true. The Jefferson Park fiasco is a case in point. If they had used 40B the new buildings could have gone up taller and both open space and trees would have been saved. In the Tobin School case a better plan and real consideration for the trees would also have made a real difference. In our denser areas this is a real health and environmental equity issue because trees are critical to keeping temperatures cooler.
https://www.boston.gov/departments/parks-and-recreation/urban-forest-plan
These are all excellent suggestions!
Q99 – But why do even emergency vehicles need to be SUVs?
I agree.
PeterG – I agree wholeheartedly. The council will need to keep in mind that EVs still have limited range, and perhaps there would need to be a few plug-in hybrids. These details/exceptions could easily be hammered out by the Council’s Ordinance Committee
Isobel – You are 100% correct. Our city’s commitment to trees/forestry is pathetic. Their lack of concern deserves more attention.
Interesting ideas.
You said:”Car and truck idling wastes fuel, destroys exhaust systems and needlessly produces global warming gases.”
The DPW trucks, during street cleaning on my block, sit idling for an hour while the guys take a break.
Cambridge has no ombudsman to look at this, and all the other city problems.
Re EV. It all sounds good, until you look at the environmental problems in producing the metals (particularly copper) that are needed, not only for the vehicles themselves, but have you ever looked at what is required to produce electricity?
concerned43 – You can report idling violations to the Massachusetts AG’s office: https://www.mass.gov/forms/illegal-idling-tip-form.
Phil Sego
Why can’t the city control its own workers?
Can’t the city stop DPW trucks from idling, or is
that too much to ask?
The city does so many “soft” things that are relatively meaningless. Here is something that it can control, and supposedly the city is all for stopping pollution. Or is it.
Perhaps the city is doing what it does best. Just talking about something harmful, but not do anything about it.
Isobel mentioned: “ I wish someone had ideas about how to reign in the power of development, in a city without an elected and thus accountable mayor, and whose elected councilors have only an advisory role.” I would suggest limiting campaign donations from developers to councilors, as well as implementing term limits to do away with lifetime positions. Money corrupts, and the longer the tenure, the greater the money.
Speaking of idling…..delivery trucks?
McDonald’s….every Tuesday at 5 am.
Little Donkey…..Middle East….Phoenix Landing….H Mart. 7-11.
But…..they are allowed because they need their diesel engines to power the refrigeration because the temperature has spike to 99 degrees…..ironic…or something equally Alanis Morissette-y.
Cambridge already has a broad ordinance limiting donations from developers—although no limits on homeowners who massively benefit from our artificial restrictions on housing that harm 2/3 of Cambridge who rent, including a disproportionate impact on lower income renters.
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2021/12/23/city-passes-a-campaign-finance-reform-law-overcoming-bid-to-await-legislatures-okay/