Local offsets are possible in amending Beudo: Councillor calls the idea feasible and impactful
We know the climate situation is dire. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report led the United Nations secretary general to plead for all rich countries to get to net zero by 2040 and net zero electricity generation by 2035. Cambridge is one of the richest cities in one of the richest states in the richest country in the world. And our city is home to some of the richest universities and biotech companies in the world. Cambridge is uniquely suited to take on this dire call to action. Net Zero by 2035 has to be doable for Cambridge. If we can’t get there, the world will not meet its goal of 2050. We can’t give up. There is a path for Cambridge to be a leader.
Cambridge has studied, planned and set goals for climate action for more than 20 years. Harvard and MIT have achieved reductions in their emissions pollution and have pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2026. And in all the climate planning that the city does, the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance is cited as key to reducing our citywide emission pollution. Why? Because 80 percent of emissions in Cambridge comes from buildings.
The original Beudo ordinance passed in 2014 was supposed to lead to emissions reductions. It hasn’t. That is why we need to update it. Cambridge needs to reach our goals and be a true climate leader, not a laggard. We absolutely must get to net zero for all large properties by 2035, if not earlier. After all, climate scientists, the U.N. and the world are demanding that of us.
To meet this 2035 timeline, large property owners want the flexibility to buy carbon credits to offset their building emissions. That sounds reasonable, except red flag warning: The market for buying carbon credits to offset emissions is fraught with problems and not regulated on a global level. Concerns lead many climate leaders to be skeptical about their effectiveness as a means of reducing carbon emissions. Many carbon credits are at best unverifiable and at worst bogus – and worse for the environment. Global offsets especially are often double-counted, difficult to verify, impossible to confirm as permanent and/or fraudulent.
What’s a good alternative? Consistently over the past year as the council discussed proposed amendments, I insisted that since the emission pollution is local, only local offsets should be allowed. People countered “but there are no Cambridge Offsets.” I have proposed that we create local high-quality offsets – ones that are additive, verifiable, immediate and durable. How? My proposal is to allow any Cambridge property owner who can’t or won’t reduce their own emissions to get credit for reducing emissions of any affordable-housing project or any property serving environmental justice residents anywhere in Massachusetts. And we would define that reduction as an allowable offset.
For years, Cambridge has recommended and supported planning for a local carbon fund. Now is the time to implement it. Rather than continuing to just talk about the concept, study the prospect and consider the same ideas, we can and should implement our own solutions now. The state is considering a bill to establish a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund – if that bill or another one passes, we could decide to include that in our ordinance. Until then, we can and should lead the way by forming our own plan for local offsets.
Harvard and MIT agree. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor John Sterman, in a January article “How to choose carbon offsets that actually cut emissions,” ends with this example of high-quality offsets by retrofitting low-income-earner homes: “Such retrofits are therefore additional. The energy savings are verifiable from utility bills. Projects take about a year, so emissions reductions are nearly immediate. Good retrofits can significantly extend building life, so benefits are durable. Plus, retrofits create jobs, reduce energy bills and improve health.” Similarly, in 2018, Harvard Business School professor Rebecca Henderson, co-chair of Harvard’s Climate Change Task Force, stated in a video that “Harvard should be fossil fuel-neutral by 2026. That means investing in wind plants in Texas or maybe insulating houses in Cambridge” – which is exactly what I am proposing we do.
One-third of renters in Massachusetts use electric heat, and landlords don’t have incentive to upgrade. There are enough low- and moderate-income properties in the state and in New England for every large property owner in Cambridge to be able to meet their reduction requirements by retrofitting those properties.
Let’s make it happen: sustainable, verifiable, permanent, impactful emission reductions. Let’s lead the way. Local offsets only in Beudo 2.0.
Patty Nolan is a Cambridge city councillor.
” our city is home to some of the richest universities and biotech companies in the world”
Great…let them pay for it.
“My proposal is to allow any Cambridge property owner who can’t or won’t reduce their own emissions to get credit for reducing emissions of any affordable-housing project or any property serving environmental justice residents anywhere in Massachusetts.”
What exactly does this sentence mean? How can you be ad-hoc suggesting amendments to an incredibly complicated proposal you hope to advance in two days?
@ PatrickWBarrett
She doesn’t know what that sentence means, because it is just word salad. It literally makes no sense. Ms. Nolan, why don’t you clarify that sentence so that it will be understandable to the citizens that you’re trying to reach.
Next, please explain this sentence: “Net Zero by 2035 has to be doable for Cambridge. If we can’t get there, the world will not meet its goal of 2050.” Did you really mean that? If this city can’t meet its goal, the world won’t meet its goal! Isn’t that a bit preposterous? The city is important, but it is not the center of the world.
It might be good for you to take a step back and really think about what is doable, and much more importantly, how it can be done. To state it another way, deal with reality, not pipe dreams that make little sense.
The 2035 deadline is based on science. And doable. Listen to the UN Secy General. And The amendment is straitforward: allow only local offsets, defined as any reduction in verified emissions from any low or moderate income property in Massachusetts. Read the article by Prof. Sterman .
We developed and administered hundreds of millions of doses of Covid vaccine that was deemed impossible. Let’s turn now to the urgent question of decarbonization.
^^^^ I’d expect such typos from a troll. But from a duty elected city official responding to a publicly posted letter in which they espouse to “know better”?? hmmmmmm
Sam, Councillor Nolan only talks a good game.
So many of her pronouncements are specious.
She still doesn’t want to address that “Net Zero by 2035 has to be doable for Cambridge. If we can’t get there, the world will not meet its goal of 2050.” Oh, woe is me. Cambridge holds the world in the palm of its hand.
I voted for her when she was on the school board.
I was not pleased that she wasn’t more forceful in trying to stem the failure of the CPS system.
Foolishly, however, I voted for her the first time she ran for the Council. I saw that she was unrealistic in her pronouncements and thoughts.
Haven’t voted for her since.
Not that it makes any difference. Until we get rid of the “at large” city council system, Ms. Nolan and the others will continue to get elected and effectively answer to no one.
Re typos. Unfortunately, it happens to all of us,
even Harvard graduates like Ms. Nolan who are on the Council.
..Projects take about a year, so emissions reductions are nearly immediate. Good retrofits can significantly extend building life, so benefits are durable. Plus, retrofits create jobs, reduce energy bills and improve health.”
Has she learned nothing from hundreds of unit owners who are low-income who can’t afford retrofitting – ripping out walls- getting displaced for more than a year, can’t pay the huge initial financial input for energy bills? being charged with fixing plaster walls, woodwork etc? any energy benefit from retrofitting will be years down the road. disturbing older buildings will activate lead paint and other embedded materials only to be replaced with modern synthetic materials in some cases. A year is not immediate. This councilor’s single-track style creates panic and anxiety fanned by Cambridge having to be a leader on absolutely everything. While I understand and agree with the climate issue at hand, I would rather have things done right and thoughtfully instead of these nebulous (and maybe ego-based) declarations. Why do we have to be better than Boston which has greater and more realistic safeguards for its compromised citizens? After a while, being relentless will have diminished returns out of emotional fatigue.
Well now I’m even more confused. So to have access to a “local offset” I’d have to build an affordable housing project anywhere in mass and that project would have to be net zero? There is currently about five different versions of BEUDO 2.0 out there which version is this amendment for? Under the Nolan, Siddiqui, Zondervan version how would a condo owner or small commercial have access to this plan? The analogy isn’t apt I’m afraid. Cambridge is 6.34 square miles, Massachusetts is 10,500 sq miles …the US makes up about 20% of global GHG … passing BEUDO 2.0 in any form will have zero effect on climate change. I’m kind of ok with that because I know where I live. However stating that our inability to get there by 2035 has any meaning whatsoever on anything other than a potential silver medal in the virtue signaling Olympics is a bit of an exaggeration.
Actual question to the BEUDO committee:
Eversource and state resources – Cambridge is already well ahead of the curve compared to other municipalities in Massachusetts. By pushing ahead for 2035 on our own, aren’t we essentially asking Eversource to put our needs over other communities first? Are we essentially hoarding energy resources at the detriment of our neighboring communities?
Pete,
Since Eversource isn’t going to answer and the Council doth spin I’ll take a swing based on actual testimony from Eversource. In short … Yes!!!! Cambridge will absolutely be draining resources from other states, cities, and towns. Eversource has about $1.5B in the kitty for annual capital improvements across the board that represents their financial commitments to 2 other states and the the Commonwealth. By pushing even farther ahead than everyone else Cambridge is going to tap roughly 30-40% of Eversource’s annual budget for the next 15 years. For a comparison the sub station in Kendall is the most expensive Eversource project for a substation coming in at $1.2B. Cambridge will need 4 more substations, 2000 transformers, and 17 light substations, this does not include the transmission lines and base building infrastructure we will have to add on top of that. I’ve never witnessed a more bungled bag of nonsense than BEUDO 2.0.
To Sam: you wrote :
” our city is home to some of the richest universities and biotech companies in the world”
Great…let them pay for it.
Under BEUDO2, universities and biotech companies will pay for decarbonization of their own buildings. That’s great.
To concerned43, you asked to explain this sentence: “Net Zero by 2035 has to be doable for Cambridge. If we can’t get there, the world will not meet its goal of 2050.”
I understand that to mean that Cambridge has more resources than much of the world, so a 2035 deadline should be doable for Cambridge; and if 2035 is not doable for Cambridge, it will be hard for the world to meet the 2050 deadline.
Pete, you write “..Projects take about a year, so emissions reductions are nearly immediate. Good retrofits can significantly extend building life, so benefits are durable. Plus, retrofits create jobs, reduce energy bills and improve health.”
Has she learned nothing from hundreds of unit owners who are low-income who can’t afford retrofitting…”
As I understand it, what Councilor Nolan is proposing is that retrofits for low-income owners will be paid for by large property owners who are not meeting deadlines in retrofitting their own large commercial buildings.
Also, a retrofit can include solar panels, which will generate “clean” electricity, where any electricity not used by the property goes into the grid and increases the total amount of electricity available.
Regarding those who assert there will be too little impact on emissions from Cambridge’s BEUDO, the hope is that if Cambridge passes something that is effective, after a little while, other cities will pass their own versions modeled on ours, so the impact will be increased beyond Cambridge.
just a comment: building roofs with skylights and vents and chimneys are not candidates for solar energy. And then pipes and wire have to carry energy somewhere which means opening walls and running systems at least 6 stories. This is also very expensive. The problem is that there are programs helping low income and wealthy can take care of themselves, but what about the middle class who are building rich but cash poor? they fall through the cracks.
Lee Farris
You wrote “I understand that to mean that Cambridge has more resources than much of the world, ”
I would suggest that you and Ms. Nolan read the Cambridge Financial Report (not the Annual Report) for FY 2022. Particularly read the footnotes. Yes, the footnotes are boring, but …
Yes, Cambridge has more resources than much of the world. However, if you read the ’22 report and the ’21 report (and prior reports), you’ll see that this is a city that is going to have severe fiscal problems during the next 10 years. So many on the City Council (probably most, if not all) just don’t want to face that fact.
One day soon, at one of the Council meetings, some administrators are going to break the news, and the Councillors will have an OMG moment. And it wouldn’t have to happen if the councillors wouldn’t bury their heads in the sand.
No one is going to model policy based on anything Cambridge does. Similar to inclusionary zoning, BEUDO 2.0 will stand out as a cautionary tale to other cities to avoid. The 2035 is likely going to be legally contested as preempting the state among other issues that are ripe for litigation.