I am asked by the Union of Concerned Scientists to urge my State Senator to support S.2092, a measure to prepare/protect/ Massachusetts for/from global warming.
“The Massachusetts Senate will soon vote on a bill requiring Governor Charlie Baker and future administrations to develop comprehensive plans to guide the Bay State as it prepares for more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and other consequences of global warming.
“This bill will also establish new goals that will help to put Massachusetts back on track towards achieving its commitment to reduce global warming pollution 25 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.”
I know nothing about what it would do or how. It’s related to an earlier bill the UCS supported, S.2540 (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/reduce-emissions/ma-gw-solutions-act.html):
“The Act sets up a broad framework for reducing heat-trapping emissions to levels that scientists believe give us a decent chance of avoiding the worst effects of global warming. It sets mandatory, science-based targets for global warming pollution reductions from all sectors of the economy of 10 to 25 percent below today’s levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. It also requires the Patrick administration to formulate and implement a plan to meet these targets—with input from the public and other state agencies.”
Seem similar. Is 2092 a new incarnation of 2540?
My apologies if I have started a redundant thread.
Response from Will B.
Geoff, thank you raising this issue. Yesterday, the Senate approved this bill. I was pleased to support it, as, in fact, I was the lead sponsor of a bill which addressed one of the issues packaged in this broader bill — the definition of interim targets for greenhouse gas reduction between 2020 and 2050.
I have also been very focused on adaptation issues relevant to my district, particularly sea level rise and increased precipitation which will increase risks of flooding in some regions of my district. I am hoping to be able to report soon on the results of analysis done pursuant to funding I secured initially for Fiscal 2015. That work has continued into the current fiscal year.
The bill we passed yesterday includes a very broad state-wide planning framework. I am less convinced about that planning framework. I agree strongly that we need a planning framework in which to consider necessary infrastructure investments to control flooding, but I am not sure of the best structure for that. The issue will get continued discussion as the bill moves to the House.