Carbon Pricing: Keeping MA a Leader on Climate Action

The following was testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts on June 20, 2017.

Chairman Barrett, Chairman Golden, and members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, I, Jonathan Cohn, Co-Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, am pleased to offer this testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a multi-issue, grassroots, member-based advocacy organization committed to an agenda of shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good governance and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.  

Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record IN SUPPORT of bills H.1726 and S.1821.

As a coastal state, Massachusetts is especially vulnerable to climate change. To put it bluntly, we cannot achieve shared prosperity under water.Nine years ago, the Global Warming Solutions Act was signed into law, committing the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below the 1990 baseline in 2020 and by at least 80% in 2050. However, as advocates have often pointed out, and the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last year, Massachusetts is not on track to meet its own goals.

After President Trump moved to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, elected officials from both parties in Massachusetts condemned this misguided move and said that Massachusetts would continue to push forward with climate mitigation. But we need more than just rhetoric. We need concrete policies that enable us to realize and build upon our current commitments.

The carbon pricing bills under consideration—H. 1726 and S. 1821—are such policies. A 2014 study prepared for the Department of  Energy Resources found putting a price on carbon in a scheme akin to that of these bills “would reduce state GHG emissions to a larger degree than most other Massachusetts programs that currently operate for this purpose.” Indeed, it could reduce economy-wide emissions by 5-10%, with much of this reduction coming from the transportation sector, which is the largest source of emissions in Massachusetts.

The environmental benefits of such a pricing scheme are not limited to climate mitigation. The reduction in air pollution resulting from the price incentive could save over 300 lives over the next twenty years.

We are pleased that both H.1726 and S.1821 take important steps to counteract any potential regressive economic effects of a carbon pricing scheme, making sure that low-income residents are not bearing the burden of climate mitigation. And we specifically commend H.1726 for setting aside 20% of collected funds for a new Green Infrastructure Fund that would facilitate the decarbonization of the transportation sector and increase investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience. Changing price incentives is just the first step in the critical task of mitigating climate change.

The situation at the federal level for climate policy ambitious enough to meet the challenges before us is grim. It has thus become increasingly important for states like Massachusetts to redouble their commitments. We must do so to avoid regress, and we must do so to provide models for national policies as our state so often has.

Beacon Hill Rewrites Question 4 — For Better or For Worse?

Over the past week, a group of largely affluent, old white men gathered behind closed doors to craft a bill that they plan to ram through with as little debate as possible.

No, I’m not talking about Senate Republicans in DC. I’m talking about Democrats here in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

Last year, Progressive Massachusetts–like more than 53% of Massachusetts voters–supported Question 4, the ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. Massachusetts voters understood that the drug war has proven costly, ineffective, and socially destructive.

Marijuana legalization went to the ballot because the Legislature punted on the vital questions of how and whether to do it.

Now that Question 4 passed, the Legislature plans to amend it. And they will start voting TODAY.

They can choose to make the law better, or they can choose to make it worse.

Unfortunately, the House plans to make it worse.

How so? The House’s proposed bill…

  • More than doubles the tax on marijuana, creating the conditions for a black market to flourish;
  • Eliminates the ability of voters to have a direct say over local marijuana policy; and
  • Leaves out key measures to advance racial and social justice.

This bill would take us backwards. Please urge your Representative to vote NO.*

The Senate’s proposed bill, led by Senator Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), offers a better way forward.** In contrast to the House bill, it…

  • Maintains the tax level of Question 4 and the local referendum process;
  • Contains language to promote economic opportunities in communities hurt by the drug war;
  • Promotes energy and water efficiency in the industry;
  • Directs the Department of Public Health to create a science-based public awareness campaign to reduce youth usage and promote responsible usage;
  • Directs the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to create a campaign to inform people eligible to have their criminal records sealed; and
  • Seeks to create a more level industry playing field by promoting the inclusion of small farmers, small businesses, and cooperatives.

The Senate bill improves upon Question 4, while remaining faithful in spirit. Please urge your Senator to vote YES.

Don’t know who your legislators are? Look them up here, and then put their numbers in your phone for next time!

*118 amendments to the bill have been filed. Many of them would make the bill better, including Rep. Aaron Vega’s amendments #1 (expungement of marijuana arrest records), #5 (protection of parents of minor children), and #6 (appropriate tax rate); and Rep. Russell Holmes’s #38 (Minority and Women Owned Businesses Inclusion) and #41 (Promote and Encourage Full Participation in Disproportionately Harmed Communities); among others.

**111 amendments to the bill have been filed, including progressive ones such as Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz’s #20 (Sealing Records for Previous Marijuana Convictions), Sen. Joseph Boncore’s #76 (Expungement of Class D Possession), and Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry’s #104 (Intentional Inclusion in the Cannabis Industry), among others.