Massachusetts is legally required to zero-out planet-warming emissions by mid-century, and to get there the state must do several critical things: Replace fossil fuel-powered vehicles and home heating systems with ones that run on electricity; develop more renewable resources like wind and solar; and use nature-based solutions to sequester and store as much carbon as possible.
So how is the state doing on all of this? On Friday, the Healey administration revealed in its first annual climate report card that the state is on track for its 2025 goals.
But, when it comes to meeting the 2030 and 2050 goals, a lot more work (and funding) is needed. And success is far from a sure thing.
“Overall, this report card is an honest assessment of where Massachusetts is and where it needs to go. And it shows that there is a ton of work that needs to happen in a very short period of time,” said Jeremy McDiarmid of Advanced Energy United, a clean energy trade association group.
McDiarmid added that he is “cautiously optimistic,” about the state’s trajectory, “but things need to change and big things need to happen over the next five years.”
The progress of decarbonizing — or dramatically slashing emissions — is not linear. And the state Clean Energy and Climate Plan anticipated a slow ramp up period, followed by a rapid acceleration as a critical mass of residents, businesses and industry adopt the necessary changes. By 2025 the state is supposed to cut emission 33% over 1990 levels. By 2030, emissions need to be down 50%, and by 2040, they need to be down 75%.
For this reason, tracking progress — and challenges to that progress — is increasingly critical.
But calculating statewide greenhouse gas emissions is tough work, and the state’s data lags by a few years — the most recent data comes from 2020 and shows a 31.4% reduction. So in the absence of 2023 data on emissions reductions, the state’s Climate Chief, Melissa Hoffer, ordered an annual report card assessing other metrics that can be used as proxies for progress.
In addition to assessing decarbonization progress in four areas — transportation, buildings, electricity and natural and working lands — the report card looks at the state’s efforts to promote climate resiliency and center environmental justice.
Fossil fuel-powered cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles account for 37% of greenhouse gases, making it the single largest source of emissions in the state. Replacing these vehicles with electric ones is the state’s main strategy for this sector, though the state climate plan also calls for getting more people to use public transportation, bikes or walk.
Massachusetts is on track to meet its 2025 transportation emission targets, the report card concludes. But while EV adoption in the state is growing, ramping up to the extent needed will take a lot of money and deliberate action. The state may need to increase rebate levels to make EVs more affordable for lower income residents and it must continue its work to make sure there are adequate (and functioning) public chargers where people need them — a challenge made more complicated by high interest rates, supply chain issues and the expensive electrical upgrades often needed for installation. Finally, the report card notes that the state’s goal of getting more people out of cars and onto public transit depends in large part on whether it can solve the many problems at the beleaguered MBTA.
Decarbonizing the building sector is one of the bigger climate challenges facing Massachusetts. Electrifying and retrofitting buildings is costly and difficult for homeowners and landlords, many of whom face little incentive to do this work. And many of the incentive-based programs that currently exist provide little assistance to renters.
The state has rolled out several grants and other programs designed to help jumpstart this work and make it affordable, and it’s looking into new standards that would require greater electrification, but there are no cheap or easy “one-size-fits-all” solutions.
The problems are complex: Slow siting and permitting processes, struggles to finance big renewable projects like offshore wind and a lack of capacity to integrate new projects on the grid, to name a few. Many of these issues are not unique to Massachusetts and reflect larger macroeconomic issues.
But the state is working hard to increase the supply of clean power. It recently launched its largest offshore wind procurement to date, and has set up working groups and offices to advise on how to speed up the siting and permitting process. The state is also looking toward the federal government — which is planning to invest billions in electrical infrastructure improvements in the country — and examining ways to reduce future peak demand.
Massachusetts is a relatively small state with big housing and development needs, so there’s a lot of competing desires for the land that exists.
Historically, low-income communities, racial minorities and other vulnerable populations have been the most impacted by our current carbon-intensive, polluting economy and climate change.
Gov. Healey has said that environmental justice is central to all of the environmental work the state does, and she’s committed to making sure that energy transition doesn’t leave the most vulnerable behind. But reversing trends of the past and restructuring society is not easy work. So how does the state measure progress in this area?
The report card is short on answers. It lays out a lot of initiatives and money the state has spent — creating the first Undersecretary of Environmental Justice and Equity and allocating millions of dollars to decarbonization efforts in low-income communities, for example. But it’s hard to assess if that work has been successful or is enough.
As this past summer’s extreme weather has demonstrated, climate change is already affecting the state. Just focusing on decarbonization does not ensure that people and infrastructure are prepared and protected from what’s coming — extreme heat, sea-level rise and inland flooding.
But like the report card section about environmental justice, the assessment of the state’s efforts to promote climate resiliency lacks trackable metrics. There are plenty of details about the federal money the state has secured for hazard mitigation planning, and the new initiatives it’s set up, such as the recent announcement to create a regional coastal resilience plan, but no analysis of whether it’s enough.