Industry groups aim to topple green building codes
"The use of fossil fuels, including natural gas and propane, is causing our climate crisis. Period. Full stop," writes one reader. Another writes, "Businesses need to make a profit, but not at the expense of the well-being of the rest of us." The fossil fuel industry is attempting to slow Massachusetts' response to climate change by regulating building construction. The use of fossil fuels, including natural gas and propane, is causing our climate crisis and endangers our health and health, polluting indoor and outdoor air and causing higher rates of disease and death. The industry argues that the costs of all-electric construction and operation are lower under new building codes, while the cost to heat homes with gas is expected to double in the next decade, while electricity prices are expected to remain stable. The proposed lawsuit against the Commonwealth’s transition off methane to heat businesses and businesses is evidence that clean energy is winning, argues cofounder of ZeroCarbonMA.
gepubliceerd : 4 weken geleden door in Environment
Burning fossil fuels endangers our health, polluting our indoor and outdoor air and causing higher rates of disease and death. Gas stoves emit harmful levels of nitrogen dioxide and benzene, producing poor air quality at levels surpassing safe outdoor limits.
In “Climate efforts could face a lawsuit: Industry groups may target Mass. fossil fuel codes” (Page A1, May 30), reporter Sabrina Shankman outlines the fossil fuel industry’s effort to slow Massachusetts’ and other states’ response to climate change through enacting policy on building construction. The use of fossil fuels, including natural gas and propane, is causing our climate crisis. Period. Full stop. Economists have warned: The more unstable the climate, the bigger the drag on the economy. Extreme heat, floods, and fires are not good for business.
Fossil fuel industry must not stand in the way of renewable efforts in Mass., other states
The costs of all-electric construction and operation are lower under our new building codes, according to multiple studies. Meanwhile, the cost to heat homes with gas is expected to double in the next decade, while electricity prices are forecast to remain stable.
We can construct all-electric buildings to the highest standards at cost parity to gas while working to ensure an equitable transition for all, including our most at-risk populations, who are disproportionately affected by our continued use of gas and oil.
The writer is cofounder of the group ZeroCarbonMA.
A confluence of climate and health concerns drives the push for clean energy
The proposed lawsuit against the Commonwealth’s transition off methane to heat homes and businesses is evidence that clean energy is winning. Recall the successful campaign to stop Big Tobacco. Cigarettes didn’t need to be completely banned everywhere for the campaign to succeed, as evidenced by the unacceptability of smoking in restaurants and other public places today. Just as industry scientists knew decades before the public of the dangers of smoking, they also knew gas in homes is toxic, whether leaked or burned. Recent studies show that leaked gas contains carcinogens, that gas leaks are commonplace in homes, and that burned gas emits higher asthma-inducing emissions than induction cooktops.
For those who dismiss the scientific findings that gas is unhealthy and wish to continue to combust methane, they can choose propane (polluting though it is), thereby relieving other ratepayers from purchasing expensive natural gas pipelines that serve declining numbers of gas customers. The propane-natural gas industry partnership is a short-term relationship of convenience; households that switch to propane instead of electrifying are effectively defecting from the natural gas system’s vast network of pipelines. The fossil fuel industry is lashing out at the success of science and advocacy, creating its version of a circular firing squad — more evidence that clean energy is winning.
The writer is a professor of earth and environment at Boston University.
Industry has had more than enough ramp-up time. Now we need to move fast.
Sabrina Shankman’s article got my dander up. There’s a colossal disconnect between the state’s requirement to slash emissions quickly and gas companies’ desire for “a longer runway” in which to do so. They’ve already had a decades-long runway: Gas companies understood the destructiveness of air pollution long before the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006. The United States has failed to reduce emissions at the pace necessary to ward off the worst effects.
In 2006, we might have afforded a gradual decline in pollution emissions. In 2024, because of years of inaction, we need a much steeper decline, and gas companies should partner with, not sue, the state to get us there. Property owners are reeling economically from extreme weather and skyrocketing home insurance rates, with insurers leaving some markets entirely. We’re not talking about aesthetic differences when we say, “Stop building new buildings with fossil fuels.” We’re talking about products that produce pollution that’s already hurting the American economy.
The last thing we need is the construction of more fossil-fueled buildings. Businesses need to make a profit, but not at the expense of the well-being of the rest of us. That’s why, contrary to the message of a former state energy commissioner, Massachusetts needs to “discriminate against one specific type of fuel.”