TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I am a Mass resident and voter and I just wanted to say how excited I am to see a high-impact, regional approach to tackling carbon emissions in this plan. I think our state is in desperate need of infrastructure updates and the best way to do that—for people and the planet—is by developing the clean energy economy, reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector, and increasing sustainable public transportation options.

We need to take concerted and strong action to reduce the carbon impact of our transportation system, using a combination of pricing policies that discourage polluters and expansion and modernization of our public transportation system. In addition to being critical to the fight against climate change, TCI will yield significant benefits in the form of reduced air pollution, lower traffic, and healthier communities.

Lancaster County has some of the dirtiest air in the country and it is time to do something about it.

I support clean vehicles and fuels and a well-designed transportation and energy infrastructure. I support a strong TCI, including a cap on carbon emissions of at least 25% by 2032, an increase in the minimum investment in overburdened and underserved communities (>35%), and
request that investments be put towards active transportation like better sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and high quality public transit.

The climate and transportation initiative is essential for improving our environment. I make a point of using the RR to travel, to NYC to DC and wherever possible. We need to improve this infrastructure so others will do the same. Public transportation is a key ingredient in the fight against climate change. We need to focus our transportation money on making it more efficient and available so that we can reduce emissions and increase usage.

Please do not enact this policy. It’s nothing more than a tax to fund electric vehicles.

First of all,we need to approach the problem on all fronts,with every means,realizing that there will not be one perfect solution,but doing nothing is definitely not the solution.We also need a target.The target should be no investment in anything that makes the problem worse,but also think about how to take carbon out of the atmosphere most efficiently.One of the means is to price carbon,and to do that we can do some thought experiments.If the goal is to change people's behavior how much should that price be?Should it be $5 per ton,increasing $1 per year?Obviously not,since such a insignificant increase would change nothing.Why would you even bother?This would be greenwashing.If this is to be a regional approach I would advocate for increasing that by a factor of 10.Thus it would start at $50 per ton,and increase $10 per year.Would this put our region at a disadvantage?Not if the entire region,in all of its public unions,colleges,etc divested from fossil fuels,and pledged to be fossil fuel free in terms of cars and trucks by 2025.that is,no registration of new fossil fueled cars and trucks by 2025.Meanwhile,one would need to return this money in a progressive fashion-the lowest quintile to receive 175% of the dividend,next lowest 150%,middle 125%,next higher 35%,highest possibly15%.Not as a dividend,but as a green debit card,so that the money could only be spent on green options-e.g.,mass transit,bikes,electric cars,solar panels,mini-split heaters,etc.Meanwhile,all of the attorney generals should proceed with their cases against Exxon Mobil etc.Meanwhile,copy California making solar requisite on all new homes by 2020.Fund immediate rebates for lower income folks purchasing ev cars,again copying California.Make it a rule that by 2020 no municipality buys another school bus that is not electric.No town vehicle that is not either electric or something like a Workhorse truck.JFK in ? 1961 pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade,when our rockets were blowing up on the launchpad.He did not have the technology then.We have all the technology to do this now.We just choose to spend on money propping up the polluting fossil fuel industries that will ultimately go bankrupt and pay nothing to mitigate the disasters they are causing not in the future,but now.I am tired of both parties doing squat.Fix the problem.It's not landing on the moon.

If the option is $.17 increase in gasoline price or nothing,then I suppose I would take this,but it seems like greenwashing and totally inadequate.Norway,where they plan to ban sales of gasoline cars by 2025, might be adequate.We need much more in the way of real carrots and sticks to affect behavior.This is a twig.It is hardly rocket science to design some options which would not impact lower income folks and still move us to an all electric future.Charge rich folks who wish to buy stupid new gasmobiles costing greater than $35,000 for the privilege of polluting,and use that money to fund initiatives for electric school buses,transit,ev rebates for lower income drivers.Make nonresident parking in Boston free for ev cars,and more expensive for nonresident gasmobiles.Make the MV and Nantucket ferries free for ev cars,and more expensive for gasmobiles.

To Whom It May Concern:

I care very much about reducing pollution from transportation, which is our largest source of global warming emissions (regionally and nationally). As such, I own a small hybrid car, but I know that that is only the very smallest thing I can do, and is not systemic enough to make lasting change to the environment. That's where you come in.
I request that Virginia formally join the plan to reduce emissions.
It is of the utmost importance that the policy has a strong component of equity by prioritizing clean investments in areas overburdened by pollution and/or for those who don't have access.
I'm grateful for the bipartisan nature of this project, moving us forward while the federal government takes us backward.
Sincerely,
Russell Nadel