TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

First, I'm very pleased that you are implementing this initiative and that Governor Baker is onboard with the idea.

1. Offsets -- the offsets should be very strictly defined and regulated. E.g. when I fly to Canada I can buy a CO2 offset for only about $6, but a researcher at St. Mary's University in Halifax claims this offset is a lie. It can't be guaranteed in the long term to really offset the emissions. The offsets clause sounds like a potentially huge loophole. I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this. Who judges what's a real offset?

2. Stability Mechanisms -- I like that there is a feedback mechanism either way -- if costs go too high or if costs are unexpectedly low. However, I think there should be language that allows for having more ambition before 2032 in terms of how much we're willing to pay for reductions and how high our reductions must be. 25% by 2032 may seem good in today's political climate in the U.S. But right now leaders in Denmark are being criticized for planning overall reductions of 60% by 2030 IIRC, criticized for that being not ambitious enough that is. In five years, if the TCI is working well, I'd hope political will would exist for more realistic targets. By more realistic I mean more realistic in terms of what is necessary to avert climate crisis, i.e. higher reduction targets. The news from the scientists both about climate CO2 sensitivity and about its dangerous effects seems only to be getting worse each passing year and never better.

3. Maybe I'm feeling spiteful, thinking particularly about Governor Sununu, but I'd like it, if possible, if we could be good to those in the TCI with us and bad to those not. E.g. if Rhode Island is in, let's make Providence a good commuting community for jobs in Boston and make Nashua less so.

4. Compliance period - I'd defer to those experienced with the electric power supplier cap and trade programs, but it strikes me that three years is a long time out for the first trading/compliance date. People are talking about 2030 as a critical target date for reducing our emissions significantly. 2025 would be the first date where we really see this initiative acting, if I'm understanding correctly. That leaves a very narrow window if the initiative doesn't immediately have much effect. People who are critical about cap and trade/invest programs tend to be critical about them having caps that are too high to bring about much effect. With electric power emission cap and trade we got a bit of a gift from natural gas supply, right? Transportation may not get such a gift, so this program might have to be more rigorous to do as well.

Regards and thanks again for this plan,
Mike Small

This "sin tax" ( see cigarettes ) is despicable. There is no scientific consensus that man is warming the planet via carbon emissions. In fact there is no definitive consensus planet is even warming. If there is such a threat from driving our cars then ban them! I have to use my car to make a living......now I'll have less to invest in my own 401k and may never be able to fully retire while my hard earned money is taken from me to preserve MBTA pensions and allow those employees to continue to retire early and in comfort!!

Climate Change is the biggest fraud of this generation. It has been Acid Rain, Ozone depletion, Global Warming, Global Cooling, etc. The US is not a major contributor of pollution in the world it is China and India. If people were serious about this then the world would be attacking the policies of these countries, so we now can agree in is not about the earth it is about money. The globalist want to shake down the richest countries to do what? What is the plan? If you go to the bank looking for a loan, you better have a good business plan to convince the people financing this venture. What is the tax payers ROI?? If the earth is going to cease to exist in 12 years, then why are we worried about the climate. There is nothing that can be done in 12 years that can effect the earth that had been around for millions of years. Anybody that supports this bill should have a mental health evaluation. OH..but is only .17 a gallon. That only at the pump. Don't forget everything that gas brings to our everyday life. The cost of food, clothing, ect will go up. All these companies are not going to absorb this increase. it is the consumer of these good. Don't let this fool anyone this is not a fee, it is a TAX and must be voted on by government representatives. This was already voted down on a binding vote in 2014. Mr. Baker, you were voted as Governor and not Emperor of Massachusetts

Absolutely no stop raining taxes to pay for your social programs for illegals don’t make Massachusetts like California or new york

Vote against this added tax start push back of Faker Baker Stop the bull shit people are paying enough

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.

Do not approve this TAX. The governor has no authority to impose a TAX on his own. This is a TAX, not a fee. You will pay at the ballet box if you don't stop this illegal, unconstitutional TAX.