TCI Regional Policy Design Stakeholder Submissions

I am writing to support strong carbon reducing measures in support of CTI goals. I believe there is a climate crisis. Within a few decades the earth will be a miserable place to live if we do not reduce greenhouse gas pollution and global warming. We are already experiencing more cloudy weather, stronger storms, and greater swings in temperature because of climate change.

In much of the northeastern United States transportation carbon emissions are the greatest source of greenhouse gasses. I urge you to take strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some actions I suggest are: higher taxes on transportation fuels, especially gasoline and diesel, with the proceeds going to reduce emissions; Larger tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles; and property tax relief for anyone purchasing electric vehicles.

I appreciate the actions that have been taken in the past. These are good steps, but they do not go far enough to address the looming crisis. We should fight for the most aggressive greenhouse emissions cap possible. And this should include a cap that is significantly lower in 2030 than in 2022 or 2025, and much lower still in 2040 and should be at zero before 2050. There is little reason we could not achieve 90% reductions from year 2000 levels by 2040. Connecticut should formally sign on to the TCI.

Thank you for considering my comments. Please work to preserve our beautiful planet.

Nothing but Political Manipulation, to Brake the country's financial position, impoverish all citizens and control all . Usurping Power is the ONLY thing this is ALL about, to put all of U.S. under the control of the Fkn UN

This is such an important initiate! For the sake of our future generations, the condition of the air we breathe; the water we drink; and the earth in which we raise our crops policies such as TCI are imperative.

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

If this is the best we can do for now,I am in favor of it.Doing nothing is not an option. However,I have other suggestions. You can tax rich people who make stupid decisions.How would this work?First of all you have to define your goals.One goal is for the state and cities to never buy a gasoline car or truck or bus again. The next goal should be that in 2026 Mass. will not register a new car that is not electric How to accomplish this?Every day I see other cars on the turnpike which may cost at least as much as mine,if not more.If someone is dumb enough to want to buy an expensive new car that uses gasoline let them pay for the privilege of polluting and contributing unnecessarily to the problem. Let us impose a Pollution Added Tax for every new car sold by July 2020 of $1000 for new gasoline cars selling between 35-45k.If someone wants to buy a cheaper new car for less,for now no tax.Increase the tax for more expensive cars,and increase the tax yearly by $1000. This way no one can complain that we are taxing the lower income folks.Copy California in terms of increased rebates for purchases of ev cars for lower income folks.At the moment one can buy a Nissan Leaf for $15,000 or a Chevy Bolt for $17000. Devise mechanisms for lower income folks to buy used ev cars,and still get a state rebate. This is hardly rocket science. Use the taxes collected first to fund an electric school bus fund.Then an electric garbage truck fund.And a fund for increased rebates for lower income folks.

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