Boston Looks Towards It’s Own Green New Deal

Personally, I think they should implement it, because every experiment needs an experimental group

What to know about Michelle Wu’s ‘Green New Deal & Just Recovery’ for Boston

Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu recently laid out a vision to bring the sweeping call for a Green New Deal heralded by Washington lawmakers to Boston through a tailored, detailed-oriented slate of potential policies.

The city councilor-at-large put forth “Planning for a Boston Green New Deal & Just Recovery,” a 49-page report geared towards combatting the ramifications of climate change and its intersecting issues, ranging from affordable housing and economic opportunity to transportation and racial justice.

Wu’s report also highlights a need to eliminate the disparities exacerbated by the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, which have hit low-income residents and communities of color disproportionately harder than others — the same areas that will bear the brunt of climate-induced problems. The city must have a recovery plan that prioritizes equity, the document says.

I’m getting the idea that this isn’t really about the climate, but, left wing Modern Socialist priorities.

“This is most fundamentally about the fact that no particular policy program or office or individual can do this,” Wu said Wednesday, while introducing the initiative in a virtual council meeting. “It’s really about a mass public conversation and community mobilization and prioritization of what projects should happen, where, when, what the details are.”

It’s most fundementally about slapping massive restrictions on citizens and private entities, whether they want it or not. Some people are dumb enough/brainwashed enough to give up their freedom

In the report, the Roslindale councilor makes a renewed plea for officials to meet the urgency of the matter at hand. Boston could see as many as 40 days with temperatures above 90 degrees per year by 2030, and as many of those days as an entire summer by 2070. Fifty years from now, sea level rise could hit over three feet, and over seven feet by 2100.

None of those things will happen, but, this is presented to scare people.

“As Boston faces the most dire public health emergency in a generation, we’ve seen the scale of collective action possible when mobilizing for a crisis … Unlike the sudden shock of coronavirus, climate change and systemic inequities are slow, relentless crises,” the report reads.

Da, Comrade, collective.

Wu’s report says Boston must accelerate its decarbonization efforts, adding that eliminating carbon emissions is “the baseline for protecting against the most destructive impacts of climate change.”

With that, the proposal offers the city should reach total carbon neutrality — meaning sources have no net emissions because emissions are balanced with other efforts to remove carbon, like planting trees — by 2040, a decade earlier than the goal set by the city’s current Climate Plan, updated by Mayor Marty Walsh in October.

Furthermore, Wu says the city should have 100 percent sustainable electricity by 2035 and net-zero municipal buildings by 2024.

OK, here are some policy recommendations for them if they really want go carbon neutral

  • Get rid of Logan International Airport. No flights in or out
  • No sports teams are allowed to take fossil fueled trips to play the Bruins, Red Sox, or Celtics, or any of the college teams
  • All city vehicles must be replaced with non-fossil fueled ones
  • All city buildings must be kept no lower than 78 when it’s warm an 63 when it’s cold.
  • All city buildings can only use renewables.
  • All elected city officials are restricted from using any form of fossil fueled travel.

Just a few ideas, seem reasonable, right?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “Boston Looks Towards It’s Own Green New Deal”

  1. JohnTyler says:

    I think you meant when it’s cold, thermostat’s should be set no HIGHER than 63 F.
    A thermostat setting higher than 63 F, when it’s cold, would allow the indoor temperature to be set at, say, 72F.
    Can’t allow any deviation from the eco-fascist party line to be violated.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7735 access attempts in the last 7 days.