What can be done when federal and state governments fail to act with the urgency required to stop global warming? Over 150 Harvard and MIT students wrote and signed an open letter this summer with an answer: Demand action on the municipal level.
The Cambridge City Council is now considering an amendment to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance that governs energy consumption in the city’s buildings. Proposed by City Councilor Quinton Zondervan and endorsed by Sunrise Cambridge, the Cambridge Green New Deal amendment sets a 2035 net-zero emissions target and would charge a compliance fee to large property owners for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. Funds raised would go toward emissions reduction projects and green jobs programs for low-income Cambridge residents.
The open letter cites a recent University of Massachusetts Boston report that warns of serious climate harms to the Greater Boston region if preventive action is not taken. “We can expect more flooding, intense storms, and a rise in extreme heat events that will impact workers and low income residents the most,” the letter reads. “Because our federal and state governments have not taken action at a scale large enough to address this crisis, we must step up to protect the people of Cambridge.”
The letter criticizes Harvard and MIT representatives who have pushed for the inclusion of global carbon credits in the amendment as a means to reach net-zero emissions and avoid paying the $234 per ton compliance fee.
Harvard and MIT “would purchase credits for as low as 20 dollars a ton and claim reductions” in their carbon footprints, a problem for two reasons: “One, it would direct money to projects outside of Cambridge — a missed opportunity to invest in our community and spur local job growth. And two, despite their extensive marketing, the ethics and efficacy of many offsets are questionable at best.”
As outlined in the letter, global carbon offset schemes often cause more harm than good. In Kenya, for example, the indigenous Sengwer people have been forcefully evicted and displaced from their traditional lands to make way for a World Bank-funded forest carbon offset project. “Offsetting incentivises the commodification of nature and allows powerful corporations to take over the lands of vulnerable communities, risking human rights abuses,” explains Greenpeace, a global environmental activism network. “We cannot allow the richest nations and corporations to commodify nature, and buy off lands in poorer countries for offsets, so they can keep polluting the atmosphere.”
The current CGND proposal prohibits global credits, instead mandating direct, measurable emissions reductions in Cambridge. Students have called on Harvard, MIT, and other large businesses in the city to take full responsibility for their emissions and contribute to the city’s net-zero ambitions instead of supporting the problematic global offset industry.
Aside from direct emissions reductions, the plan features another path to compliance: what sponsors have called “local carbon offsets”, an opportunity for large property owners to discount some of their own emissions by investing in emissions reduction projects elsewhere in Cambridge. For example, Harvard could finance the replacement of air conditioners with heat pumps in a local office building. Both Harvard and the office building would pay less in compliance fees. The idea is to give property owners more flexibility as the city undergoes its renewable energy transition.
The push for a Green New Deal comes at a time when, as large corporations and institutions in Cambridge enjoy record profits, many across the city struggle to keep up with rent and living costs. The letter’s authors point out that, just recently, Harvard reported a record 33.6% endowment return — bringing its total value to $53.2 billion. Meanwhile, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Allston-Brighton, a neighborhood subject to intense gentrification as Harvard expands its campus, has increased by more than 38 percent in the past five years. Low-income Cambridge residents, particularly the city’s Black population, are being pushed out of their communities and are in desperate need of economic empowerment.
That is why proponents of the CGND emphasize its jobs component. From installing solar panels to replacing gas stoves, the emissions reduction initiatives included in the plan will create jobs for those who need them. It also includes a job retraining component for those who may be skilled in oil and gas-based industries and require support in transitioning to the green economy.
The time for denial and delay is over, and the importance of cities in the fight against climate change cannot be overlooked. The CGND would markedly accelerate the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions in Cambridge by raising the cost of pollution, sending a strong message to other municipalities and activist groups throughout Massachusetts and beyond. The passing of the Inflation Reduction Act this summer, which includes significant funds for electrification and renewable energy development, is an important step in the right direction. But it is up to the states and cities to realize the IRA’s policy benefits by making key economic and infrastructural investments.
That means, to match the IRA’s electric vehicle subsidies, cities must install more vehicle charging stations. To help residents make use of IRA heat pump benefits, cities should invest in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning workforce to assist in retrofitting and modernizing homes. The CGND seeks to reduce emissions to zero while raising the funds necessary to make those changes.
We must also remember that every congressional Republican voted against the IRA. Any shift in power could open the door to its reversal. Cities must move forward and solidify real climate actions in case the political tides shift and before the crisis worsens beyond repair.
The CGND is widely supported by Cambridge residents and climate experts. It is a model for other climate-forward cities that are frustrated and held back by polarized state and federal political systems. Despite attempts by Harvard and MIT to keep debate on the matter private, students and residents have raised their voices to demand the amendment’s adoption. With a vote imminent, all Cambridge residents should learn more about the plan and engage in the deliberation process. Community participation is crucial, especially on an issue as consequential as the Cambridge Green New Deal.
