Opponents To Rally Against Hanscom Private Jets; Forest Bills Advance on Beacon Hill; South Australia Rooftop Solar
Stories Near and Far of Interest to the Region
Opponents To Rally Against Private Jet Expansion at Hanscom Field
(BOSTON) – Opponents of a proposed private jet expansion and development at Hanscom Field in Bedford will rally at the Massachusetts State House in Boston tomorrow, Monday, October 2nd, from 11am to 1 pm, where they will present a petition with more than ten thousand signatures opposing the project to Governor Maura Healey.
(The proposed private jet development outlined in red, adjacent to public lands of local, state and national importance; credit — Stop Private Jet Expansion, https://www.stopprivatejetexpansion.org/proposal-intro.)
The proposal, by Runway Realty Ventures, LLC, and North Airfield Ventures, LLC, to massively expand Hanscom’s private jet capacity by building 27 new private jet hangars on approximately 49 acres of land stands counter to the requirements of the Commonwealth’s climate plan, and the interests of local communities, while threatening existing historical and conservation lands — all so that a numerically tiny number of the very wealthiest people in our society can continue to spew carbon emissions at vast higher rates than their fellow citizens, and for no compelling reason whatsoever.
According to an overview published by opponents, the proposed expansion will increase private jet capacity at Hanscom three-fold, while clear-cutting mature trees — which opponents note are existing carbon sinks — and would cover more than 36 acres in impermeable paving. It would be the largest single development project in the history of Hanscom Field, and would impact 35 environmental justice populations inside a five-mile radius.
Private jets are among the worst of all forms of transportation in terms of carbon emissions; carbon dioxide is a key greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmospheres, oceans, and on its surface. It is also a 21st century example of an extremely small, aristocratic social stratum, and their mercenary agents, attempting to put their desire for luxury over the needs not only of their fellow humans and citizens, but over the requirements of the physical ecosystems themselves which undergird the economic order at the top of which they sit (or, as it were, fly).
“The proposed development demonstrates inexcusable disregard for our current Climate Crisis,” write opponents. “The 27 proposed new hangars promote private luxury and business jet use. With typically 4-5 passengers per flight, private jets are considered to be the most egregious form of travel per capita for their carbon footprint.”1
(The proposed private jet expansion at Hanscom Field; credit — Stop Private Jet Expansion, https://www.stopprivatejetexpansion.org/.)
According to opponents, a standard passenger automobile produces about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year; add more than one passenger to that automobile, and the amount of CO2 per person per year will be less than 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. Private jets, on the other hand, produce approximately 7,500 tons of CO2 per person per year.
“Incredibly and confounding all common sense, the proponent [of the private jet expansion] argues without evidence that the resulting expected expansion of air traffic will reduce environmental impact and help achieve a net zero goal. A single private jet flight to Europe generates more greenhouse gas emissions than a rural family in India does in an entire lifetime,” the opponents write on their website. (https://www.stopprivatejetexpansion.org/proposal-intro)
In addition, the private jet expansion, undertaken by a 21st century financial aristocracy, would encroach upon the heritage of the entire nation, with the Minute Man National Historical Park (administered by the U.S. National Park Service), Walden Pond Reservation (run by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation), and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Preserve (under the aegis of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) all located nearby.2
Elected officials have been stalwart in their opposition.
“In February, I organized the first group pushback against the agency and its interest in the project. I have a different vision for Massport and, by extension, for state government. I want to see Massachusetts lead the country in greening aviation. As a practical matter, this starts by stopping the hangars,” said Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington).
“It’s very important that people voice their opposition to the proposed 27 new private jet hangars AND continuation of the current level of private jet use in the U.S. locally, to the Governor and State legislators, and to our terrific Congressional delegation,” said Rep. Carmine Gentile (D-Sudbury).
“It is essential that we view all actions through a climate lens if we are to be successful in arresting the increase in global temperatures,” he said.
Prominent environmentalists have likewise been adamant that the proposal is ill-considered.
“It’s the most ludicrous idea I’ve ever heard. They ought to rename it Carbon Dioxide Field. Find a way to knock it down fast,” said Bill McKibben, an environmental advocate and scholar at Middlebury College in Vermont, as reported by The Concord Bridge.
The opponents note that Hanscom Field, though it abuts Hanscom Air Force Base, is a separate entity from the latter, and is under the jurisdiction of Massport. In addition, they note that Massport pays no property taxes in its four host Towns of Bedford, Lexington, Concord, and Lincoln.
More information on Monday’s rally can be found here:
https://www.stopprivatejetexpansion.org/
Forest Bills Advance on Beacon Hill; Will Be Heard In Committee On Oct. 11th
(BOSTON) — A number of environmental bills have advanced on Beacon Hill, including measures relating to municipal solar zoning, and to the question of how to account for carbon sequestered in wild, working, and protected lands across Massachusetts.
Four bills in particular relating to issues this publication has covered will be heard at an October 11th hearing of the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources: Senate Bill 1319/House Bill No. 2082, An Act Regarding Municipal Zoning Powers, sponsored by Sen. Jake Oliveira (D-Ludlow) and by Rep. Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham); H. 895, An Act to Require Separate Carbon Accounting for Working Lands and Natural Lands and to Eliminate from Massachusetts Net-Zero Carbon Emissions Goal Any Carbon Offsets Sold to Entities Outside of the Commonwealth, sponsored by Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (D-Northampton); S. 463/H. 807, An Act preserving public trust rights in land affected by ocean erosion, sponsored by Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Cape and Islands) and Rep. Sean Garballey (D-Arlington); and H. 812, An Act authorizing mushroom picking for personal use on certain state park lands, brought by Rep. Carmine Gentile (D-Sudbury), and joined in his petition by Rep. Angelo D’Emilia (R-Bridgewater).
(The State House on Beacon Hill in Boston; By NewtonCourt - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62338528)
S. 1319/ H. 2082, the measure relating to municipal zoning of solar energy installations, would amend Section 3 of Chapter 40A in the General Laws by excising the following language:
"No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare."
According to a fact sheet in support of the bill put out by environmental advocacy groups Save the Pine Barrens/Community Land & Water Coalition, RESTORE The North Woods, and Save Massachusetts Forests, the bill “helps protect land, forests, water, wetlands and communities” by “allow[ing] municipalities to regulate solar siting the same as for all other land uses (residential, commercial and industrial).”
Section 3 of Chapter 40A was added in 1985, according to the fact sheet, and advocates argue that “the 1985 solar law was intended to make it easier to install small scale systems that generate electricity for use on site — not weaken zoning for the large industrial ground mounted solar systems that were unknown in 1985.”
They note that “large industrial solar projects have clear-cut over 6,000 acres of forest so far, with about 140,000 more acres of forest and open space planned,” and that “State siting guidelines and federal environmental laws do not adequately protect drinking water, rivers, wetlands and forests — we need municipal zoning[,] too.”
Presently, the 1985 solar law allows solar energy developers and landowners to game the system, by using the threat of lawsuits to prevent municipalities from imposing reasonable conditions on the projects they propose, say advocates. Indeed, they argue that “the 1985 law imposes a crushing burden on local zoning boards and communities, costing time and money — leaving our land, water and forests less protected.”
The Community Land and Water Coalition, headquartered in Plymouth, wrote on its website (https://communitylandandwater.org/solar-energy/) that proper siting of renewable energy infrastructure was essential, and that this should not include clear-cutting of existing forests.
“Although solar energy is a necessary component of our renewable energy future, improperly sited ground-mounted solar arrays are causing irreparable environmental impacts in our area. Southeastern Massachusetts is being targeted by solar developers because of our vast tracts of undeveloped land, and we have lost hundreds of acres of forests, wetlands, and open spaces to solar development in the last ten years, a trend that should be immediately reversed in order to achieve our climate goals,” the group wrote.
Ironically, state programs designed to hasten a clean energy transition paradoxically encourage environmental destruction, says the CLWC.
“Financial subsidies paid under the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) Program are incentivising large landowners to convert forests and open space to solar arrays. Although there are ‘subtractors’ in the incentive rate table for building solar arrays in previously undeveloped land, it is still more economically profitable to build subsidized arrays in pristine woods and open space than it is to put solar arrays on a developed site or on a previously contaminated site. Wareham alone has lost approximately 400 acres of forest to ground-mounted solar arrays, at a time when we need to conserve our forests to combat climate change,” they wrote.
The region’s Native history is likewise threatened by the current system of siting solar energy installations, according to the CLWC:
“Improperly sited solar arrays also destroy Indigenous heritage. Since 2016, Borrego Solar desecrated the historic King Philip’s Cave site in Freetown MA and is responsible for other sites. The BlueWave solar project in Northfield MA will desecrate an area with 5 known Indigenous sites,” said the Community Land and Water Coalition.
H. 895, sponsored by Rep. Sabadosa, would amend Section 5 (Part xiii) of Chapter 21N of the General Laws, The Climate Protection and Green Economy Act, by adding the following language: “(xiii) (D) contain benchmarks, baseline measurements, measures of carbon flux, roadmap goals and plans for natural and working lands reported separately for each of the following: 1) agricultural lands, 2) forest lands managed for producing wood products, 3) forest lands in parks or reserves and not available for producing wood products, and 4) any other natural or working lands as deemed appropriate by the Secretary….”
The bill would also add a second subsection, “(xiii) (E) provide a full carbon accounting of all lands in the commonwealth with carbon offset contracts in effect; any lands subject to such offsets that serve the purpose of offsetting carbon emissions outside of Massachusetts shall not be counted toward meeting roadmap goals.”
According to a fact sheet appearing on the website (www.savemassforests.com), the bill is premised on the necessity of providing an accurate count of the state’s carbon budget.
“In recognition of the critical importance of our Natural and Working Lands in meeting our goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA, Chapter 21N), as recently amended[,] now requires measurement and reporting of carbon flows for all natural and working lands in Massachusetts. This legislation lumps all such lands together into a single category, and thereby obscures fundamental differences among lands managed for different purposes. H.895 would further amend GWSA to provide more meaningful and useful information regarding carbon flows to and from these lands,” the fact sheet states.
“Sound policy requires a sound foundation in fact. H.895 helps to build this foundation by providing critical information on the carbon flows to and from our Natural and Working Lands while preventing unfair withdrawals from our common carbon bank,” it continued.
The bills come partly in response to problems that have arisen from a set of perverse incentives that, in seeking to hasten the necessary transition to a cleaner energy regime, paradoxically encourage environmentally destructive processes, such as clear-cutting globally rare forests, and mining the valuable sand and gravel which lies beneath them, in order to create solar energy installations. This process — of destroying carbon sinks in order to build solar energy installations — is, in climate terms, essentially “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
It is, moreover, an instance where the flaws of the current approach to the climate and ecological crisis — essentially, to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, hydroelectric, and increasingly, nuclear, energy, while continuing with the same destructive and profligate extractivist economic model which has produced the climate and larger ecological crisis — are made manifest. If renewable energy is predicated upon ecological destruction, it is truly entering that realm of contradiction in which we find ourselves destroying villages in order to save them.
Sen. Cyr and Rep. Garballey’s bill, S. 463/H. 807, An Act preserving public trust rights in land affected by ocean erosion, relates to the confluence of two types of commons: the shore of the sea and Great Ponds. The bill reads:
“Where sea level rise, storms, or other natural processes have caused the landward or lateral movement of a barrier beach into an area which was previously occupied by the bottom of any Great Pond, the portion of the barrier beach relocated into the former bottom of the Great Pond shall be and remain in public ownership.”
The text of the bill is clear, in the context of longstanding concerns on Martha’s Vineyard and beyond concerning private ownership of portions of barrier beaches with Great Ponds situated behind them, such as Tisbury Great Pond, Oyster Pond, and Edgartown Great Pond. Under Massachusetts law and the common law of New England since the 17th century, Great Ponds, meaning ponds of greater than ten acres, are common to all for purposes of fishing, fowling, and navigation (we covered Great Ponds in detail here.)
“It being the intent of the foregoing sentence that the application thereof to any property not be in violation of either Article 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the foregoing sentence shall not convert ownership of any private property to public ownership, and, to the extent that applying the foregoing sentence to any private property would have such an effect, the foregoing sentence shall not apply to such private property,” the bill states.
H. 812, presented by Rep. Gentile (who was joined in his petition by Rep. D’Emilia), would amend Chapter 132A of the General Laws by inserting a new section (2E), which would read, in part:
“Any person may take mushrooms for a personal and non-commercial use from state parks, forest recreation areas, and reservations under the control of the department of conservation and recreation. Notwithstanding, the commissioner, may limit any area of department controlled lands where persons shall not take mushrooms, and may make rules and regulations for the taking of mushrooms on such lands, pursuant to the procedures under section 7.”
In my view, this measure descends in a clear line from the 1217 Carta de Foresta, or Charter of the Forest, particularly Article 9, which reads:
“Every free man shall agist his wood in the forest as he wishes [i.e., graze livestock in the forest] and have his pannage [feed for livestock, typically acorns for pigs]. We grant also that every free man can conduct his pigs through our demesne wood freely and without impediment to agist them in his own woods or anywhere else he wishes. And if the pigs of any free man shall spend one night in our forest he shall not on that account be so prosecuted that he loses anything of his own.”3
In other words, rights of using the common lands of common law jurisdictions for food resources extends back to the era of Magna Carta (as we noted elsewhere, the 1217 Carta de Foresta made actual many of the promises that were implicit in the 1215 Magna Carta.)
These bills, along with a number of related measures, will be heard by the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources at 1 pm on October 11th, 2023, both virtually and in person. Information, including a link the register if you wish to testify, can be found here:
https://malegislature.gov/Events/Hearings/Detail/4730
South Australia Achieves Over 100% of Energy Needs From Rooftop Solar
(Adelaide, South Australia) — South Australia, one of the states and territories, that make up the Commonwealth of Australia, recently achieved 101% of its energy requirements via rooftop solar.
I first saw this piece of news reported on by my former boss and colleague at the University of Michigan, Professor of History Juan Cole, in his blog Informed Comment. Prof. Cole himself cites an article by Giles Parkinson on the subject in the Australian renewable energy publication Renew Economy.