Read on Twitter
@TweetWorcester released its Green Worcester Plan in October: an agenda to address many of Worcester’s environmental and climate problems. Sunrise Worcester has read and reviewed the plan. We have many thoughts about the plan and would like to share them. https://greenworcester.konveio.com/green-worcester-plan
The Plan is 148 pages, contains 12 chapters ranging from energy, transportation, food, water, green space and more. There are goals, past achievements, educational material, and action plans accompanying each chapter.
There are some good goals in the plan. They include things like net-zero buildings, zero waste, expanding non-fossil transport., 100% renewable energy citywide, an urban forestry plan, the opportunity for jobs, a Green Worcester Plan advisory committee, among other things.
We believe some of the goals are admirable and ambitious. There is consideration for environmental justice, equity, and other social elements as well that are deeply entwined with the climate and ecological crises.
However, the devil is in the details. While many of the goals sound good on paper, they lack the science, severity, and speed to tackle the immense threat of climate change and ecological collapse. Let us explain.
Chapter 3: 100% Clean & Affordable Energy There is no clear end-date to fossil fuels. The plan says use 100% renewable energy by 2045 for residences, businesses, heating and transportation (44). Is this the same thing as not using fossil fuels? That remains unclear. Just say it.
The plan does not specify how we will get to 100% renewable energy. A lot of the language around renewables is “choice” “encouragement” “reduce our dependence.”(45). “Choice” is insufficient at this point. Governments need to act fast. Not wait for markets.
Getting to 100% renewable energy will not be easy b/c of for-profit utilities like National Grid obstructing the transition. The plan acknowledges that businesses have a hard time working with National Grid getting renewable energy already (48).
It’s hard because National Grid doesn’t care! They’re looking to profit, not save lives. The city should think about owning the utilities in the city so we don’t have to have a fight with National Grid every time we wanna do the right thing and they don’t. https://www.energyandpolicy.org/national-grid-lobbied-against-massachusetts-bills-to-expand-renewable-energy/
There also is confusion between net-zero emissions and real-zero emissions (50). Where and how much is the city sequestering CO2 to become net-zero? How will we have zero emissions if the city doesn’t end fossil fuel use? https://governmentbusiness.co.uk/features/setting-climate-targets-when-net-zero-really-net-zero
There is also no consideration beyond the year 2050 even though sustainability is a principle of the plan. We have to begin going carbon-negative after 2050. There’s nothing mentioned about this or care for future generations beyond 2050. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/#cid_6333
Also, there’s little mention about how to make energy affordable to low-income folks across the city. The lack of attention on justice and equity in the energy transition needs much more focus and with specifics.
We could go on about this section. The plan hardly references any climate science throughout the plan, and especially not from the IPCC. WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY. Reference the science, tell the truth. Get us off fossil fuels ASAP. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Chapter 4. Green and Blue Space has some good specifics. But this chapter, like many, does not take into account the issue of affordable housing and gentrification as we “green” the city.
Rent and housing will be more expensive with more increased green space. We want more green and blue space, but we also don’t want low-income and POC communities displaced because of gentrification (60). There’s no mention of this.
Also, the city is already not living up to its promise of expanding Green and Blue space and are trying to replace green space like Duffey Park as we speak. https://www.telegram.com/story/news/politics/county/2020/10/20/public-hearings-set-on-future-of-duffy-field-in-worcester/42863291/
In the Net-zero buildings chapter, the goal is there, but lacks what it takes to achieve net-zero. There’s hardly any mention of heat-pumps which are an extremely important technology for achieving net-zero buildings (66). https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/heat-pumps-could-shrink-the-carbon-footprint-of-buildings
Also, if the city wants net-zero buildings, why are building projects like Doherty High or Polar Park not being held to this standard? Already off to a bad start. https://worcesterschools.org/event/doherty-school-building-public-sustainability-workshop-virtual/
Net-zero buildings are necessary, but the criteria of having more LEED Gold is not net-zero (68). If the city wants net-zero buildings they could do LEED Zero or something equivalent. The promises and the actions don’t match up here. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/leed-must-be-updated-address-climate-change
Chapter 6 Sustainable Transportation: There is a lot of mention of electric vehicles. EV’s are a part of the solution, but cities need to be designed around bikes, walkers, and public transport. Not cars. https://www.wired.com/story/cities-without-cars-san-francisco-jeff-tumlin/
Commuters from outside of Worcester are a huge part of our GHG’s (81). GHG’s from commuting needs to take into account where our workers are coming from. There’s hardly any mention of this.
The city should develop a goal in partnership with businesses and institutions to hire locally. https://www.fastcompany.com/3062989/50-reasons-why-everyone-should-want-more-walkable-streets
The City looks at the plan through a health lense. What could be healthier than building streets that promote exercise, reduce air pollution, increase air and water quality, and mitigate greenhouse gases? https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/vehicles-air-pollution-human-health
The plan also doesn’t consider emissions from Worcester Regional Airport (76). Seems like something to consider since air travel is the most carbon intensive thing individuals typically do. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year
Chapter 7, One Water completely ignores the contaminants currently in Worcester’s water. https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=MA2348000
Ch.8 Zero Waste is a good goal, but how we’ll get there is completely lacking. How do you plan on expanding the city's economy with an increasing population and expect zero-waste? What about the huge Worcester seltzer corporation whose business depends on plastic waste?
The plan acknowledges that only ⅓ of recycles get recycled. So, why is there so much emphasis on recycling (105)? https://sentientmedia.org/the-worlds-recycling-system-is-failing/
There’s also no mention of other harmful waste products like Styrofoam or cigarettes. Mayor Petty could very easily do something about this. https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2020/09/08/attleboro-environmental-bill
That’s already a lot and we didn’t even talk about so much. The plan does not meet the moment in its speed, severity, or science as it regards the climate and ecological collapse. We expect better from a city who “wants to be the greenest mid-size city in America.”
This unfortunately won't do to ensure a habitable world under 1.5C. End. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53342806?fbclid=IwAR1FWTKjKTk40WSJu6tudUcnAvi-M2HynbGspm_56V4bIhP5u6H3VKuxIac
