Walsh: Boston will only work harder on climate issues

Mayor Walsh says Boston will not back down from work to make the city "carbon neutral" by 2050 and take other steps to protect the city from the effects of climate change no matter what the White House does.

"As a coastal city we know what's at stake," Walsh said at a noon press conference. Walsh said Bostonians will be among the first to be affected by the problems of climate change - rising seas, catastrophic storms and heat waves.

"Boston is and is a worldwide leader in climate action," he added. "We will not let this be undone by foolish political reasons."

His chief environmental officer, Austin Blackmon, said he broke away from a conference call with counterparts at other US cities on what to do about the Paris Agreement, to attend the press conference.



Free tagging: 



-- protect the city from the effects of climate change --

I have been around here for less than half a century and it has been the same climate. What is the climate supposed to be?

Climate change

By on

Have you noticed the King tides?
If you are a gardener or a farmer, you would notice the variability in the seasons.
Have you noticed the hotter than normal temperatures for the last three years?
Temperature changes affect wildlife patterns. Have you noticed Canadian geese that stay year round? Ticks and mosquitoes that are spreading north?
There are many examples in nature.

We thought god would take care of it won't get it done

As a coastal city why are we doing private development on the waterfront?

This map shows what 5ft of sea level rise does to The Seaport, etc, and what 7.5 feet of sea level rise looks like in the Back Bay,

Sea level rise is already an issue in Miami, up the coast and in the Everglades. Gulf coast too. Families have much of their wealth tied up in their homes so they can't just walk away, they need solutions.

One foot of sea level rise begins to affect Logan. 7 feet and it's under water.


As rising sea levels pose a growing threat to Boston’s future, city officials are exploring the feasibility of building a vast sea barrier from Hull to Deer Island, forming a protective arc around Boston Harbor.


What he won't stop building

By on

Parking spaces and traffic sewers.

Waiting for him to challenge Charlie on the gutting of the transit system, too.

Waiting for him to challenge Charlie on the gutting of transit

He wont although he did say he opposed privatizing T bus drivers.

Walsh has disagreed with Baker on certain issues. For example, Baker wanted to remove the cap on charters statewide, Walsh wanted to do it more slowly.

I don't think Marty has ever called a presser to put Gov Baker on notice about an important issue for Boston. Can you remember this ever happening?

Boston needs state aide for UPK, more Chap 70 aid, and infrastructure ( I can think of two bridges in disrepair), a more reliable MBTA, less expensive public higher ed (their free college announcement yesterday is largely a farce. It's helping about 100 kids a small fraction of those who need the help)

Marty would not commit to Jim Braude at WGBH to vote for the winner of the Democratic primary for governor which means he'd be voting for Baker or none of the above.

Slightly Cooler

Short Answer: the climate is supposed to be slightly cooler. Evidence abounds that the climate has changed during your 50 years:

1. Since 1970, average temps in New England have risen by at more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. "Ice-out" on rivers & lakes occurs earlier in the spring.
3. Plants are blooming 4-8 days earlier in the spring.



Blithering Idiot

By on

You must be a blithering idiot then. I haven't been around a half century and even I've noticed more heat waves during the summer and seen higher waters along the coast. Planting season has also crept earlier.

Maybe step out from mother's basement and turn off the AC?

Ya know

By on

Climate change or no, cleaning the environment is a worthy goal.

Walsh should be doing things

By on

Walsh should be doing things now to reduce emissions, not the usual 'in a few decades' or other promises after he will be out of office. Its easy to promise things you arent accountable for. If he cared about climate (as well as health and the liveability of Boston) he would stop the push to add 1,000s more parking spaces in the seaport (like the ones at the Seaport transportation center, which since it will have a hubway station and zipcar is not called a parking garage). He would be pushing for the silver bus to be a real line, work to reduce the amount of spaces every new office building in Boston has, and go back to the original community agreed grounding of Rutherford Ave. All these would make Boston easier to get around if you aren't driving, and reduce demand for driving around Boston, a major cause of greehouse gas (as well as toxic) pollution. His actions since being elected are more 1950s oriented.

Does anybody know

Does anybody know what Boston energy efficiency standards are in new development? If developers have incentives to install roof top solar?

Do Walsh's plans...

By on

... include reducing car and truck emissions in Boston? Promoting safe streets and T ridership?

Will Marty Walsh embrace Community Choice Aggregation?

By on

A ton of communities in MA are using community choice aggregation to increase the amount of renewable generation of electricity in their community's mix -- and thereby decrease the amount of fossil generation in their mix. Many are in the Boston metro, including Arlington, Brookline, Dedham, Melrose, Somerville, Winchester, and Stoneham. I understand Newton's looking into it as well.

If Boston were to roll out CCA with an increased default renewable share of energy, it would immediately take a chunk out of Boston's carbon emissions at low cost and low pain.

The Paris Agreement

By on

Was one of many piss-poor lopsided agreements negotiated by the prior administration. Regardless of your views on climate change this is a bad deal economically for the US.

Continuing to use coal and

By on

Continuing to use coal and oil is bad economically. Solar and other green jobs are exploding in numbers in the US and abroad. Trump wants to kill that momentum to save a few coal jobs for a few years and to line the pocket of oil CEOs like his secretary of state.

Chinese are taking leadership

Big difference between proposing a new deal for industrial countries that put a lot of carbon in the atmosphere and saying f*ck it we'll be dumping all the carbon we want into the atmosphere. The Chinese know the risk to life global warming presents. They're taking over leadership of the project. Trump is terrible.

You should be a CEO

"More than 300 U.S. companies, including 72 with annual revenues exceeding $100 million, have sent an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump, urging him not to abandon the Paris climate agreement.

The letter, which was also sent to President Barack Obama and members of Congress, stated directly, "We want the U.S. economy to be energy-efficient and powered by low-carbon energy... Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk."

High-profile organizations signing the letter include Dannon, DuPont, eBay, Gap, General Mills, Hewlett Packard, Hilton, Intel, Kellogg, Levi Strauss, Mars, Monsanto, Nike, Patagonia, Staples, Starbucks, The Hartford, Tiffany and Vail Resorts - plus many others."


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if the CEO of Exxon is in favor of staying in the Paris accord then your opinion is probably wrong.



By on

Was one of many piss-poor lopsided agreements negotiated by the prior administration.

I don't think you have any idea what the Paris Agreement is. Maybe you should do some more reading and less sloganeering.

Bostonians will be among the

By on

Bostonians will be among the first to be affected by the problems of climate change - rising seas

So why all the continued building on the waterfront?

Because it's cool to be by the sea ...

By on

But people who are building on the water have to show what they're doing about rising sea levels before they get BPDA approval. So GE's plans include putting all the key building electrical and mechanical stuff on higher levels, for example.

I'd like to see the city

I'd like to see the city issue building codes for developing in sea-rise affected areas and have a transportation plan.

That's just window dressing.

By on

That's just window dressing.
If the seas rose even a half a foot, many of those buildings would be in trouble.

They are building but not planning for long term. It's all instant gratification.

I can't believe anyone takes this seriously with all the waterfront build up. And, when and if the seas do rise, taxpayers better be protected. In fact, I'd like to see that in writing now.

Shrewd planning

By on

Actually in the case of GE they have planned. They won't own the property -- the city does.

When the fertilizer makes contact with the ventilation system we know who will actually be stuck with the bill for all this piss-poorly thought out development on the waterfront....

I'm so glad we made a stink about

I'm so glad we made a stink about the deal Marty and Charlie made with GE. City of Boston was going to buy two buildings for GE, GE was going to renovate, and City of Boston was going to lease them to GE for $0 a year for up to 20 years. That's right folks, Marty agreed to locking up millions of capital with no return and also, no property tax.

Charlie took the shit sandwich off his hands. Now all of Mass is holding the bag.

We also made a stink about the bridge replacement. GE was worried about auto congestion. Walsh said he'd replace the defunct bridge ($100 million) to fix the auto congestion (without doing a study to see if it would.) Walsh was just going to spend $100 million and find out later. If you look at the adjacent brdge and intersection you'd see why it's a question. So we got him to do a study. He budgeted $15 million for it. Does anyone know if they've published it?

Seattle solution?

When Seattle had too many problems with at-sea level buildings a century ago, they put in walls on each side of the streets, filled it in, and built it up.

Second floors became first floors and no more flooding.

These giant buildings are built down to bedrock anyway, they will be able to flood occasionally and be hosed out.

It's not the same people

By on

I can't believe anyone takes this seriously with all the waterfront build up

Those people doing "all the waterfront build up" are developers.

The people talking about climate change are not developers.

We have to keep doing

By on

We have to keep doing everything we can, of course. But now that Trump has literally signed the death warrant for your grandchildren and most living mammals, it's over now. Seriously, we might be able to keep it going a little longer in the Northeast if we cut the rest of the country out. If we could escape before they realize what's happening and build our own wall to keep them out when things get really bad we might stay alive for a while?

Oh for fucks sake, those of

By on

Oh for fucks sake, those of us that lived through the pollution of the 50s, 60s, and 70s know today is a cake walk compared to the smog of yesteryear.

Do you know what is is like to grow up breathing in toxic leaded gasoline fumes and CFCs? I doubt it!

Speaking of which

By on

Apples don't like 100 degree heat, oranges don't like 120, and corn / wheat won't like 130 the plains will be pushing.

The bread basket of America will be moving to Canada.

Yep thats it. Because Trump

By on

Yep thats it. Because Trump is backing out of Paris Agreement, we're all gonna die. Literally. The climate is going to kill. Could happen tomorrow! I mean haven't you seen The Day After Tomorrow starring Dennis Quaid?

- "former UN climate convention director Christiana Figueres has said the UN goal is to "intentionally change the economic development model" that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection," former IPCC mitigation group co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer has stated. It is about negotiating "the distribution of the world's resources." "

- "Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg calculates that implementing all provisions of the Paris accord would prevent a virtually undetectable 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100. Doing so would cost up to $946 billion annually, from 2030 to 2100 – another $66 trillion in total."

BTW you hear about the updated NASA study on polar ice?
"Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)"

So you think you know more

By on

So you think you know more about environmental science than thousands of scientists, the US military, insurance companies etc? How deluded are you? Do you think you could beat up The Rock too? Wipe the floor against Lebron in 1 on 1?

Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg?

He is not an environmentalist.

His field is economics and he cherry picks his environmental data to back his economic theory regarding spending and global warming. If you're quoting him you've already lost.


Of course, you yourself looked at all this data, right? Looked into the peer-reviewed commentary? Participated in the numerous panel discussions and scientific review processes before it was sent to press?

Nah, who are we kidding - you read it all in the Moonie Times or the Daily Crawler and it was enough for you to parrot it (without citing it, of course). Somebody read you a story and that's all you needed to hear.

Bjorn Lomborg isn't a scientist - he is an opportunistic gassbag who farts out whatever he is paid to. He has absolutely no scientific credibility whatsoever.

What has the city done to

By on

What has the city done to reduce emissions? A lot of talk and one little wind turbine on top of City Hall isn't gonna cut it.

Enough chatter about eventually doing something. Less 2050 talk, more 2017 action. If your plans are that far off in the future some moron who is corrupted by oil companies like Trump will come along and ruin your plans before you actually do anything. Other cities are expanding public transit and banning cars from city centers. We need to be doing that as well.

Why would you ban my SUV from

By on

Why would you ban my SUV from the city center? How else am I going to double park in front of stahbux and get my half caff no fat latte?

LMGTFY Boston #1 energy efficient city in the US

By on

has been for several years according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, anyway. Tops the list in most respects it seems. Emissions reduction already past the 2020 targets with a goal of carbon neutral by 2050. Member of the C40 Climate Leaders program. Also a fair amount of work on resiliency and adaptation already (I was at the Living with Water conference at the BSA a couple years ago, very well done). Feel free to join in the effort.

I've already joined the

By on

I've already joined the effort. I use efficient bulbs and appliances, recycle, don't drive, don't eat meat. I just think the city and state could be doing more right now. Being #1 in the US isn't impressive because this country is way behind because 1 of the 2 major parties ignores science in favor of million dollar checks from oil companies.

More Norm!

-- protect the city from the effects of climate change --

-- Since 1970, average temps in New England have risen by at more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit. --

I am going to be protected from a 2 degree climate change.

This is going to cost money, I assume?

Most people,

By on

when they feel a profound sense of ignorance about a topic that many have at least a basic comprehension of, have a good instinct: sit quietly and listen to people who actually know what they're talking about. That way, you have a chance of learning something, AND you avoid making a public, braying jackass of yourself.


How can you spend your time lecturing people on ignorance and comprehension when the climate may have changed by two degrees over the last fifty years??????

Should I buy a new wardrobe?

PS.. What is the right temperature for Boston? I think we are still 9 degrees under what the climate should be.

Tip for you

By on

Using additional question marks doesn't make your question intelligent. It's still disingenuous and stupid and displays your ignorance.

For a troll,

You make a good point. There are no scientific criteria for where the climate "should be," since the planet has undergone many changes over millions of years. Most of us, however, think it would be dangerous and irresponsible to flood coastal communities, destroy most marine life through acidification, and reduce the planet's food and fresh water supplies.

-- it would be dangerous and

-- it would be dangerous and irresponsible to flood coastal communities --

The planet has been doing it for eons. We live on a dangerous and irresponsible planet.

Lucky we humans are around now to stop the planet from doing stuff. I just wish the idiots who think they can stop a planet from doing stuff would stop allowing registered Democrats from collecting taxes on that basis.

The planet isn't the problem

It is our fucking up the planet, making it do stuff, and not stopping our fucking up of the planet that is making it do stuff that IS the problem!

That you cannot understand that says a lot about the value of your incessant blather.

"Wikipedia is the best thing

By on

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want, so you know you are getting the best possible information." - Michael Scott

Wikipedia isn't a primary source

By on

1) Anyone can write Wikipedia. Anyone can also undo your writing. Try it. Put in Wikipedia that you think Donald Trump is actually Superman in disguise...or a cocksucker. It'll be gone before you can refresh the page. Do it enough and you can get blocked from editing further since you can't follow the rules of Wikipedia. So, much like free speech, anyone can say whatever they want on Wikipedia...but nobody has to listen to it because anyone can also censor your non-contributive additions.

2) Wikipedia has a rule regarding sourcing because the community is aware of its own flaws. Since anyone could write anything and even make it sound pertinent, then it has to be sourced. And Wikipedia itself isn't a source. It's a collection of information from primary sources. And the definition of primary sources is very specific and doesn't just allow anyone to write a blog where they theorize that Trump is Superman in disguise and thus now have a source to add that to his Wikipedia article.

3) Don't like what Wikipedia has in it? Check the source that statement used. Argue on that article's discussion page that the source violates a rule or has been superseded by better information. Convince the community to let you change the page to new sourced content instead. Wikipedia only gets better as a result of people editing it.

But I probably lost your attention at "1) Anyone can write Wikipedia. Anyone can also...". You don't seem like a stable person who actually wants to discuss what you say or why you might be wrong.

Its a quote from a hysterical

By on

Its a quote from a hysterical TV show! You need to get a life and stop taking yourself so seriously. That may be hard as you're clearly morally and intellectually superior to all other humans.

You still aren't learning

By on

I'm NOT morally and intellectually superior to all other humans. That's what drives me to keep improving. I could see how you might want to put that upon me though. It probably makes the fact that you don't appear to be interested in improving yourself easier to accept internally without generating much additional cognitive dissonance. There's still time for you to accept that you used that particular quote because for certain audiences it undermines the relevance of the data coming from climate science that Wikipedia was being used to summarize above.

Oh...I bet I've lost you again early on, haven't I...damn.

Mr Mayor

By on

How about some carbon neutral affordable housing? Housing for families not three frat boys and their girlfriends who want to live commune style.

Didn't Marty Walsh just spend $4000 an hour on snow melters?

By on

I guess the predictions on Global Warming Climate Change were a little off, since the city was just forced to spend $4000 an hour to rent snow melters. This was after the New York Times published "The End of Snow."

Of course, rebranding Global Warming as Climate Change covers everything. Drought, rain, heat, cold, snow, lack thereof and of course the desperate "weather isn't climate." As a union hack, certainly Walsh will continue to play the game and spend on the issue, "don't kill the job." It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at suggestions that Walsh will have an impact. I would trust the billionaires investing in the Seaport. I doubt it will disappear.

It is better to remain silent...

By on

I guess the predictions on Global Warming Climate Change were a little off, since the city was just forced to spend $4000 an hour to rent snow melters. This was after the New York Times published "The End of Snow."

As near as I can figure, one of the following -- possibly more -- must be true of you:

  1. After posting to Uhub, you immediately close the page and not return to uhub until your foolishness has washed off the first page.
  2. When someone posts a response, you take a sharpie and cover over that part of your screen so you won't be "forced to" read it.
  3. Your reading comprehension and basic intelligence is so limited that you're truly not capable of understanding the many, many, MANY responses to this stupid "Gee it's snowing so WHERE'S THE GLOBAL WARMING?" pseudo-question that you and other limbots like to spew any time the subject comes up.
  4. You are completely lacking in honestly and integrity.

So, can you tell us which it is? Because based on your response, you're a liar or an idiot or willfully self-deluded or all of the above.

Just the facts, ma'am

By on

Yes or no? Did the city just spend $4000 a day for snow melters after Global Warming alarmists claimed the "End of Snow?" Wasn't the T crushed in part because they stopped investing in snow removal due to fake "warming?"

My point is cogent and valid, the predictions of catastrophe have differed greatly from reality. If anyone is looking to sell waterfront land in Boston at a discount due to the impending flooding, let me know. Cash buyer.

You're making shit up

...after Global Warming alarmists claimed the "End of Snow?"

Nobody claimed that, ever*. What they HAVE been saying, year after year, is that global warming will cause (is causing) more extreme weather, including increased precipitation. The T didn't let their snow-removal capability atrophy because of global warming, but because they ran out of money after being saddled with the Big Dig debt. Remember whose idea that was?

Your "point" is bullshit and stupid. Predictions of the consequences of warming have been pretty accurate, while the predictions of the rate of warming have actually been too conservative.

* If you're saying the NYT made that claim, they didn't. You're referring to an opinion column that's a memoir about the author's love of skiing, fronted by a clickbait headline and a bunch of speculation about whether it will be difficult to have enough natural snow to hold the Winter Olympics in places it's been held at before.


By on

I bet you were really bad at Connect the Dots as a kid too, weren't you...

Moral Narcissism—the almost

By on

Moral Narcissism—the almost schizophrenic divide between intentions and results now pervading our culture—is the new method for feeling good about yourself. It no longer matters how anything turns out as long as your intentions were good, that you were “moral.” And, just as importantly, the only determinant of those intentions, the only one who defines that morality, is you.