When Governor Charlie Baker this month vetoed a landmark bill to address climate change, he told lawmakers that his controversial decision was motivated in part by the legislation’s requirement that the state reduce emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by the end of the decade.
That target was only slightly more ambitious than a plan his administration released only a few days before, which sought to cut emissions by 45 percent over the same period. But that difference, he said, would cost the state a whopping $6 billion more.
Deborah Donovan, a senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center in Boston, said less pollution would result in fewer sick days, and retrofitting buildings would likely produce more jobs.
“It’s important to look at the full range of costs and benefits when setting our goals and creating a suite of policies that will get us there,” she said.
Read more from the Boston Globe here