Ann Berwick
Former Chair, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and Undersecretary for Energy,
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Testimony at Hearing of Massachusetts Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and
Energy
Concerning Senate 1747, “An Act Combating Climate Change”
October 27, 2015
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m sure you’ll hear a
lot of the details about S.1747 from others, so I’ll use my time instead to talk a bit about the context.
First, as you know, the world has agreed in principle to a shared target of keeping global warming to
about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s the 2 degrees centigrade that we often hear about. Many scientists
agree that that goal is too low - much too low.
But now let me call your attention to a new analysis released last month by Climate Interactive, which is
a new organization whose calculations are used in the negotiations of both the United States and other
governments. The analysis evaluates the amount by which the pledges of the world’s countries so far so what the countries have agreed to already - would collectively reduce the planet’s warming by the
end of the century. Without these pledges, we would be 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. With them
fully implemented, so with all of the countries who have made commitments, we would be 6.3 degrees
Fahrenheit warmer.
The frequent response you hear is: “why should we sacrifice to address this problem? What can small,
but mighty, Massachusetts do when there is China and India out there, not to mention this country?”
So the second point I want to make is that this is not necessarily a sacrifice. I’m sure you’ll hear the
details from others, but British Columbia’s economy has prospered with the imposition of a carbon fee
relative to the rest of Canada.
And here’s an example of why Massachusetts has headroom for adopting a carbon fee. All of our
neighboring states except for New Hampshire already have a gasoline tax that is higher than ours. New
York’s is 20 cents higher, Connecticut’s is 15 cents higher. So that’s just an example.
Third, and finally, you may hear that a carbon fee will result in winners and losers. Inevitably, that is
correct, although the bill does a really good job of minimizing that effect. But as I’m sure you’ll
recognize, the status quo also has winners and losers. And it’s not rocket science to figure out that the
big status quo winners are the fossil fuel interests that take advantage of huge subsidies, first among
them the extent to which our economy fails to internalize the cost of carbon.
Thank you very much for considering my comments, and even more, thank you for the work you do on
behalf of the public.