By Dan Malloy
This document summarizes the Economic Development Committee’s (EDC) discussion and recommendation from the meeting held on 12/2/21.
The Economic Development Committee is strongly opposed to the Select Board proposal to advance a town policy that would subject contractors and developers to excess scrutiny and potential prejudice around energy use decisions that are not supported by current state or local laws or regulations.
The rationale for our opinion is as follows:
- THE EDC does not believe energy policy should be advanced on a town-by-town basis and believes it would be more efficient to align around state level efforts to define and support the migration away from fossil fuels. This will ensure a level playing field for all towns impacted.
- The introduction of an “informal regulatory” environment around the use of fossil fuels would further alienate businesses, put the town at a competitive disadvantage with other neighboring towns competing for economic development and add to the real perception that Acton remains a very difficult place to do business.
- While we are not opposed to the town creating and making available information on energy alternatives for developers (although is Acton really qualified to do this?), we strongly oppose permit granting entities to use this issue as a litmus test of whether projects could advance in Acton. We believe the town would be sanctioning the harassment of businesses over energy policies driven by a vocal minority.
- While we believe clean energy technology has advanced and is becoming more viable, there has not been a cost benefit analysis of these transitions for Acton residents and businesses. We do not believe this proposal is sufficiently grounded in research and evidence. The transition rate to these technologies is quite low across the state and there remains serious concerns about the effectiveness and implementation cost of alternative energy sources.
- The proposition that the town has demonstrated a “strong interest in robust action” is based on votes at town meeting, with less than 5% of Acton town residents represented. To alter key decisions about energy policy based on a small and unrepresentative sample of town residents would be inappropriate, and the EDC would advocate for a broad-based assessment of Acton residents’ orientation to migration away from fossil fuels. This assessment (or a ballot question) needs to be conducted by an independent entity that is not attempting to promote a specific agenda.
Sign up for our Acton Forum email list here
Please follow Acton Forum on Facebook here
As a follow-up to Nijan’s post/comments above here is a pointer to a TEDxBerlin video called Why I changed my mind about nuclear power by Michael Shellenberger.
I found this very interesting and insightful…
https://youtu.be/ciStnd9Y2ak
Mr. Williams provides his True Believer bona fides in the first sentence. Truisms are difficult to debate, as is the received wisdom in the rest of Mr. William’s comment. I am grateful to learn that we still have 25 years, the Climate Emergency calculation had our Earth burning up in 10 years and we have already used up two years since that calculation was done. Or was it a truism ?
Mr. Williams’ comment does not offer anything new in how we manage without fossil fuel department, but his comment will be effective in accomplishing his goal of discouraging businesses (save for childcare) from moving to Acton. Not good news for the Acton residents most in need of local, well paying jobs and affordable housing, but great for the egos of the True Believers.
Charlie Kadlec
That the average human is destroying our atmosphere is a truism. That our air, food and water are far from healthy is also a truism. When you think of it hydroelectric is also a major negative by changing the flow of air from that which Nature decided upon. I like solar panels but know absolutely nothing about it, so I’ll not comment. Nuclear power seems to be the easiest answer but what do we do with the very deadly waste generated. So, what is the solution? It isn’t to sit on our collective bottoms and wait for someone to find a solution. We must do something now. One thing we can do is demand that all buildings built today be solar based and have electric heat – the future of home heating – and deny any upgrading to any other system. Direct use of fossil fuels is not allowed. Yes, there are a lot of problems with electric energy but until a better solution comes along it appears to be the only game in town. Acton should be a leader in this effort. As we have proven over the years, Acton select-people don’t want new businesses in town – save for childcare – so it seems nothing is really in our way. Build for the future – even if the future only lasts for 25 years.
Dan,
Thank you for bringing attention to this issue to a wider audience. No issue has been more hyped in the last few decades than climate doomsday-ism. Before the climate alarmists keep ranting away with the usual talking points, I would urge them to read at least one, if not all of the following 3 books:
Apocalypse Never, by Michael Shellenberger
The Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery
Unsettled, by Steven Koonin
The first and third were written by people who originally thought the opposite, and by sheer honesty with the data, came to their current conclusions, which are much more calm and thoughtful. I have not included Bjorn Lomborg only because I have not read his books, but have heard him be interviewed.
Koonin was Under Secretary in the Obama Energy Department, and changed his mind once he started looking at the data trends and then continued doing further research. He is now persona non grata in those circles, because he developed wrongthink.
Michael Shellenberger in particular does a masterful job of showing the downsides of solar and wind. He is now a huge proponent of nuclear, and small, modular, nuclear reactors deserve a much wider discussion and education. My affinity for solar and wind diminished considerably after reading his book.
I fully support your efforts to stop the town from making local businesses jump through extra hoops. Of course, the enviro-activists, most of whom have never run a business, can never appreciate what it takes to run one.
Nijan
It would appear that the EDC is placing “competitiveness” above modern science and the advancement of “clean energy” uses. I also suggest that Acton should be attracting those businesses that EMBRACE clean energy and discourage those who do not.
Acton has every right to set energy standards – many of us would suggest that indeed, Acton has a moral and scientifically supported obligation to do just that. Acton could a “model community” in that respect.
Economic development does not exist in a purely profit based vacuum. The EDC should clearly promote Acton as “business friendly” – but not at the expense of common sense and the health of the planet.
The Climate Crisis should be addressed at every level of society, at every level of government and by every individual and business. Otherwise we are doomed.
The rich will always be safe. The rest of us…not so much.
As to the fact that much of what is decided in Acton is determined by less than 5% of the voters – I couldn’t agree more. Our method of governance was designed before the Industrial Revolution – when we were hundreds. Now we are thousands and we are stumbling along with a Town system of government that rewards those that are super persistent and/or have the time to champion a single issue. It’s government by the “squeaky wheels”. It is not representative of the 95% who can’t or won’t attend a meeting.