Environmentalists underwhelmed by Maryland’s climate response | STAFF COMMENTARY

You don’t need a flooded basement to be concerned about the growing impact of climate change these days

Maryland’s winters have gotten milder, the heatwaves more intense. There’s worsening coastal flooding and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers around the Chesapeake Bay. On the other hand, the state isn’t exactly a hotbed for climate deniers either. Gov. Wes Moore campaigned on making Maryland a global leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting clean energy. The Democratically controlled state legislature seems amenable to those goals, too. Under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to assume that lawmakers left Annapolis after wrapping up their annual 90-day legislative session on April 8 to universal applause from environmental groups.

Advocates rate Maryland General Assembly’s performance on climate change as mixed

Quite a number of those who advocate for tougher action on climate change rated the Maryland General Assembly’s performance this year as mixed, at best. There were certainly some victories (and more about them in a moment), but one particular loss is especially irksome. In the final week of the session, lawmakers added budget language to delay stricter Building Energy Performance Standards, or BEPS. These regulations reduce emissions from large buildings, such as office towers or high-rise condominiums, that are more than 35,000 square feet. The rules have always been controversial, but environmentalists say this last-minute change of direction not only denies the promises made in the Climate Solutions Now Act, the state’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction legislation of just two years ago, but could cost the state a $195 million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote BEPS.

Concerns about the impact of the BEPS change

“This is a wonky but devastating blow to climate policy,” reads a statement from the Sierra Club, Maryland PIRG and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. The worry can be reduced to this: a fear that builders will install gas furnaces rather than switch to heat pumps. The BEPS change could set the effort back by years (as it also requires the Maryland Department of the Environment to set new benchmarks, a potentially time-consuming task). There is, however, hope that Maryland’s attorney general will reverse the action.

Other frustrations for advocates

But it’s not the only frustration advocates are feeling. Lawmakers also took a pass on the proposed Better Buildings Act, requiring that new homes be energy efficient and better insulated, and the Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act, which would have billed oil and gas companies for a portion of the cost of natural disasters brought on by climate change. Lawmakers did, however, approve legislation to exempt data centers from restrictions on backup diesel generators, a move endorsed by Moore that may generate jobs but also air pollution.

Victories in Maryland’s climate change efforts

There were victories, of course. The existing EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act, which gives financial incentives to help Marylanders, including low-income residents, switch to greener energy choices, was strengthened. Legislation to encourage utilities to invest in thermal energy networks (the Working for Accessible Renewable Maryland Thermal Heat (WARMTH) Act) was sent to the governor’s desk. As was the Brighter Tomorrow Act, which requires the Maryland Public Service Commission to create greater incentives to install solar energy systems.

Maryland’s need for stronger climate policies

That may seem a pretty good batting average by General Assembly standards. But environmental groups think that Maryland took an overall step backward, and that’s distressing given two of the state’s circumstances. First, with a Democratic governor and super majorities in both legislative chambers, Maryland should be, as Governor Moore has promised, a leader on climate policy. And second, as a coastal state, Maryland is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels that make climate change not a theoretical worry but an ever-present one. A projected 1-to-2-foot rise by 2050 could increase coastal flooding from an average of 11 days per year to 155, a devastating prospect from Ocean City to Annapolis.

Conclusion

No doubt legislators were a bit distracted this year, if not by the recent collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge then by their struggles to cover projected budget deficits, particularly in the area of transportation and K-12 education. The outlook next year may be better — or it may not if Donald Trump, who scoffs at curbing fossil fuel production or use, is returned to the White House. For now, environmentalists give lawmakers a grade of, if not outright failing, incomplete at best.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 14: Life Below Water

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
• SDG 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes.
• SDG 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
• SDG 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, particularly from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption.
• Indicator 9.4.1: CO2 emission per unit of value added.
• Indicator 11.5.1: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.
• Indicator 13.1.1: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population.
• Indicator 14.1.1: Index of coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: baltimoresun.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.