State leaders must bring pragmatism to climate debate
We need to balance climate goals with economic reality and relief for Massachusetts ratepayers
Climate resiliency is a challenge, not a crisis. And when we treat it as a crisis—when urgency is used to silence debate or justify extreme measures—the quality of our decisions suffers.
Massachusetts has always been at its best not when panicking, but when rising collectively to a challenge. That is the Massachusetts I want to lead.
This principle was tested on Beacon Hill last week. Misplaced priorities were on full display when a modest, common-sense bill—one that would have provided immediate relief to Massachusetts families—was sidelined before it ever received an honest debate.
The legislation would have replaced the binding 2030 climate mandate—requiring a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels—with an advisory goal. It was a pragmatic step toward affordability. It would have saved Massachusetts taxpayers millions. And yet, it never had a chance.
Instead, legislative leaders punted the proposal into the winter months—exactly when families face their highest heating bills.
The message was unmistakable: climate ideology prevailed over affordability.
What makes the decision even more troubling is that a bipartisan coalition has been quietly forming around this issue. Lawmakers across the political spectrum recognize that Massachusetts can do well by the environment without imposing rigid mandates that strain household budgets.
Even The Wall Street Journal recently praised Democrat Rep. Mark Cusack for introducing a more pragmatic balance between climate goals and economic reality.
But legislators once again bowed to one of the most powerful and well-funded special interest groups in our state: the green energy lobby. They understood that giving this proposal room for genuine debate would open a can of worms—one that might force them to answer uncomfortable questions about who actually benefits from these mandates.
Let’s start with a truth that should guide our approach: Massachusetts is responsible for just 0.01 percent of global CO₂ emissions. Nothing in that number justifies forcing families and small businesses to absorb drastically higher electricity and heating costs for a symbolic climate goal that will have no measurable impact on the planet.
Yet Gov. Healey has elevated climate policy above affordability, competitiveness, and basic economic common sense. She created a powerful “climate czar”—a senior adviser with the authority to review virtually every major initiative through a singular climate lens. That means proposals on housing, affordability, transportation, economic development—you name it—must pass through a partisan climate filter first.
This is not governing. This is outsourcing priorities.
Massachusetts now ranks among the most expensive states in America for utility bills. It’s the direct result of a governing approach that prioritizes ideology over impact—an approach that treats affordability as an afterthought and working families as collateral damage.
And the product of deliberate choices—such as Maura Healey blocking two natural gas pipeline expansions fully aware that doing so would drive energy prices up.
Meanwhile, other states—blue and red alike—are reassessing aggressive targets and building affordability protections into their planning. Massachusetts is moving in the opposite direction.
Families, seniors, and small businesses—those least able to absorb financial shocks—bear the brunt of these decisions.
I’m not here to assign motives or accuse individual lawmakers of bad faith. But I will encourage every citizen to examine OCPF records and see which green energy companies have become some of the most generous political donors. Draw your own conclusions.
Massachusetts needs a full, independent review of all climate-related spending and mandates.
That review must look at:
All tax credits, subsidies, and grants flowing to green-energy companies
Every regulatory mandate that directly increases utility costs
The full cost of state climate programs to taxpayers and ratepayers
The effects of climate policies on reliability and competitiveness
This isn’t about partisanship. It’s about priorities. When nearly every family in this state is struggling with the cost of living, it is reckless—and frankly irresponsible—for Beacon Hill to ignore the financial consequences of its climate agenda.
Massachusetts has always been at its best when we lead with innovation, pragmatism, and common sense—not when we chase symbolic victories at the expense of the people we serve.
It’s time to bring affordability back to the center of our policymaking and move away from the crisis thinking that has driven so many extreme decisions. If the current administration won’t do it, I will.
Mike Kennealy is a Republican candidate for governor.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.