Thanks for providing some clarification, Andy, as well as asking some very good questions. If I may abstract the issue up a level or two…
I fully acknowledge the depth of my ignorance re the process on how a town might submit a petition to the state legislature. But, logically, it has to fall into either one of two buckets, or perhaps with more nuance, the spectrum between two points. On the left side of the spectrum would be where the legislature will just rubber stamp all such petitions without spending much effort (let’s call it the “easy petition”). On the right side, the legislature would examine very closely the issue, including the details behind the town’s vote, what went into it, how it was pitched to residents, what the underlying language might be, etc. (let’s call it the “detailed petition”). IN BOTH CASES, IT WOULD BE TO LINCOLN’S BENEFIT TO HAVE THE DETAILED DISCUSSION WITH TOWNSFOLK NOW. Before I dive into explaining why, first, I think we can all agree that having an informed, detailed discussion of the proposal being put forth by the environmental group among us would be beneficial. Of course, why not?! After all, one of the stated reasons for this effort is to INFORM and PERSUADE townsfolk that switching to electricity from oil/gas/propane is a good thing – new buildings are but a tiny fraction of energy use in town, so the more that can be persuaded to voluntarily change, the better. So why not have that discussion NOW? Who would argue against having the debate? Back to the question. If, as agreed, it’s beneficial to have this discussion, then in the case of the “easy petition”, we should have the discussion NOW. That way, townsfolk would not be asked to vote on a petition submission blindly. Since, in the “easy petition” scenario, there’s little or no risk of the legislature granting Lincoln the power, there’s no downside to having the discussion ahead of it. The logic is similar on the “detailed petition”, for two obvious reasons. IF the legislature wants to see evidence of detailed debate before deciding on the petition, we can show that Lincoln actually engaged in such an informed debate! Our petition would be that much more persuasive, no? It would actually REPRESENT the collective will of Lincoln, if we show a record of people learning and debating about the proposed regulation before voting to send it to the legislature. IN ADDITION, in the “detailed petition” scenario, by definition, we would run the risk of having it NOT be approved. In which case, we would never get to the point where we would have to have the informed discussion. And since we’re in agreement that having the discussion is beneficial to all, we would actually lose out on that opportunity. So why run the risk? Am I missing something? HTH, --Dennis From: Andy Wang <andyrw...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 7:23 PM To: Belinda Gingrich <belinda.gingr...@gmail.com> Cc: Dennis Liu <bigheadden...@gmail.com>; Lincoln Talk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Forcing Lincoln to ban use of gas and oil at home? RE: Webinars regarding Citizen's Petition for Town meeting Even if you could do it in either order, it seems like this is a natural first step. If the town can't pass even asking if we can establish home rule legislation, why bother moving forward with all the discussion (however entertaining). This article really only asks the state if we are allowed to make our own (Lincoln) rules, which could be restrictive, or not, or nothing at all. All that seems like it would come up in future spirited Lincoln Talk discussions... I think there is some confusion because of the lack of specificity. The actual article that we are voting on is this: "ARTICLE 31 To see if the Town will vote to request home rule legislation to establish the authority to restrict the installation of fossil fuel infrastructure in major new construction; or take any other actin relative thereto." [ref: 2022 Annual Town Meeting Warrants <http://lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/72216/Warrant----Final-030122-Signed?bidId=> ] [also, 'actin'? Is that supposed to be 'action'? Not sure if that's a typo or just some legalese I'm not familiar with] What is the current thinking on what constitutes a 'major new construction'? Is it an individual residence? A pool house? A town building? A new housing development? An addition? Belinda, Propane is a fossil fuel though. The article doesn't mention a 'central infrastructure'. Is that part of the plan? Oil is distributed the same way propane is, and I'd assume that would be included. I read 'restrict the installation of fossil fuel infrastructure' to mean any support internal to a project (like a home heating system), not how the fuel is distributed. I think this ties back to the fact that the language is ambiguous. Maybe this all comes in the second phase where we debate the actual language. Was any additional information (or a recording of the zoom call) posted on https://www.lincolngreenenergy.org/? It was mentioned that additional material was going to be posted there, but I couldn't find any (though I may have just missed it). I just wanted to read up and the times of the zoom meetings didn't work for me. Thanks. Andy On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 6:33 PM Belinda Gingrich <belinda.gingr...@gmail.com <mailto:belinda.gingr...@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi Dennis, What would you do to solve the climate crisis? You give well thought out ideas and it would be interesting to hear your proposals. India and China may be producing more greenhouse gases, as they are supporting a few more people, but should we do nothing? What ideas to you have for Lincoln to do? If I were building a new home I would want it to be as air tight and well insulated as possible so that my energy bills for heating would be minuscule. Who wouldn’t want a Passive House <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house> with minimal heating bills? Should we be allowed to build inefficient houses because we haven’t heard about better options? Is Gas a right? Massachusetts has very leaky natural gas infrastructure <https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/25/methane-leaks-natural-gas-boston/> contributing to global warming and not even heating our houses. It would cost enormous amounts of money to repair even the major leaks and new leaks are forming all the time. If we could all switch to electric homes we wouldn’t need all the leaky infrastructure. I certainly don’t want to pay for a leaky gas infrastructure. I want the government to legislate it away! https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/10/25/methane-emissions-natural-gas-massachusetts-climate-change There are options. Propane tanks are an option for people who have a leaky old house that needs back-up heat, for people who want a generator because of trees falling on electric lines (not to mention squirrels causing havoc), and for people who must have gas cooktops despite the health warnings. This seems a good libertarian option that doesn’t depend on a central infrastructure that everyone needs to buy into. Just my 2 cents about a centralized gas system. Warm regards, Belinda
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
