Massachusetts is 90% dependent on imported fossil fuels for its energy compared to 60% for the nation.  Located in New England—“at the tnd of the energy pipeline” and one of the most energy dependent regions on Earth—the Commoneralth remains vulnerable to price shocks and breaks in supply, with great incentive to create more local and cleaner energy sources.  For example, 96% of electricity generated in Greater Boston is fueled by gas, oil and coal.  This will begin to change under  Massachusetts’ Renewable Portfolio Standard requiring utilities to obtain 4% if their electricity from renewable sources in 2009 and increases the requirement by 1% annually to 9% of all new purchases by 2014.  Energy efficiency can meet electricity demand at roughly one-third of the cost of the new supply. 

Reducing local and statewide greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 baseline levels is proving difficult, especially given the rising proportion of emissions attributable to the transportation sector.  The  2006 Report Card on Climate Change Action concluded that none of the states and provinces are on track to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2010, a commitment made as part of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan.  The plan also sets a target of reducing greenhouse gas emission by at least 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing emissions 75-85% in the long term.

 Promoting smart growth is a challenge in a state with strong home rule and weak land use planning at the regional and state level.  Even developers seeking to build smart growth or transit-oriented projects face a daunting array of local land use and other regulatory requirements.  An analysis of land use regulations in 187 communities in eastern Massachusetts conducted by the  Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston concluded that an array of local regulations—particularly requirements for larger minimum lot sizes—drove down the number of housing starts and increased the cost of housing.  One useful tool will be the Commonwealth’s smart growth housing law, Chapter 40R, which has already spurred rezoning designed to accommodate denser, smart growth residential developments in 12 communities as of 2006 year-end. 

Parks, open spaces and other “commons” in greater Boston and throughout Massachusetts continue to suffer from lack of maintenance and investment as a result of budget shortfalls.  Parks and open spaces, both old and new, should be well maintained and attractive to a wide range of users, but accomplishing these goals will be difficult given the under-funding of both capital and operating budgets.  The state’s  Department of Conservation and Recreation conducted a detail audit of its parks, forests, parkways, pools, ice rinks, beaches and historical sites in 2006 and concluded that the backlogged cost of necessary maintenance and repairs has grown to $1.1 billion.

Communities of color and low-income neighborhoods  in Boston and statewide shoulder a disproportionate share of environmental and environmental health burdens.  A  2005 study directed by Professor Daniel Farber of Northeastern University found that 9 Boston neighborhoods (out of 12) were among the 20 most environmentally overburdened communities in Massachusetts.  The study looked at cumulative exposures to seventeen different types of environmentally hazardous sites and facilities (See Indicator 5.7).  Data from the  Boston Public Health Commission’s work on health disparities demonstrates that people of color suffer from higher rates of environmental health problems such as lead poisoning, asthma and obesity (See Indicator 7.4). 

Greater Boston remains challenged to develop innovative management tools to rebuild the region’s fisheries and protect local ocean resources.  Rebuilding the fishery would yield both environmental and economic benefits, with one study from the University of British Columbia calculating that restoring the cod fisheries would generate $130 million in economic benefits. 

Sprawling development is exacerbating the problem of the “dewatering” of greater Boston’s rivers and lakes.  A report by the  Metropolitan Area Planning Council found that water demand throughout the region is projected to increase by 47 million gallons per day in 2030.  In attempting to meet this demand, 52 communities will consume more water than their withdrawal permits allows.  Similarly, the  New England Public Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston concluded in its first study that New England faces future water supply and quality challenges. 

Reducing air pollution will increasingly require focusing on localized sources and motor vehicles instead of power plants and factories.  While the Commonwealth’s “Filthy Five” Regulatory Program ensures that power plants substantially reduce their air emissions, the region has yet to adopt an equally aggressive effort to address diesel emissions and other localized air pollution, especially in densely populated areas and environmental justice communities.  And, as the  Department of Environmental Protection has concluded, “with the cars, trucks and buses we drive now generating more air pollution than any other source, future air quality gains depend in large measure on vehicle buying patterns, driving habits, and improving public transit systems.”