This article was republished with permission from 海角精品黑料’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
This content was republished with permission from 海角精品黑料鈥檚 news partners at聽. Sign up for聽听迟辞诲补测.
As state agencies begin implementing the ambitious Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, which confronts the effects of global warming in multiple ways, two lawmakers are back with a bill they floated last year to聽, outlining how they鈥檇 prepare for and respond to emergencies.
Advocates for the bill say it鈥檚 even more necessary now that the statewide law is in effect and argue that the legislation dovetails with provisions of Climate Solutions Now.
鈥淭his is just an opportunity to ensure that our local communities participate in the much broader requirements laid out in the climate bill,鈥� said Sen. Ben Kramer (D-Montgomery), who is sponsoring聽 the local climate crisis plan mandate in the Senate.
But while the legislation has been embraced by environmental groups, it鈥檚 facing stiff resistance from the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) 鈥� and the often-combative Kramer is engaging in a war of words with the large and venerable organization that represents the state鈥檚 23 counties and Baltimore.
鈥淭here is an element of 鈥榯he sky is falling鈥� with the bill opponents, with those who are going to cry that implementation of this bill is going to cost zillions of dollars,鈥� Kramer said during a hearing Thursday of the Senate Committee on Education, Energy and the Environment. 鈥淭here鈥檚 nothing in the bill that says [the counties] have to implement anything. They just have to plan and make estimates for what those costs are going to be.鈥�
The bill would require all 23 counties and the city of Baltimore to prepare a climate crisis plan and submit it to the Maryland Department of the Environment for review by June 1, 2024.
The legislation lays out 15 criteria for local officials to consider in their analysis, including how to increase the county鈥檚 use of renewable energy across multiple sectors; how to decrease greenhouse gas emissions; preparing an inventory of the infrastructure that鈥檚 most vulnerable to climate destruction; establishing adaptation strategies; and estimating the cost for all the necessary policy changes and preparations.
The upside, Kramer said, is that each jurisdiction can design its own crisis preparation and adaptation plan without adopting a 鈥渙ne-size-fits-all solution,鈥� while at the same time gearing up for certain mandates laid out in the broader climate legislation.
鈥淚n Allegany and Garrett [counties], coastal flooding is not an issue,鈥� Kramer said. 鈥淏ut ski resorts that bring in all the revenue and attract the people to come in have to worry about the lack of snowfall. The idea here is each jurisdiction has a role to play in addressing the climate crisis.鈥�
The bill鈥檚 House sponsor, Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo (D-Montgomery), said the legislation merely asks every jurisdiction to prepare for the worst.
鈥淲hatever you鈥檙e doing in your life, it鈥檚 always better to have a plan and never need to use the plan than it is to be caught in a situation where you鈥檙e panicked because you鈥檝e never actually thought about what you need to do and then you鈥檙e caught flat-footed,鈥� he said.
The bill, Fraser-Hidalgo added, asks local leaders to contemplate questions like, 鈥淲hat do you do with increased water? What do you do with increased heat? What do you do with all the issues associated with climate change?鈥�
But MACo and lawmakers from smaller jurisdictions are sounding the alarm about the potential costs 鈥斅爀ven of preparing a study.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a big difference between the bigger counties and the smaller counties,鈥� said Sen. Mary Beth Carozza (R-Lower Shore). 鈥淭his is a tremendous lift for smaller counties.鈥�
Carozza said that when she saw that the estimated cost of preparing a climate crisis plan could be about $500,000 for smaller counties, 鈥淚 almost fell out of my seat.鈥� (Larger counties have estimated greater costs.)
Kramer replied that local governments should have the in-house expertise to prepare the climate plans.
鈥淣othing says you have to go out there and hire high-priced consultants,鈥� he said.
Dominic Butchko, an associate policy director at MACo, addressing Kramer鈥檚 complaints about MACo鈥檚 opposition to the bill, said he was glad Kramer read the organization鈥檚 written testimony before Thursday鈥檚 hearings, but observed, 鈥淚 also wish the bill sponsor had read the fiscal note.鈥�
Butchko said that while MACo supported the intent of the legislation, 鈥渢here are three reasons why this bill is bad: [it鈥檚] duplicative, excessive and wasteful.鈥�
Butchko said the bill tries to do too much when the correct approach should be breaking the building blocks for fighting climate change into smaller chunks.
鈥淵ou don鈥檛 put it in a 1,000-page Harry Potter book,鈥� he said.
Kramer called MACo鈥檚 arguments 鈥渕isleading and disingenuous.鈥�
Because every piece of legislation in Annapolis regarding energy and climate impacts different industries, representatives of these industries are out in force to testify. Owners of heating oil and gas companies testified against the measure Thursday. At the same time, representatives of a bioenergy company are seeking to be included in the bill, asking that their energy source be considered part of the low-carbon solutions that the legislation envisions.
Jamie DeMarco, the federal policy director at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, one of the environmental groups supporting the legislation, said the bill simply asks local governments to think differently about the climate crisis.
鈥淚t鈥檚 always easiest to keep doing what you鈥檝e always done,鈥� he said. He urged lawmakers not to succumb to 鈥渢he power of inertia.鈥�
