Now that the Board of Selectmen has endorsed (by a 2-1 vote) Sustainable Belmont’s proposal for a Climate Action Plan (CAP), the big question is: what next? The resolution approved by the BOS on Oct. 5 would require the BOS to create and appoint an Energy Committee to coordinate town-wide efforts to reduce Belmont’s carbon output by 80% by 2050. There will be a resolution on fall Town Meeting warrant seeking approval of this. The CAP would then be used as a reference guide by the Energy Committee. As it stands, the CAP has recommendations (around 75 in all) for every segment of town to reduce Belmont’s environmental footprint –that includes residential users, town government, businesses, our public utilities. (You can read the entire CAP on Sustainable Belmont’s Web page.)
What types of programs might be considered? A recent article in the New York Times (thanks to the Belmont Yahoo Group for the heads up) highlights the steps that other suburbs are taking to curb carbon emissions and to encourage. They include town-financed home energy improvements and zoning changes to allow businesses to generate their own electricity with wind turbines, solar and other green energy sources.
The big test of the next three to five years is whether Belmont will be able to move from planning and committees to actual implementation of some of the great recommendations and ideas in the CAP, and whether Belmont residents and businesses will get a helpful hand in making their homes and businesses greener — or continue to try to do the right thing in the face of a stiff headwind.
I am mighty torn on this issue. On the one hand, I think we should do it, but I don't think that people have a clear idea of how hard it will be, and when that becomes clear, there will be a lot of grumbling. Getting to 80% for home heating requires big changes — both serious wall re-insulation and upgrading of windows and doors, plus a different heat system for anyone using oil or gas for heat (anyone using oil/gas for heat, that is probably the biggest single part of their footprint, unless they have a killer commute in a monster truck).
There's like to be zoning issues involved, too — we've got a ridge that is likely to be well-placed for wind power, and big windmills on a ridge are more effective than little ones in backyards, but either way, someone is not going to want to look at it.
I am mighty torn on this issue. On the one hand, I think we should do it, but I don't think that people have a clear idea of how hard it will be, and when that becomes clear, there will be a lot of grumbling. Getting to 80% for home heating requires big changes — both serious wall re-insulation and upgrading of windows and doors, plus a different heat system for anyone using oil or gas for heat (anyone using oil/gas for heat, that is probably the biggest single part of their footprint, unless they have a killer commute in a monster truck).
There's like to be zoning issues involved, too — we've got a ridge that is likely to be well-placed for wind power, and big windmills on a ridge are more effective than little ones in backyards, but either way, someone is not going to want to look at it.
I am mighty torn on this issue. On the one hand, I think we should do it, but I don't think that people have a clear idea of how hard it will be, and when that becomes clear, there will be a lot of grumbling. Getting to 80% for home heating requires big changes — both serious wall re-insulation and upgrading of windows and doors, plus a different heat system for anyone using oil or gas for heat (anyone using oil/gas for heat, that is probably the biggest single part of their footprint, unless they have a killer commute in a monster truck).
There's like to be zoning issues involved, too — we've got a ridge that is likely to be well-placed for wind power, and big windmills on a ridge are more effective than little ones in backyards, but either way, someone is not going to want to look at it.