Here’s how Mass. climate goals might be impacted by Trump’s attack on wind

Environment

Acadia Center expert Kyle Murray said that while the policy is an “enormous setback,” he advises people not to be silent or give up hope.

In the first week of his second term, President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders, including several to do with the environment. One of them, related to wind, will impact Massachusetts’ future clean energy strategy. 

As part of his so-called “America First Priorities,” Trump announced he will end leasing to wind farms, which he said “degrade our natural landscapes and fail to serve American energy consumers.” 

With the Massachusetts Decarbonization Roadmap, the Commonwealth aims to ensure the state reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 and achieves net-zero emissions.

Boston.com sat down with Kyle Murray, state program implementation director at Acadia Center, to hear his thoughts on what Trump’s policies mean for Massachusetts. Murray leads Massachusetts advocacy efforts for Acadia Center, a nonprofit working to cut carbon emissions in the Northeast by at least 50% by 2030.

The interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. 

Boston.com: What have our investments in wind looked like so far, and what’s planned for the future?

Murray: Currently, we don’t have a ton of offshore wind in the Commonwealth, it’s a relatively small part of Massachusetts’ energy mix. We’re currently only getting partial power from the Vineyard Wind project, which is still under construction but will eventually be an 800-megawatt offshore wind farm. But offshore wind was the centerpiece of our future clean energy strategy, and we were setting that up to be the dominant energy source for Massachusetts going forward. The state’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan, the MA Decarbonization Roadmap, they all put offshore as the centerpiece of our strategy. 

So what does Trump’s end to leasing for wind farms mean for our decarbonization efforts? 

It’s definitely an enormous setback, I’m not going to lie about that, but the good thing is it doesn’t completely eliminate our offshore wind ambitions. Projects under construction and in operation should still be safe, so Vineyard Wind will be fine. Additionally, projects that are permanent but not yet under construction, are currently safe. Massachusetts has around 2700 megawatts of offshore wind planned that fit into that designation, so all of that should also be safe. But beyond that, any future projects are very unlikely to move forward under the current scheme of things.

What kind of impact will that have on our climate goals more generally?

It’s going to make them significantly harder to hit. Like I said, offshore wind was the centerpiece of our strategy. With the 800 megawatts and potential additional 2700 megawatts, that’s still going to be a decent chunk of our energy, but it won’t be the large piece that it was expected to be. So I think Massachusetts needs to continue to pursue these existing projects and the authority it has on offshore wind, but I think we’ll also need to get a bit creative and double down on alternative non-emitting strategies: solar, hydro, battery storage, energy efficiency. These are all things we really need to start pursuing, because there’s no guarantee that we’re going to be able to get projects in the future. I’m hopeful, with a change in administration or if the administration changes their mind, but I think with an industry of that scale, when there’s uncertainty, it makes production very difficult. 

Trump also pulled out of several international treaties and coalitions on climate change, including the Paris Agreement. Can you speak to what kind of impact that might have?

It’s frustrating to see as someone who works in this field, because the United States is not just ceding its status as a climate leader, but also as a climate technology leader. Climate technology is one of the top industries in the world currently, and it’s only growing. What Trump is doing is gifting leadership of that industry and all the money that’s going to come from it to countries like China. It’s incredibly frustrating that for ideological reasons, we are going to lose money on this. 

Overall, what effect will these policies have on people’s energy costs?

Simply put, the most likely outcome from all these policies is higher energy costs. Renewables are helping to provide much-needed cost relief for residents, and so these actions by the Trump administration are big complications. Additionally, even though it sounds counterintuitive, the “drill baby drill” attitude on oil and gas actually won’t do anything to bring prices down. If you look at what oil and gas producers are saying, they don’t want to produce any more, they don’t want to drill anymore, they’re good on that. The United States, under the Biden administration, was already producing record highs for oil and gas, and what the oil and gas producers want is not to drill more, but for people to use more of their fuel. I guess you could say the Trump administration is also delivering on that front by attempting to repeal things like energy efficiency policies that save you money. Basically the end result of all of this will likely be you and I being forced to use more energy at higher costs with more money coming out of our wallets.

How is Acadia Center looking at the next four years? Are you mostly thinking about ways to pivot efforts or is there action that can be taken against Trump’s policies?

I think a little bit of both. We’re trying to focus our areas on where we can be most effective. We do a lot at the state and the regional level, but we’re also trying to identify those pressure points federally, where we can be most effective. We saw during the first Trump administration that they can actually be susceptible to public pressure on certain issues; they reversed course on a number of things. That’s why I say these are the executive orders that are in place right now. I don’t know what a year from will look like, or what three years from now will look like, because they might reverse course on some of these things if there’s a huge public outcry. 

Similarly, how would you advise other people, especially ones who are particularly concerned about climate change, to think about the next four years?

These actions definitely are a huge disappointment, and they’re going to make meeting our climate goals very difficult. My advice to people is don’t be silent and don’t give up hope. Every little bit of greenhouse gas reduction that we can do is a little bit climate change that is mitigated. Maybe that storm that was going to flood a city actually gets diverted, and it doesn’t happen. Every little bit we can do matters. And your voice matters. I think it’s also important to understand that there are a lot more people who care about this stuff and are in favor than are against it. You are in the majority here, people who care about climate are in the majority.