- Massachusetts Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem introduced Bill S2246, which sets vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction targets by 2030, enforced through fines and regulations to combat climate change.
- The bill prioritizes public transit, biking and walking over private car use, requiring transportation plans to align with emissions goals.
- Critics argue the plan disproportionately affects rural residents who rely on cars due to limited transit options and longer commutes, with State Sen. Michael Barrett highlighting an "unintentional bias" against these communities.
- While supporters say rising total miles driven undermine emissions progress, opponents question targeting all driving – including electric vehicles – rather than just fossil-fueled cars.
- The proposal faces skepticism over feasibility and fairness, as policymakers grapple with balancing urban climate mandates with rural transportation realities.
A state senator from Massachusetts wants green tyranny by reducing the need for personal vehicles in the state, purportedly to combat so-called "climate change."
Massachusetts Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem (D-1st Middlesex and Norfolk) has introduced a proposal that seeks to establish statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction targets by 2030. Bill S2246 will enforce these targets through potential fines and regulations.
The 82-year-old Democrat's proposal, which could punish Massachusetts residents for driving too many miles, also mandates that transportation plans align with emissions goals – prioritizing public transit, biking and walking over private car use. But critics say it could unfairly burden rural communities while pushing the state toward a future with fewer personal vehicles.
The legislation was heard last month by the Massachusetts Senate's Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (TUE) Committee. It has sparked debate over whether the Bay State is layering too many climate mandates, some of which may conflict with the realities of rural life. While states like Colorado and Minnesota have adopted similar VMT reduction frameworks, critics argue that Massachusetts' plan could disproportionately affect workers in areas with limited public transit. (Related: Massachusetts considers controversial bill to curb car usage amid climate concerns.)
Green goals or unfair burden? The controversy over MA's car reduction plan
State Sen. Michael Barrett (D-3rd Middlesex), co-chair of the Senate TUE Committee, scrutinized Bill S2246 in May. He noted "an unintended and subtle bias against rural Massachusetts," where transit options are far more limited and people often live further from their workplaces, in the proposal.
"I understand that one can easily imagine that EVs [electric vehicles], over time, will reduce the number of polluting VMT," the state senator said. "But why we would want to pressure Massachusetts to reduce all miles traveled, polluting and non-polluting alike, does raise the question of what someone is to do in a place where one has to travel a long distance to a construction job or to any other source of employment."
Transportation accounts for the largest share of Massachusetts' greenhouse gas emissions. While EVs have been a key focus, supporters of Creem's bill argue that rising total miles driven have offset environmental gains.
"EVs are certainly a major piece of the puzzle," Creem said. The bill would create an interagency council to develop strategies for reducing car dependency, including expanded bike lanes, pedestrian paths and microtransit programs.
However, Barrett questioned whether the state should target all driving – including emissions-free EV travel – rather than focusing solely on fossil-fueled vehicles. "One of the questions I'm going to carry with me is whether we really want to focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled, or whether that's too crude and somewhat off the point," he said.
As policymakers weigh new mandates, the tension between urban transit solutions and rural realities remains unresolved. For now, Creem's proposal faces skepticism not just over its feasibility, but over whether it risks punishing those who have no alternative to driving.
Visit GreenTyranny.news for more similar stories.
Watch Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin reiterating his refusal to spend tax dollars on "climate alarmism" measures in this clip.
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
9 days ago
You get the government you deserve..82 yrs old?! What a joke this country has become.