Climate vs. The Commoners

“So let me say that again, 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right … there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will. Right, I can’t even say that publicly.”

– David Ismay, Massachusetts Under Secretary for Climate Change (January 25, 2021). Quoted in “Charlie Baker climate official blasted for comments to ‘break your will’ over emissions.” Boston Herald ( )

“… one of the main reasons we didn’t sign the climate bill when it got to our desk was because we were specifically concerned about the impact that it’s going to have on people’s ability to pay for many of the pieces that were in it, which means it also doesn’t represent the administration policy or position.”

– MA Governor Charlie Baker, February 11, 2021.

The state’s $130,000-a-year undersecretary for climate change is being blasted by a fiscal watchdog for saying the administration needs to “break” the will of taxpayers when it comes to heating homes and driving cars.

The video shows David Ismay, Gov. Charlie Baker’s under secretary for climate change, telling Vermont climate advocates that it’s time to go after homeowners and motorists to help reduce emissions.

At the end of the clip, he adds: “I can’t even say that publicly.”

Ismay did not return a Herald request for comment Friday.

Asked about the video during a press conference, Baker said he and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito had seen the video earlier that morning. He added Climate Secretary Kathleen Theoharides, Ismay’s boss, is also aware of it.

“First of all, no one who works in our administration should ever say or think anything like that — ever,” the governor said. “Secondly, Secretary Theoharides is going to have a conversation with him about that.”

Baker continued, “And the third — and one of the main reasons we didn’t sign the climate bill when it got to our desk was because we were specifically concerned about the impact that it’s going to have on people’s ability to pay for many of the pieces that were in it, which means it also doesn’t represent the administration policy or position.”