- A Massachusetts bill (S. 2246) would require the state to reduce vehicle miles traveled as part of its effort to meet climate and greenhouse gas reduction mandates.
- The proposal directs MassDOT to set statewide driving-reduction goals beginning in 2030 and creates a 15-member council to promote public transit and alternatives to personal vehicles.
- Supporters argue the bill is needed because transportation is the state's largest source of emissions and say it focuses on long-term planning, not punishing drivers.
- Critics warn the legislation amounts to government overreach, threatening personal freedom, economic stability and mobility, especially in rural areas.
- The bill has drawn national attention and political backlash, with opposition from conservative commentators, fiscal watchdog groups and even some Democratic lawmakers concerned about its real-world impact.
A bill advancing through the Massachusetts Senate would require the state to reduce the number of miles residents travel in their personal vehicles as part of an effort to meet aggressive climate mandates.
The legislation, An Act Aligning the Commonwealth's Transportation Plan with its Mandates and Goals for Reducing Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled (S. 2246), was filed by State Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone-Creem (D-Norfolk and Middlesex). The proposal draws on existing laws and regulatory frameworks in Colorado and Minnesota to bring Massachusetts' transportation planning into alignment with its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
BrightU.AI's Enoch explains that greenhouse gas reduction refers to the deliberate decrease in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO?), methane (CH?), nitrous oxide (N?O) and other heat-trapping gases through technological, economic and policy interventions, often framed as essential to mitigating climate change despite controversies over their efficacy and unintended consequences
According to a summary of the bill, it would require the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set statewide goals for reducing vehicle miles traveled. Those targets would then be considered by the state's Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs when establishing greenhouse gas emissions limits and sublimits.
The bill does not specify a numerical reduction in driving miles per person. Instead, it directs the state's transportation secretary to establish official vehicle travel reduction goals for 2030 and every five years thereafter. In addition, the proposal would create a 15-member intergovernmental coordinating council tasked with identifying ways to make public transportation more accessible and potentially incentivizing residents to use transit instead of personal vehicles.
The State Senate's Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy reported the bill favorably in a 4-1 vote in November. It has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, where it will face further review before potentially advancing to the full Legislature.
Bill sparks backlash, critics warn of government overreach
Supporters say the bill is necessary to address transportation, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts. The legislation, no matter how promising, has sparked national backlash, with critics warning it would give Critics, however, argue the proposal threatens personal freedom, economic stability and mobility – particularly outside urban areas – as it the government control over personal transportation.
The bill drew national attention after a clip of Creem went viral following a May 14 hearing before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. In her testimony, Creem said Massachusetts must pursue "additional strategies" beyond electric vehicles, citing federal rollbacks of emission standards and potential cuts to EV incentives. "Setting specific goals for reducing vehicle miles traveled would help guide decisions made across state government," Creem said, adding that the policy would sharpen the focus on alternatives such as public transit, biking and walking.
Fiscal watchdog groups have voiced strong opposition. Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which propelled the bill into the national spotlight with a viral post on X, warned the proposal could damage the state economy and restrict daily life for residents.
"This would be incredibly damaging to the state economy and restrict transportation for countless residents," said Paul Diego Craney, a spokesman for the group. "Massachusetts lawmakers need to reverse course on the state’s net-zero-by-2050 mandate, which is driving extreme pieces of legislation. Net-zero is nothing more than a fantasy."
Some Democrats have also expressed concerns. State Sen. Michael Barrett (D-Third Middlesex), who chairs the committee reviewing the bill, questioned whether the proposal could unfairly disadvantage rural communities where long commutes are unavoidable. "I do worry about an unintended and subtle bias against rural Massachusetts," Barrett said, adding that the bill raises questions about how residents in remote areas would be expected to travel to work.
Grassroots critics have framed the proposal in even sharper terms. New Bedford resident Elijah DeSousa, founder of Citizens Against Eversource, called the bill a "blueprint for behavioral control disguised as environmental policy. I refuse to quietly surrender the most fundamental right we have as citizens: the right to move freely, without needing permission from unelected councils or state-issued metrics."
Watch Glenn Beck discussing the possibility of cars being turned off remotely to fight "climate change" below.
This video is from the High Hopes channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
