“The House version of the Mass Ready Act ignores the urgency of our climate threats,” said Dave McGlinchey, executive director of the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance. “It’s hard to call a bill ‘Mass Ready’ when it strips out [these] measures.”

State representatives have filed amendments to restore some of these provisions, and advocates expect the total amount the bill will authorize the state to borrow to increase.

“The jury is still out on that,” said David Melly, senior policy director for the Environmental League of Massachusetts. “We’ll wait and see what the final total is.”

The House is scheduled to vote on the bill on Wednesday. If the bill passes, it will head to a conference committee where legislators will try to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions.

House Speaker Ron Mariano and Representative Aaron Michlewitz, the chamber’s budget chief, praised the proposal in a joint statement as a step forward for the state’s climate and environment priorities. (Michlewitz did not return a request for an interview.)

“This legislation is the latest example of Massachusetts’ ironclad commitment to protecting our environment and to leading the fight against climate change,” the legislators said.

Senator Becca Rausch, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, applauded the House for bringing the bill to the floor in a statement, noting several points of agreement between the chambers.

“Each chamber’s contributions add to the strength of the climate action and environmental protection policies and funding so critical to our communities and our Commonwealth,” she said.

Senator Jamie Eldridge said the overlap between the two bills was a positive sign that the legislature would get a version of the Mass Ready Act to the governor’s desk.

Eldridge, who authored the drought management legislation included in the Senate bill, said he’d continue to advocate for the policy, which would allow the state to establish outdoor watering restrictions during droughts — a “common sense change,” he said.

The plastic bag ban has been closely watched by environmentalists, who hope its inclusion in the Senate bond bill as opposed to passing it as a standalone piece of legislation will increase its chances of becoming law.

The provision passed by the Senate in April would allow retailers to offer reusable bags without a charge and recycled paper bags with a minimum 10-cent fee. It would also make plastic straws and utensils available only by request to customers.

Single-use plastic bags are already barred in about a dozen states across the country, including nearly all of New England. More than 160 Massachusetts cities and towns regulate them.

“Like many people, all I can do is think of sports metaphors these days,” said Janet Domenitz, the executive director of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit consumer advocacy organization. “This is definitely dropping the ball.”

Nancy Downes, field campaigns manager for Oceana in Massachusetts, said polling shows that the vast majority of voters in the state support policies that reduce single-use plastic. Oceana, an ocean conservation advocacy organization, is part of a coalition of more than 40 organizations pushing to reduce and eliminate plastic whenever possible in Massachusetts.

“The Massachusetts legislature has an opportunity to tackle the plastic pollution crisis in the Commonwealth, and voters are ready for this,” she said.

The ban has repeatedly failed in the legislature. The Senate has backed a ban at least four times, but the measure has never passed in the House. It is opposed by the plastic bag industry and some retailers.

“Affordability is clearly the top priority for our residents, and we thank the House of Representatives for being laser-focused on that fact,” said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. He said the Senate language would raise the costs of buying from local retailers and push customers out of state.

Material from a previous Globe story was used in this report.

Kate Selig can be reached at kate.selig@globe.com. Follow her on X @kate_selig.

Roughly one in four of the 500 voters polled said they’ve “seriously considered” a move and another 28 percent said they’ve weighed it from time to time. That’s despite the vast majority — at least 70 percent — also saying they had enough money to live comfortably right now or weren’t concerned about losing their jobs.

The seemingly contradictory results could be explained by what David Paleologos, the director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, referred to as the United States’ “K-shaped economy,” in which different economic classes experience different financial outcomes. In Massachusetts, the gap is widening between the state’s richest and its lowest-paid workers.

Voters in lower income brackets were more likely to say they had seriously considered moving, and they were far more likely to be very concerned about losing their jobs.

“The people who are making low incomes are really being punished by inflation and the high cost of food and groceries,” he said.

Those financial concerns were especially pronounced among respondents in the 35-49 age category, whom Paleologos said are “really being pulled in a lot of different directions” by juggling careers, children, and aging parents.

About 40 percent of those who weighed leaving cited the cost of living as their primary issue, while another 18 percent pointed to Massachusetts’s taxes. Some business groups are simultaneously pushing a ballot question this fall that would slash the state’s income tax — and, lawmakers warn, could prompt deep cuts in the state budget if passed.

That proposal is nonetheless proving popular: Nearly 66 percent of poll respondents said they would support the measure, compared to 21 percent who said they would oppose it.

The Suffolk/Globe poll was conducted over five days last week, and its margin of error was plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Live callers reached respondents via mobile and landline phones, and the Globe spoke with several of those respondents after the poll was conducted.

John Borders, a 49-year-old insurance analyst from Stow, praised Massachusetts’ governance in several areas, including “services for individuals,” public safety, and “pretty good job opportunities.” But Massachusetts’ high cost of living is one area he doesn’t feel the state’s elected officials have handled “much at all.”

As a parent of two high-school-aged kids, however, Borders said he’s been reluctant to leave Massachusetts and its highly regarded public education system for cheaper states to the south.

“As the kids get a little older, the taxes in Massachusetts are a little bit high . . . and it’d be nice to maybe look into an area that didn’t quite have the same kind of taxes,” said Borders, an unenrolled voter.

Many Massachusetts voters, similar to Borders, held a much more optimistic view of their state as compared with the country at large: More than half of respondents, or about 51 percent, said they believed Massachusetts was headed in the right direction. Meanwhile, less than 20 percent said they believed that to be true for the United States as a whole.

But they also had a somewhat dimmer view of the state’s financial footing. Just 5 percent said they considered Massachusetts’s economy to be excellent — 71 percent said it was either “good” or “fair” — and 60 percent said they were very or somewhat concerned about their personal financial situation, indicating an uncertainty about the future.

Some voters said their feelings about politics in other states were part of what kept them from leaving Massachusetts.

Virginia Bilz, a 70-year-old Monson resident, said downsizing from her Massachusetts home feels “almost impossible,” financially speaking. She visits Florida in the summer and has thought about moving south, but ultimately weighed against it.

“I like a lot of other people in Massachusetts, and when they ask me what the biggest stress in my life is right now, I have to say it’s the federal government,” said Bilz, a registered Democrat. “The housing is a lot cheaper in Florida, and the income tax would be less, but it’s not worth it to be in that political climate.”

About 16 percent of those surveyed said their highest source of stress was inflation, the cost of living, or the economy. Another 14 percent said finances or money were most concerning.

A plurality of voters — 33 percent — pointed to the cost of food and groceries as the biggest strain on their personal finances.

Melissa Tarjick, a part-time educator in Cheshire, said as a parent of 11, including foster and adopted children, it has become “increasingly challenging” to raise children here.

Tarjick, a 50-year-old unenrolled voter, laid blame on the Trump administration for driving up grocery and fuel costs. But she’s “always a bit nervous” that areas where Massachusetts has been “pretty responsive,” such as child care and health care, could face cuts.

“We also receive some subsidized health care, so I am quite concerned about what changes will mean for us,” she said.

State lawmakers have tried to address financial pains that voters have for years urged their elected leaders to tackle. In 2023, for example, the Massachusetts Legislature passed, and Governor Maura Healey signed, a law promising $1 billion in tax relief by increasing tax credits for parents and seniors, cutting the state’s capital gains tax, and other measures.

But only a fraction of those surveyed in the Suffolk/Globe poll — under 10 percent — said they felt the law had helped them. More than half, or 52 percent, said they couldn’t tell if it had made a difference.

“What are the taxpayers getting? More and more taxes — it’s not even worth being here anymore,” said Albert Thomas, a 59-year-old Ashland resident who has weighed leaving the state. Thomas, an unenrolled voter, said he also has not seen the benefit of state officials’ moves to temporarily slice utility rates. “We’re sold a bill of goods saying, ‘Oh, your electricity price is going to go down with all this stuff.’ Well, it ain’t going down, it’s going up faster.”

To William Haskell, a 30-year-old insurance broker, politicians “sign bills that grab headlines but don’t do anything, and it all seems like a giant waste of money.”

“I’m making enough money to where I’m kind of getting screwed across the board by taxes, and it’s squeezing me thin,” said Haskell, a Democrat who moved to Boston nearly a decade ago. He said there are other low-tax states where he would have “$1,000 to $2,000 more in my pocket each month.”

Still, Haskell said, he’s torn.

“It’s a nice place to live in at the same time,” he said, “so it’s definitely an internal mental battle.”

Anjali Huynh can be reached at anjali.huynh@globe.com.

Across Massachusetts 351 cities and towns, authentically handmade copies of the Declaration of Independence will be distributed to modern day residents this summer — recreating the announcement nearly 250 years ago when over 300 copies informed the state of the founders’ intent.

“This is one of the defining moments in Massachusetts history,” said Jonathan Lane, executive director of Revolution 250. “In July 1776, the Declaration of Independence was printed and distributed throughout the Commonwealth to churches in towns large and small, regardless of denomination. As ministers read the Declaration aloud to their congregations, hundreds of thousands of people heard, often for the first time, the words that would forever change the course of history.”

The “Declaration Delivery Day” initiative, organized by Revolution 250, will oversee the hand-making of hundreds of copies of the Declaration of Independence and delivery to each city and town in the state before July 4.

The first reproductions were completed on Friday to kick off the project, Revolution 250 announced.

The initiative aims to bring light to a “lesser-known chapter of Revolutionary history:” the weeks after July 4, 1776, when the residents of Massachusetts heard the words for the first time from their parish ministers and recorded them into official town records.

“Imagine nearly 250,000 people gathered in meetinghouses and churches across Massachusetts, listening as the Declaration proclaimed that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’” said Lane. “For many, it was the moment when the Revolution ceased to be a political debate and became a shared public commitment to independence.”

Dozens of the original documents distributed remain preserved today, Revolution 250 said.

The historian and printer Gary Gregory facilitated the printing of the historical document at the Museum of Printing in Haverhill using “18th-century techniques, recreating a labor-intensive process similar to that used in 1776,” the organization said.