Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Could New York City Cut Emissions 90% By 2050?

Posted by samzenpus on from the not-likely dept.

First time accepted submitter jscheib writes "According to Will Oremus in Slate, a report released today finds that 'New York City could slash its emissions by a whopping 90 percent by 2050 without any radical new technologies, without cutting back on creature comforts, and maybe even without breaking its budget.' The key elements are insulating buildings to cut energy needs, converting to (mostly) electric equipment, and then using carbon-free electricity to supply the small amount of energy still needed. Oremus notes that including energy savings would reduce the net price tag to something more like $20 billion."

6 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Detroit. The population's gone from 1M to 800k in twenty years, and energy consumption has plummeted. New York can emulate this success just by continuing it's current direction.

    1. Re:It's Been Done Elsewhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But hey, that shouldn't stop the idiots from doubling-down"

      Clearly the statist has failed all these years because Obama has not yet had a chance to lead, and even now the evil Republicans still are blocking any chance at real reform and *progress*. We should just let Obama do whatever he wants for a few years, the Constitution be damned, and that will solve everything.

      Of course I am being sarcastic but you do understand that there are people out there who really think this is true.

  2. Re:It's all about technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Large" metropolitan areas...

    I live in Melbourne, Australia and commute an hour to and from work. This is normal. This is a city of only 3. something million. A city 5 times ours I'm sure has longer commute times.

    Where do you pull this idea that trips are short?

  3. Re:It's all about technology by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By "large" balsy2001 seems to mean "large, densely packed population". NY City is very densely packed and that is definitely an aid to trip distance and time reduction. Unfortunately for both the US and Australia large is almost always synonymous with sprawling when it comes to cities. Coupled with "transport infrastructure" being a euphemism for "bare minimum road network for private vehicles" there's little hope that mass public transport can come to the rescue.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  4. Re:It's all about technology by balsy2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are right and that is more what I was thinking. However, when I lived in DC, I had a near 1 hours commute that amounted to less than 20 miles. Another apartment I lived at the drive home was between 45 minutes and 1 hours 15 minutes and it was like 7 miles. I had colleagues in DC that used electric cars that did very well in the 1+ hour commute of stop and go traffic. When I lived in a mountain state away from big cities and metropolitan areas I commuted 1 hours 15 minutes but covered 56 miles, each way. It was also not uncommon for us to drive a few hundred miles in a day on the weekend.

    --
    GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  5. Re:That's a heck of a crystal ball... by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone's going to have to help me out here:

    "anyone claiming to plan these things 37 years into the future is full of it", "Read some Ray Kurzweil books to get some perspective"

    Ray Kurzweil, the futurist who predicts a technological singularity in 2045? But I'm not supposed to trust people who claim to be able to predict outcomes decades in the future?

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?