Cities Are Scolding Countries at UN Climate Conference To Cut Emissions (vice.com)

A reader shares a report: An alliance of major cities including New York, Toronto, and London challenged nation states attending the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week "to kick dirty carbon to the curb" and immediately "commit and work straightaway towards carbon neutrality, 100 percent renewable energy, zero-waste and zero-carbon." The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance is a new collaboration of 20 international cities (other members include Washington DC, San Francisco, Oslo, and Sydney). All are striving for carbon neutrality and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. "Dirty fuels and climate disruption are killing and displacing millions of citizens around the world," the Alliance stated in a strongly-worded letter sent to every country's delegation at climate talks, known as COP 23. "Cities are on the frontline of climate impacts. We see the urgency of climate action and need nation-states to be as committed as we are," Johanna Partin, the director of the Alliance and former advisor to the mayor of San Francisco, told Motherboard by phone.

Comments

Windmills on skyscrapers

[Anonymous Coward]

All those cities the TALL buildings should require the tall buildings to have windmills on them.
Then the power is generated close to where it is being used. Windmills in the countryside are and eyesore.
Perhaps photovoltaic window too.
Get the carbon out of YOUR city before you start trying to run mine.

Switching to LED lights- a "no-brainer"

[Geoffrey.landis]

The article listed switching to LED lights as an example of some of the things these cities have done, that they consider “no brainers." Note the word "some".

The article also said
'“We’ve proven that cutting emissions is good for the economies of cities.' San Francisco has enjoyed a 78 percent economic gain while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent since 1990, she said. All of the 20 cities in the Alliance have seen similar results."

Re:Solution

[jwhyche]

But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?

Yeah there are. Some of them are lots better. Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does? You only get better gas mileage because of the weight, not because its necessary a more efficient vehicle. What your scooter lacks is the emission controls that modern cars have. So based on the efficiency for per gallon of gas burned my car has less emissions than you scooter does.

More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.

Re:Solution

[Geoffrey.landis]

But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?

Yeah there are. Some of them are lots better. Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does?

But "pound per pound" is not the criterion. The appropriate criterion would be "pound of pollution per commuter mile".

You only get better gas mileage because of the weight

So? Does it matter why it gets better gas mileage? What matters is that it does get better gas mileage.

...
More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.

Indeed, there are other forms of pollution. If you get better miles per gallon but worse particulates and carbon monoxide per mile, it's not a desireable trade-off.

Re:Solution

[WillAffleckUW]

Most of the West runs on renewables. If you drive across the Western States, you'll see solar panels and wind farms everywhere, in addition to abundant hydroelectric power.

Coal is more expensive. Renewables are cheaper.