Slashdot Mirror
New York City Announces Plans To Introduce Legislation To Cut Building Emission, Its Top Source Of Climate Pollution (huffingtonpost.com)
A top New York City lawmaker announced a bill Monday to mandate dramatic energy use cuts in big buildings, by far the biggest source of carbon dioxide, in a historic move that could set a new standard for cities around the world. From a report: The legislation plans to require the city's largest buildings to reduce energy use by 20 percent by 2030, as well as to set a framework for increasing the cuts by 40 percent to 60 percent by 2050. Combined with projected increases for renewable energy capacity on the power grid, the city could reduce its climate-warming emissions by 80 percent. Electricity and heating in buildings make up nearly 70 percent of the city's climate pollution, with luxury towers producing the lion's share. "The low-hanging fruit is gone," City Councilman Costa Constantinides, a Queens legislator who leads the council's Committee on Environmental Protection, said Monday morning on the steps of City Hall. "If we are going to make a real impact on climate change, it's going to be on buildings." The legislation, which is not yet complete, would make the nation's largest and most economically influential metropolis among the first major cities in the world to mandate strict retrofits on existing buildings to reduce planet-warming emissions.
Especially the orange ones.
The law seems to primarily target city-owned buildings -- hope there's money to retrofit them and it doesn't result in the closing of services. Frankly, I see a better path for NY State: build more nuclear power stations to replace Indian Point when it closes. If you can't reduce energy use too much, you can at least make the source(s) clean.
I really hope the bill is not to make all buildings cut energy use by 20% - that would mean buildings that tried to be forward thinking and have low energy use to begin with, would have to spend quite a lot more to meet a 20% target than some buildings that didn't care about energy use and could meet a 20% target with simpler and cheaper measures...
So hopefully it's more complex than the article makes it sounds. But knowing politicians, probably not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
confirmed. His nuts are like two grapefruit in a wrinkly bag. For some reason, his cock looks like a vienna sausage though.
Yes it's a smaller absolute number, but if your building for example already has the highest r-rating for external glass what are you supposed to do to meet the new goal - paint all the building windows silver??? Or maybe tell everyone in the building, that the new AC target is a delightful 95 degrees F because that's the only way to meet goal... The point is that beyond a certain point even to meet a smaller absolute number may mean vastly more expense, either in comfort or money spent on solutions with diminishing returns.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When will American developers stop building highrise buildings that look like radiators? Yes, I mean ones with protruding floor slabs. Rebar inside them is a very good heat conductor. You can't talk about insulating walls until the slab is insulated.
Second, at least some easing of glass "curtain walls" everywhere (hanging panoramic glazing) is needed. Even the most well insulated glass is nothing when compared to cheapest piece of insulation of equivalent thickness. See, even in the dirt rich UAE, skyscrapers don't have all around glazing.
Third, cogeneration. Former Soviet bloc countries can afford continuing building piss poor insulated buildings with no energy management only thanks to "free" district heating being available from cogeneration plants.
Fourth, energy recovery. Central air conditioning and forced ventilation can actually be net earners in a high rise if recuperation is used properly.
And only fifth, is the wall insulation. This is something that has been a solved issue for the rest of the world since mid 20th century. Super cheap insulation been there for ages.
that are the biggest source of the CO2 emissions will be happy to turn down the temperature in winter if it means the whole world will benefit. They are a benevolent, selfless lot, always looking out for their fellow man, and seeking ways to improve themselves and the lives of everyone around them.
They should hire homeless people to climb up to the top floors of buildings and take the elevator down.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You just make up a number, and yell at your underlings to hit it.
What a simple way to solve a problem. I like his management leadership.
Seriously, in any large city, there are 2 main sources of pollution and CO2.
1) electricity since most cities have 1 or more coal plants.
2) vehicles, esp since nearly all are ICE.
NY and NYC have been going at things in a catywhumpus sort of way. At this time, NY would be smart to implement a modified form of CA's new regs; require that all new buildings of 6 stories and under to have enough unsubsidized on-site AE to equal/exceed the energy used by HVAC. This will encourage things like more insulation,geo-thermal HVAC, and even high lumens/watt bulbs. The reason is that solar is more expensive than those alternatives.
Likewise, all rentals AND home sales, should be required to have all high lumens/watt bulbs upon tenant turnover. THis will drop the energy used by about 5-10%.
In addition, for any building below 6 stories that is doing rentals/leasing, they should be required to pay for the HVAC. In doing that, it will encourage the landlord to either insulate it and move to CHEAP HVAC, OR sell it to somebody that will do it.
Finally, it is time for cities to have some courage and stop allowing vehicles in.
FOr starters, stop all passenger diesels.
Year after that, stop the commercial diesel.
Then ALL ICE passenger vehicles.
Followed by all ICE.
4 years is plenty long.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
as in pozzolanic cements, fiber reinforced steel-free construction?
French experiments and real-world installations show us the way to 35% lower CO2 impact but NOT while concrete is a mob controlled business backed by risk averse, antiquated civil engineering.,br>
And who pays for all of this pie in the sky?
The Rothschilds want to charge you a personal carbon tax which they personal enrich themselves. (see federal reserve). Like exhaling c02? To bad! hold your fucking breath, or be taxes for your c02 output! New York Shitty Shithole was the original city that George Washington knew the conspiracy was coming from. The Rothchilds use NY city to this day as their test playground.
Many of the buildings are old and hard to do much with in terms of emission improvements. You force these owners to spend a lot of money meeting the requirements and guess who pays the bill?
So New York City took a historic step in cutting all building emissions? I was very interested to find out more, as this would certainly affect my company's business in New York, but it quickly became clear the this article was about draft legislation that had not even been finished, much less submitted to the council. If this is a "historic step", I cannot imagine what Huffington will call it when (and if) the bill is submitted, and will they even be able to describe the earth-shattering relevance if it passes into law?
In terms of climate change, would restricting passenger vehicles in NYC to EVs really do that much? I don't think people in NYC are doing the miles that people in lots of other places are. I'm in favor of EVs overall, but I'm not sure that making everyone in New York sell their functioning ICE cars and buying new EVs which are not going to be used all that much is the best way to do that. Especially since a lot of EVs are currently supply constrained.
Ever walked the streets of NY in summer? How about we spend some effort on the giant fucking piles of dripping, stinking, rat-infested garbage bags that line even the nicest streets?
I know it's not nearly as TRENDY to clean up garbage as it is to prevent 0.1mm of sea level rise, but still, if we're talking about where people live maybe making it liveABLE can be part of the equation?
-Styopa
In terms of climate change, would restricting passenger vehicles in NYC to EVs really do that much?
Yes, oh yes. While New Yorkers talk about being able to walk wherever they wanted to go, the boroughs survive because of enormous amounts of small vehicle traffic. This is not just the out-of-towners coming in from suburbs (New Jersey has much better housing rates, and if you go east on Long Island thngs start to become affordable again), but also the traffic in-city that either cannot or will not travel by a combination fo walking and subways. The immense NYC gridlocks are a side-effect of the amount of traffic people in that big of a congested mess need to get their day's activities done.
Yeah, if you can have an electric-only requirement for the entire metropolis of NYC it will do wonders, to move the pollution slightly away from downtown. If paired with cleaner energy (solar, wind, and nuclear have low operational pollution, but have production and dismantling pollution issues), it will make a real difference over having thousands of combustion engines idling while drivers yell at each other and wear out their horns.
The number one source of building pollution in NYC is ethnic food. The ethnics eat foods laden with sulpher compounds which when combined with the primitive thrid world rancid bacterial gut fauna, create a toxic haze of flatuence that suffocates normal people. Not only is it an immediate health hazard to those working in the enclosed buildings, but the sulpher compounds combine with moisture in the atmosphere to form sulphuric acid. This falls back to earth as acid rain, destroying agriculture, monuments, transporation infrastrucure, lakes, rivers, and ultimately the ocean.
Look at a picture of any third world country. Look at the way these left-tail of-the-bell-curve morons abuse the environment. It's not only their slovenly stewardship of nature, but the toxic foods they ingest. Look at those pictures and ask yourself, do we really want these subhumans living in our first world country? I think not. That is something everyone can agree on.
nothing to pay for.
1) by adding enough UNSUBSIDIZED on-site AE to equl HVAC, they will have to decide of they are going to lower the energy used or simply put a lot of solar panels on. The later is expensive. But adding insulation and using geo-thermal HVAC instead of gas furnace/AC, is MUCH MUCH cheaper. IOW, this will lead to better built buildings with low utility costs.
2) Requiring high lumen/watt bulbs saves enough energy to pay for themselve. In the case of the landlords, the bulbs last 5-10 years. And the rental only needs to be changed when a new tenant comes in. That makes it staggered for the landlords
3) many buildings, esp in NYC, are slumlords type places. By requiring the landlords to pay for the HVAC, they will either charge a great deal more than neighbors which will lose them tenants, OR they will insulate and perhaps add solar to the building so as to lower the total energy needed. IOW, they can charge more, while cutting costs way back and actually make money.
4) Stopping ICE vehicles in the city is a no-brainer. Everybody has the right to be there, but you do not have the right to pollute my air. So, by phasing it out slowly, it cleans up the air and drops the CO2. What costs is there? Well, ICE pollution has caused loads of medical bills. They would be down a great deal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Lets turn off all of the elevators in the high-rise buildings, and only have hot water 6-9pm.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Actually, it should make a HUGE difference.
NY is a fairly tiny state. It is in the bottom 1/2 (almost bottom 1/3) and only around 47,000 sq miles. However, HUGE population. There are almost 9 million in NYC ALONE, vs 20M in the New York state. So, adding in the surrounding areas of NYC and you are looking at 1/2 of the state being in NYC area (SWAG). Even though most of the ppl outside of NYC will have further to drive, they are mostly SHORT SHORT distances (here in Colorado, I used to drive >200 miles / day just to get to/from work). So, I would say, it is safe to assume that at least 1/2 of the gasoline consumed there is in the city. New York is 4th largest consumer of fuel in America.
Note that this one has CA off by a magnitude. It is #1, so NY moves down to 4 This indicates around 129K barrels for 2016 So, giving half, that would be around 64K barrels of gas, which does not include the diesel or the commercial stuff. So, with 42 gal/barrel that would give ~ 2688000 gal of gas. Note that it is about 20 lbs / gal of gas, which is around 27K tons of CO2 / year.
That is just the gas portion for regular cars. It does not include the diesel, which is even worse.
One nice thing about NY is that they have a varied electricity matrix. Basically, Hydro, Nuke, and nat gas. And they are working towards killing off most of their nat gas. So, if they kill the nat gas electricity AND kill the ICE, they will be one of the cleanest population in terms of CO2.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In cities, it's mostly suburban cars that create pollution, but NYC has barriers that make that less of an impact.
If it weren't for major polluters like Trump, they'd be fine.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Bawack Ubama, the godking, was still preezy.
Corporatism != Free Market
Seriously, in any large city, there are 2 main sources of pollution and CO2. 1) electricity since most cities have 1 or more coal plants.
Since Americans use way above average levels of electricity. It leads to them using more coal powered electricty per person that just about any country. More than China even.
2) vehicles, esp since nearly all are ICE.
And America also has the most vehicles it also has less eficient vehicles and drives them further than just about any other country.
Just these two things by themselves go a long way to explain why Americans per capita are amongst the dirtiest in the world.
And both those things are things people could change. You can't blame anyone but yourself Windy. You are the dirtiest, you know why and how, but you deny the need to change because you feel you are entitled to pollute more.
So now you think population makes a difference. just not when it's 1.4 billion vs 350 million....
It's ok for you to drive more than 200 miles a day, but an Indian isn't allowed to even buy a car? What kind of entitled fucker are you.
Everybody has the right to be there, but you do not have the right to pollute my air.
But according to you Americans have the right to pollute everyone elses air more than most countries, because they are polluting it slightly less than the year before. Even though the levels are higher than everywhere else.
Are you serious? Comparing the US to China and India but not other western nations? Lumping in all of Africa with China and India makes eco-friendly Germany look like power hogs. Likewise, Germany on a per capita basis own nearly the same number of cars. Your other claims are not substantiated.
Have some intellectual honesty.
Just these two things by themselves go a long way to explain why Americans per capita are amongst the dirtiest in the world.
The latter may be true, but Americans also heavily invented and propagated every tool available to combat the problem. The sum efforts of the rest of the world in eco-friendly technology does not come to within a magnitude of what the US was inventing 50 years ago let alone now.
So lets chill on the lies and moral condemnation.
Have some intellectual honesty.
Yes, you should.
You are free to add in as many other western nations as you like. I only used those examples, as they are the ones Windy likes to say are causing the problems. Germany France and the UK as well. Doesn't change the fact America is way out in front.
Only a disengenuous idiot thinks 572 German cars are nearly the same number as America's 910. German cars are much more fuel efficient and travel shorter distances too.
You've been inventing things for 50 years, ok, but how many more decades do you need to cut your CO2 to similar levels to all the other much cleaner countries?
Make it illegal to cool a public place below 25C (78F), or warm it above 20C (68F).
This would apply to hotel spaces, restaurants, office buildings, etc.
Too often I walk into restaurants, of other spaces in the summer and actually feel cold, or in the winter, immediately way too warm.
I have frequently checked the thermostat in restaurants, or retail shops and found many, many of them set to 18C in summer, or above 23 in winter.
There's no excuse for that.
In terms of climate change
Climate change? Who cares about that. If climate change weren't a thing we should push for this anyway. Give me lower noise, cleaner air, no dust, particulates, NOx or Ozone anyday.
Colorado air isn't so dirty you can chew it. In fact the air there is quite clean and rarely visible. Contrast that to India's filthy air, due to no pollution controls. Maybe if India cleaned up their pollution they could allow more cars. (of course I see plenty of cars on their roads already).
Yes there is an excuse. If I own or lease the building or the space within the building it's a matter of my comfort, I don't have to be hot in the summer or cold in the winter. What you find comfortable others do not.
How many people live in the Indian cities you are talking about, and how many in the whole state of Colorado? Of course it doesn't say much when they are shitting in the streets.