NY Mayor Commits To Reduce Emissions 40% By 2030 80
dkatana writes: New York mayor Bill de Blasio pledged this week to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030. He made the announcement at the start of a two-day conference on climate change at the Vatican. He was in Rome by invitation of Pope Francis, who has become a hero to the environmental movement and has used his moral authority and enormous popularity to focus world attention on climate change and its effects on the poor. "I believe fundamentally in the notion of giving our private sector friends an opportunity to come along peacefully. And if that's not going to work, to put strong mandates and clear mandates on. And I believe, but the way, that that has tremendous public support." de Blasio said. Nearly three quarters of New York City's greenhouse gas emissions come from energy used to heat, cool, and power buildings, making building retrofits a central component of any plan to dramatically reduce emissions.
Me Too (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Why bother with a lost cause? New York City is the most disgusting place in the world. Filthy air, trash everywhere, run down buildings. The whole place is like a big slum.
In other words, it's the only heavily populated city you've been to.
Re: (Score:1)
You are probably right, all heavily populated cities are disgusting places. Why anybody would choose to live there is beyond reason. We have the Internet now. I probably couldn't have bared to live here in a small town in the Midwest before the connectivity and communication channels of the Internet changed geography. I was a big city dweller for years and never thought that could change.
Big crowded smelly cities are obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't have bore
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, if you value literacy, pretty sure [verbix.com] it's "I bear" -> "I bore" -> "I [could] have born/borne". But what do I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Big crowded smelly cities are obsolete.
Everyone has different needs. Having lived in smallsville and megacity, I prefer the later. Being able to go to a vast array of restaurants, shows and sports, having varied work options and friends, and being close to an International Airport are all requirements. This is not for everyone, but there are strong statistics that suggest the majority of people think the same.
Re: (Score:3)
New York City is the most disgusting place in the world
You did not travel a lot, didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
For the record. I've live in Brooklyn. I've lived in KY. You are out of your fucking mind.
Re: Me Too (Score:1)
Wrong on all counts. But keep believing what the "guns cause crime" morons keep telling you if it makes you feel better.
http://nypost.com/2014/06/10/shootings-spike-in-nyc-over-the-last-year/
I suppose they shot with their fingers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the poor will be greatly benefited by rain belts shifting away from them, or being knee deep in water.
And where exactly will the US get its grain from when the rain belt ends up in northern Canada?
Re: (Score:3)
probably from northern canada.
Re:There's Very Few Things (Score:4, Insightful)
You are conflating a world that is becoming warmer with a world that just *is* warmer. It may be true (I take no position) that a world that is 4-5 C warmer is better for certain classes of poor people (e.g., subsistence farmers). But a world that is changing rapidly is a calimity to poor people tied to the land, especially in a modern world with national boundaries and private property where you just can't pick up and move like our paleolithic ancestors would have.
Re: (Score:2)
But a world that is changing rapidly is a calimity to poor people tied to the land, especially in a modern world with national boundaries and private property where you just can't pick up and move like our paleolithic ancestors would have.
Yes, it's vastly easier to move now. Our paleolithic ancestors were tied to the land in a way we just aren't because they couldn't move very far or very fast. For example, last I heard, it was thought that the people who crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas reached the tip of South America a thousand years later. We can drive most of that distance comfortably in about two to three months.
And for most of humanity's history, the nomad still had the territory problem since the lands they moved to ty
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's vastly easier to move now.
No, it's vastly harder, because we have vastly more stuff. Our paleolithic ancestors could pack all their really valuable possessions around on their backs.
For example, last I heard, it was thought that the people who crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas reached the tip of South America a thousand years later.
They didn't have a map, dude. They just went far enough, then stopped. Over time, they eventually spread. That says nothing about how rapidly they could travel.
Private property actually makes that problem of finding a place vastly easier since one can just buy a home rather than fight someone for it.
Yeah, that's what you thought. But they have to be willing to sell. At this point, any sizable number of people trying to relocate is going to have a fight on its hands anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's vastly harder, because we have vastly more stuff. Our paleolithic ancestors could pack all their really valuable possessions around on their backs.
More stuff doesn't mean harder. After all, we have trucks, they didn't, For example, a while ago, I did a 2700 mile move where I loaded everything I had, including a car in a moving business's 18 wheeler. I then flew out and worked for several days before my stuff arrived. It was no more than a man-month (and probably more like half that) of effort by everyone involved in handling my stuff. Meanwhile our hypothetical paleolithic ancestors would have to walk that distance. Even completely unloaded and doing
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that most of humanity will be by the end of the century living in wealthy societies
Planning for a mass dieoff, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that most of humanity will be by the end of the century living in wealthy societies
Planning for a mass dieoff, huh?
No, just pointing out the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, you've been preaching here that there are a lot of people ignorant of economics and history, behaving like cardboard villains out of an Ayn Rand novel.
I think we have an example right here with your flake out. It's not about my libertarian leanings or your willful ignorance of economics and history, but the fact that globally, we have been getting wealthier and better off. There are a number of ways we could screw that up and I think Ayn Rand, for all her flaws, did manage to find a few of the dysfunctional ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah so? Doesn't mean you can't be ALSO predicting a die off. It's not a false dilemma.
Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.
China is wealthier and better off than before. Doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of dying off on its way here.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.
Exactly, and I'm saying you have pointed out how there are many people right here on slashdot who show all the signs of walking right into those screw ups, making things a lot worse before they could get better.
That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?
Re: (Score:2)
You tell me. I'm not you, I don't know why you do the things you do. I'm not trying to tell you why you did something. I'm just telling you what you did.
Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.
You tell me.
No, I won't.
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring the costs of all this. The economics of it all
I already have noted that transportation is cheap enough that we routinely move enough people, just in the US, to keep up with sea level rise.
What happens to land prices when people en mass are moving to a common area? ( note, how many square miles are there at each latitude? ) They go up. This should not be a surprise, areas where people want to live are more expensive. Now, what happens to land prices when everyone wants to get away from someplace? They go down, Combine needing to sell in a place being vacated and needing to go someplace lots of people are trying to move to with being poor. As a practical matter, it isn't going to happen.
And the obvious rebuttal here is that we already know what happens because we see greater levels of migration today than would be imposed by climate change alone.
Re: (Score:2)
But a world that is changing rapidly is a calamity to poor people tied to the land, especially in a modern world with national boundaries and private property where you just can't pick up and move like our paleolithic ancestors would have.
Actually, it will probably be a godsend (non-religious meaning intended) for said poor people. It will suck for the people who thought they owned the land the poor relocate to.
Emissions! (Score:3)
> NY Mayor Commits To Reduce Emissions 40% By 2030
Mayor promises to eat better: less beans, more fibre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mayor promises to eat better: less beans, more fibre.
While beans do have significant flatulence causing aspects in their oligosaccharides and cell wall cements, most things that contain significant amounts of fiber have potential for causing flatulence. So if the goal is to reduce "gaseous emissions," a high-fiber diet is unlikely to help
Wall Street is in New York, right? (Score:1)
Yet, somehow I doubt that New York's mayor speaks for Wall Street.
Eat less Mexican food with beans (Score:1)
Emissions! (Score:2)
start by fining stores for keeping doors open (Score:1)
What base year? (Score:2)
Didn't see what base year they are going to use.
Fixed it for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He could also tax them to the point where they all leave. Problem solved.
Hey NY, CA and FL (Score:2)
Your intrastate borders and 1 mile distant offshore ocean property is now solid 50ft contaminant walls and militarized by the US Army, USCG and NRO, sorry.
What, his own? (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the mayor who has an industrial air conditioner blowing into his limo so it's nice and chilly when he gets in?
Energy use reduction? (Score:3, Interesting)
How admirable (Score:2)
Growing square footage, population... good luck. (Score:2)
Growing square footage, population... good luck.
Not to mention the climate swings that have been increasing since 2004, requiring both more cooling in the summer and more heating in the winter.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc... [nyc.gov]
Maybe they can build vertical solar farms, and pass an ordinance that the sun has to shine horizontally...
Not hard to use less when wastefull (Score:2)
What makes 40% or so possible is buildings constructed with no thought for energy consumption in some cases need only minor modifications to for a major reduction in use. We've s
Re: (Score:2)
The big clues are right there in the summary. It's probably doable without a vast amount of effort since a lot of it will come down to insulation, ducting and awnings or similar window shading. There is already a subway in place so improvements there come down to better equipment instead of expensive tunnelling or land aquistion.
Awnings and shading will reduce cooling costs. Heating oil is not used for cooling, electricity is. They will increase heating oil consumption. Insulation will help in both directions, but it's largely not an option for existing buildings. You believe that the 80% of the legacy building can be refit to save the 40% of the energy costs? That's 65% of the legacy buildings you would need to effectively reconstruct. It's not going to happen.
The subway isn't an issue, except to say that, operating on elect
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Minor modifications are not reconstruction.
It's a prime example of "low hanging fruit" where buildings that were not designed for the climate can be altered a bit to remove obvious flaws.
Mass transit versus gridlock. Getting a lot more people on trains going to where they want to go gets a lot of vehicles off the street, and those ones still left on the stre
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? They have roof space and what's wrong with wall cladding on walls that get a lot of sun? Plastic foam, some sort of thin backing, glue and paint is how it's done.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing square footage, population... good luck.
It's a lot easier to be more efficient in higher density areas. A metro rail line for example can replace 100,000 cars, and anything electric can be offset by buying carbon credits. Not saying it will be easy, but it's good to see someone is trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing square footage, population... good luck.
It's a lot easier to be more efficient in higher density areas. A metro rail line for example can replace 100,000 cars, and anything electric can be offset by buying carbon credits. Not saying it will be easy, but it's good to see someone is trying.
Read the article, and then read the linked document I provided on the sourcing of greenhouse gasses in NYC: It's predominantly from buildings. Adding square footage by rebuilding up is going to increase this; even if you do a "green building" as you build higher, you're going to increase heating pressure on your neighbors as you block their sunlight.
Use of heating oil and boilers is the reason there are greenhouse gasses from buildings; a secondary sourcing of greenhouse gasses comes from summer cooling co
Welcome to the police state (Score:1)
When de Blasio says "I believe fundamentally in the notion of giving our private sector friends an opportunity to come along peacefully. And if that's not going to work, to put strong mandates and clear mandates on." he is saying what every totalitarian leftist says (i.e. "I believe everybody should be allowed to peacefully surrender before I force them to do what I want").
He is NOT saying he will compel people to obey the laws the people have passed, he is saying he will compel people to obey HIM. Must be