Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Despite its size (and irrelevance in national elections), New York City produces about 1% of all of America's greenhouse gas emissions. That's as much as the entire countries of Ireland and Portugal, however considering that New Yorkers account for about 2-3% of the U.S. population, 1% isn't bad. But it's not great either, and Mayor Bloomberg said, "We can no longer deny the science and bury our heads in the sand. Climate change is a real issue with real consequences. And as a coastal city, New York can't just sit back and hope for the best."
According to the ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability's "Cities for Climate Protection Campaign," the average New Yorker contributes less than a third of the greenhouse emissions produced by the average American. This is likely thanks to the City's extensive public transportation system, reducing a reliance on cars. Interestingly enough, most of NYC's emissions don't actually come from buses and trains but from operating all of those large buildings we've got in these here parts - accounting for almost 79% of all gas production (the national average for buildings' gas emissions is 32%). Here's a sobering statistic: "citywide emissions have increased by approximately 8 percent in the last ten years, and are on trend to increase approximately 25 percent above 2005 levels by 2030" (partially due to the increase in population the city projects).
These numbers come from a study conducted by Mayor Mike's Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, which is aiming for a 30% decrease in emissions by 2030. For the next 1000 days, reducing carbon emissions will be a top priority for the city. However, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff "avoided any discussion of congestion pricing, dodging the subject when asked about it by reporters" but the NY Times says there's internal support for it.
The Sun reports the Mayor's plan will be unveiled on Earth Day and the city will also be hosting the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit May 14-17; former president Bill Clinton and Mayor Bloomberg will be keynote speakers.
Photograph of apocalyptic-looking sky by pr002i on Flickr
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Since my landlord gave us over 100 degrees of heat all last night, and we all had our windoes open fully, I'm not surprised by this news!
This is at least the third time you've used this photo. I love it -- no complaints here! Well, except for the environmental wreckage in NYC that inspires you to keep using it.
Does anybody know: can thermostatic controls be added to existing steam radiators?
Global warming is a myth.
I read that a small thing with big consequences is that most roofs in the city have a black (tar/tarpaper?) coating, rather than a lighter colored material. This, along with all the concrete, helps heat up the city, leading to more energy being spent to cool things down, and so on.
Ugh. It was only a matter of time before our Mayoral Nanny picked up on this, the ultimate of Nanny State issues.
First, there's no mention of the econmic output of NYC compared to the entire nation of Ireland. I suspect we're far more effecient, in monetary terms.
Second, carbon output is practically meaningless as a Greenhouse gas. Water vapor contributes to nearly all the effects of Global Warming. So if our Nanny-In-Chief Mike wants to have an impact he'll show he's serious by closing our public pools. Let's see how well that goes over?
Patrick,
I see you've been drinking the right-wing cool-aid about water vapor.
fyi---sustainable NYC
"Water vapor contributes to nearly all the effects of Global Warming."
Source?
Hopefully the mayor will support increased use of Pedicabs, bike lanes, and improved public transportation to get a lot of gas-guzzling cars off the road!
New York has 2.7% of the nation's population, so 1% of the emissions is pretty damn good.
It isn't a surprise that life in dense New York City is less environmentally damaging that life in the burbs.
New Yorkers use space more intensively than those elsewhere, and attached houses and apartments have less exterior surface area relative to interior floor area than ranch houses, and use less energy to heat and cool. Mass transit and walking conserve energy compared with driving.
Still, I think the 1/3 estimate may be exaggerated. A great deal of energy is used in industry and agriculture (and the production of energy itself), and since our stuff is produced elsewhere, we outsource those CO2 emissions.
While New Yorkers also consume less stuff -- nowhere to put it -- the energy used to produce goods might be better accounted for at the point of consumption rather than production. Were that the case, the re-use of goods -- handing down children's clothes, repairing and reusuing furniture, and the fact that we buy, use, and sell fewer cars -- would emerge as a greenhouse gas strategy.
What's causing NYC emissions to INCREASE over the past couple of years? If anything, I see the city getting greener and cleaner (which is also fairly impressive considering our antiquated infrastructrue)
Also pause to consider the number of people who don't live in the city, but still work here, most of whom commute into the city by public transportation.
Now we just need to make more of our buildings "green", which, given Con Ed's capacity issues, actually has a decent chance of happening.
It's not NYC I'm worried about. It's the rest of the country.
attached housing is more efficient, but not when it's an uninsulated, prewar apartment building with no control over heat or possibility to invest in improvements. passive solar? no way.
i think there's no way this estimate could be accurate. as #12 mentioned, most of our output is outsourced which reduces our estimate and increases that of the producers. all the transport involved in bring our products to us and exporting our trash can't be ignored. those diesel trucks idling all night in chelsea belong to us. parsing out the eco-economics gets messy, but the notion that city living is inherently greener is a myth that nyc media loves to embrace regardless of the shaky estimation process.
glass-clad skyscrapers with non-operable windows are inefficient to an extreme.
Living in cities IS inherently greener.
"those diesel trucks idling all night in chelsea" are accounted for in the calculation of NY's greenhouse gas emissions. Why is it hard to believe that NY is more efficient than America's sprawling suburbs? As bad as the midcentury skyscrapers are, most suburbs in the US contain the same exact type of structures even further apart from eachother.
If they replaced the oil and coal plants that serve the city with new nuclear power plants, the CO2 emissions from NYers could be decreased even more. Even though Chicago is less efficient than NY, it probably produces less greenhouse emissions as it's ~75% nuclear powered, as opposed to ~40% for NY.
hey, i'm not against city living but don't compare the dream city with the worst example of 'everything else'. compare apples to apples. sprawling suburbs are the worst case scenario for non-city living. they were planned and developed in times when consumption was king with no thought of efficiency. go to rural new england and find a different perspective. the only glass houses are greenhouses. grow your own food. telecommute. compost your crap instead of dumping it into the rivers. compost your food and pay to dispose of trash by the bag instead of shipping it down the coast out-of-sight out-of-mind. live in a passive solar home with the option to install renewable energy systems. be responsible for replacing your own windows and insulating your home. i've lived many places and never seen a culture so readily throw away barrels of take-out trash every day. multiple plastic boxes inside a paper bag, inside a plastic bag with disposable silverware. the carbon required to produce and transport all of that is NOT figured into these estimates. nowhere else have i seen people use space heaters in the middle of summer because the ac is too low (ok, that's probably included, but really disgusting). only in ny. our city relies heavily on the carbon output of rural america and, like that truck idling all night, it is NOT figured in (idling for over 5 mins is against city laws). we produce highly concentrated waste that is uncontrollable whenever we get a little too much rain. it's not so different from a hog confinement operation vs free range. how many car commutes is going to make up for building the 2nd ave subway line? the point is the eco-economics are much more complicated and it's wrong to claim city life is inherently more 'green' than everything else.
villages with local, decentralized utilities designed in reaction to their micro-climates are deliberately sustainable. on par with the dream city.
NYC could get greener by following Tokyo's leading and mandating gardens on every rooftop, this would lower the temperature of the city, and help with air quality...
nyer, a village is not going to be more efficient than a large concentrated city, no matter how you make it. there's a certain thing called "economies of scale." also, decentralized utilities are a ideological bullcrap. the great part about a grid is that it can distribute power to the people who need it when they need it. adding some microturbines to large ny buildings for combined heat and power (CHP) and district heating might be a good idea, but your idea of a dream city is just that... a dream.