Let's clarify "net carbon neutral, meaning it plans to generate more renewable energy than the dirty energy it consumes" --> "zero net carbon dioxide emissions" via carbon dioxide capture and by offsetting emissions somewhere else e.g. by displacing their carbon energy with renewable energy.
NYC should contend with Copenhagen to be the leader among cities. Let's hire Danish consultants and get a move on.
14
Looking around today I found out abut this project, which has participation of 20 US cities working out approach and process to improve the efficiency of their urban environments, particularly buildings.
The good part is it's mundane, it's checklists, it's examples of how different cities set up benchmarking studies, implementing energy codes - the kind of boring work that is needed to get things done with the exciting world of energy efficiency for fun and profit (or savings).
https://www.cityenergyproject.org/about-the-city-energy-project/
1
Thank you for publishing such a hopeful and inspiring article. I look forward to more.
While I applaud the Danes for their responsibility and forethought, I beg to differ on calling this a 'carbon neutral' approach. Net Carbon Neutral implies that, for each atom of carbon sent into the atmosphere, another is sequestered. Bicycling to work one day is not balanced by driving a car the next. Better to call it Energy Neutral. Remember, the goal is to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere to zero, which is true carbon neutral. After that comes Carbon Negative, where more carbon is removed than is emitted. Only with sequestration will we slow or stop climate change.
2
I keep waiting for someone, anyone to challenge the existence of SUV’s. I do not know if they are popular there. They seem to be everywhere. If we are truly serious about addressing climate change, one global initiative should be banning the manufacture and sale of SUV’s. If we have twelve years to fix this mess, let’s get the tanks off the road in addition to the many other good initiatives.
10
Reading this article makes me want to move to Copenhagen.
9
Its the mind set. No one minds riding a bicycle. The large taxes they pay are well used. It feeds on itself and grows in the good direction. Doing the opposite, like Americans feeds on itself too, the wrong way. Its going to take much more than getting rid of Trump to turn things in the good direction.
10
I like hearing about Copenhagen, but really, would it have killed you to use names of places instead of bland descriptions. Was the open air vegetable stand at the Torve Hollern? When you rode from city hall, which neighborhood did you ride into, Norrebro? Many NYT readers will know the city well and will be aggravated by this vagueness.
We had an extended stay in Copenhagen in Dec-Jan 2015. The whole city was torn up by the Metro construction. We really want to go back and see the city when contraction is complete. The US is just too stodgy and conservative to tackle big important projects like these. It’s great to see a country actually attempt to make meaningful progress.
Regarding transportation in the city, public transportation is terrific. It makes every US city seem backwards. And the bike network and the cyclists themselves are terrific, again making the US look backwards.
15
In December I spent several days in Copenhagen and was impressed by their efforts to fight climate change. It’s unfortunate that the American mindset would never consider what the residents are doing, albeit their city is only a small part of the pollluted world. We could learn from them. They bike, they walk, they use public transportation. Our small group used the pedestrian road to walk from the Nyhavn district to Tivoli, a distance of less than a mile. Imagine if all American cities would banish cars from the major shopping area!
5
Here's my prediction: we are going to fail at curbing carbon emission.
Just as some drug users succumb to their addictions, so too will humanity to carbon. We can't help ourselves; we are too stupid, prideful, and greedy to change. It won't happen overnight but, rest assured, we are staring at our own mass extinction. A suicide, no less.
Earth, however, will go on without us eventually breathing easy.
6
Fighting climate change means changing the way our world lives and works — the course and substance not of a city, region or nation but of an entire civilization world-wide. World-wide. Not just in northwestern Europe.
I’ve visited Copenhagen. It’s a lovely city in a wonderful country. But, if fighting AGW is a war and it is — and an existential one no less — the war front isn’t there. It’s in awful, filthy Karachi, and in hideous New Delhi, and horrendous Jakarta, and uninhabitable Bangkok, and catastrophic, impossible Beijing. No serious effort is now underway in any of those places to even slightly reduce carbon waste-gas emissions let alone stop them, and the Chinese, Indian, Thai, Indonesian and Pakistani governments aren’t merely indifferent — they couldn’t care less.
3
Every single one of those countries emit less carbon dioxide per citizen. Beijing has invested 5x the US resources into clean energy despite having a smaller nominal economy and other development priorities. The West outsourced emissions like much else - the factories in the developing world are made to order to fill the beautiful mansions and garages of US suburbs & to be consumed in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris, London.
5
@Steve Singer - the war front is everywhere. The United States still emits more greenhouse gas than every other nation except one.
You're claim there's "No serious effort" going on in the nations whose cities you pick on is quite wrong. India was going gangbusters towards coal energy, then solar prices kept dropping - and that plus the pollution avoidance has made a difference there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/india-coal-green-energy-climate.html
China's been working on cleaner air and greener energy, too. I think the air quality readings being posted from the U.S. Embassy a few years ago made it difficult for them - and keeping control of their population is their big goal in government. An urban middle class can get vocal when dying from smog.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/01/25/how-china-cut-its-air-pollution
So, here we are, in the nation that has emitted more CO2 than anybody, we're 2nd in annual CO2 in the last decade - but we're in second place to a country with over four times our population.
And we're here with a President who is doing his best to promote exactly what the world doesn't need. Fossil fuels, more air and water pollution, lowered efficiency standards.
In this war, we're being led backwards, and the GOP before 2016 was doing it's best to slow any reduction in emissions - because their donors have money and fund nutso far-right primary challenges against sensible Republicans. We need better leaders.
7
Having spent several days in C this past summer, it is a rather remarkable metro area...nearly everyone we saw/interacted with seems to be willing to participate in the 'reform' and is proud of the plans and work that has been done thus far.
Bike city, and the metro lines are cake to use.
Otoh, to our culture thinking, the onerous taxes and cost of living, and huge social safety net will not happen here in my lifetime. And, its compact size helps, also. Good article!
5
It's nice to see wind turbines and bicycles. But are those throw away cups and a one use plastic bag in the picture? Both of those items are completely unnecessary here or anywhere else on the planet as reusables are readily available for almost nothing. Big projects are important. Every day choices are more important.
1
I've been lucky to visit Denmark and other European cities in my life. It pains me how they live in such livable, vibrant and stress-free cities by simply designing their cities around people and not cars. The amount of benefits that come from people biking or walking from quality of life to all around health is nearly endless. Yet in this country we continue to prioritize the car and demonize bikes, pedestrians and public transit users at every chance. Want to ride a bike to work? Well we painted a "share the road sign" along a 6 lane arterial--why don't we see more cyclists? Want to take a bus or streetcar--well we make them share the lane with cars so that they are never quicker...I don't get why more people don't use them? A new train line--well in 20 years if you are still alive then we might be able to borrow enough $ to have it built. What Copenhagen has done is not only affordable but could be done quickly if we ever had the political will to make driving more difficult in our cities.
7
My home town of Minneapolis has been working on becoming the most bike friendly city in North America, if not the world. Our winter weather is much more severe then Europe, resulting in many bikes stored in garage rafters for months. There has been both acceptance and push back on dedicated bike lanes. They take away a second lane of vehicle traffic resulting in traffic jams and fewer convenient parking spots. The argument is 'ditch your car and get on a bike'. Problem is; a large segment of the population resides in the suburbs far away from public transportation or safe bike routes. I won't get into the controversy associated with a proposed cross-state oil pipeline. Carbon Neutral may be relatively 'easy' for some locations; for us, it is quite a difficult challenge.
@Reggie Schwalbe makes some nice studded tires for cycles: https://www.schwalbetires.com/bike_tires/studded
No need for those bikes to be hung up during winter ...
1
This is a story of fighting a forest fire with a glass of water, so the 1% in the EU and US (yes you are the 1%) can feel good and sleep well dreaming that this actually makes a difference.
Let see the real world 99% story of Nigeria, Delhi, Jakarta, Rio (you pick 'em) of those billions who have never had the riches we have and have yet to produce the carbon at the levels our lives do.
Those blllions that want that A/C, a car, a pizza delivered, etc. that we have have had for generations.
That is the issue. Not only our decrease, but the massive increases yet to come from the other 99%
8
@chimanimani. The only way forward for us or the rest of the planet is a much reduced population living a longterm sustainable lifestyle. No one is even talking about these issues.
6
@chimanimani - just like much of the world skipped the built-infrastructure phase of a landline phone and clunky desktop PCs in favor of going directly to cellular with hand-held computers (rechargable by solar, too), so much will go with energy consumption.
Yes, consumption in the growing nations will increase, but they're going to be expanding power systems in a time when renewables and distributed generation are already available and electrified transportation can be part of the planning. They benefit from commercialization of technologies and operational practices that, in many cases, were pioneered in the developed nations.
And none of them, at their peak consumption rates, will be replicating, oh, the 1970s in the USA. Even if someone decides to build their own version of a 1975 Cadillac Fleetwood, it will be electric and also not weigh anywhere near the three tons that brick weighed.
1
This project is good for only a few feet of sea level rise . What happens when it is several hundred feet. Since the Republicans support coal and fossil fuel continued use I expect the worst scenario.
2
It is small, it is rich and its people care a lot about climate change.
I’m sure the millions of poor villagers in India cooking over charcoal will be impressed with what these Danish do.
4
@John Doe -- they're going solar.
Modi's big coal plans crashed, look here:
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/india-to-produce-175-gw-electricity-from-renewable-sources-by-2022-pm-modi-at-international-solar-alliance-founding-conference/article23039283.ece
6
Thank you to all countries who show us consumer-addicted citizens how to be responsible.
... who show naysayers that new technologies do not ruin an economy, quite the contrary.
A shame, all those with responsible laws/lifestyles will have to suffer the consequences of all of us who cannot be 'inconvenienced'.
3
And to those who cry, "What? The Danish cyclists are mostly not wearing helmets, isn't that dangerous?" I say, no it is not. That's partly because the infrastructure is so much better than in the US and also because the cars are smaller (and no giant SUVs and pick-ups). WE have got to get rid of the giant SUV mentality - who needs these SUVs in our cities, anyway?
11
@Sam Or they are wearing air-bag helmets. You wear it around your neck. The inbuilt sensors detect if you are about to crash and then inflate the helmet, much like an air-bag in a vehicle.
They are a tad expensive, but not that uncommon.
1
Way to go Copenhagen! Now, Seattle, let's follow their lead.
9
Judging from this article and other that I have read, my spidery senses are beginning to tingle in regards to this carbon neutrality stuff. It seems to be PR or 'fake news' and I am betting in 10-20 years we will see a whole host of 'carbon neutral' places that are still contributing CO2 emissions, because they have used cheap definitions to define carbon neutral.
For example as this article states all imported goods lead to increase emissions, but I highly doubt Denmark is included its pro-rated shared of the global shipping industry in its climate calculations and is instead just sort of "forgetting about" any emissions that come from international waters.
3
This article doesn't explain Copenhagen's plan very well, nor that the goal of "carbon neutrality" is to be met with carbon offsets ... about which there are a lot of issues. Further the city's plan is carbon neutrality by 2025, zero fossil carbon emissions by 2050, and the latter will be much harder.
The 2025 plan aggressively improves public transportation, intends to force major upgrades in the efficiency of buildings, and a major component is to shift heat production to only a mix of imported wood, and garbage ... much of the garbage imported too.
The battle is over the imported wood biomass and the imported garbage, with good reason. This is possible only because Copenhagen is ahead of almost everybody -- if everybody wanted to do this there's not enough wood and garbage to go around.
This is still carbon going into the atmosphere, and the view that it is "renewable" carbon, depends on the trees being regrown, and the composition of the garbage; plastics are just putting fossil carbon into the air.
Copenhagen's decisions are something New York City needs to think about. Cuomo's "100% Carbon-free electricity by 2040" plan addresses only about a third of the total energy budget, and New York City is far, far behind Copenhagen on most issues.
NYC has the world's largest steam system; it won't run on burning garbage, or wood.
And then there's our public transportation woes....
7
You are totally right. Nuclear is the ONLY way to go, until we have the technology to make renewables work efficiently. The mass switch-over to electric cars has not been calculated properly, it will have to come very gradually. Fukushima: noone died of radioactivity! And the reactor was shut down correctly, in time. The only thing the engineers did not plan for - and that is where the crisis became acute - was that the building that housed the back-up batteries was also swamped by the water. Noone expected that to happen. I find it such an insult to the memory of the 30.000 people who actually drowned as a result pf that monster tsunami that all the talk was about an "almost" catastrophe that killed zero people.
3
@Ken - renewables DO work efficiently. Put up wind turbines and you don't have to refuel them. You don't have to remove and store the waste - whether coal ash or spent fuel rods.
Minnesota just had a study done where they were figuring how to get 100% renewable by 2050 and the current conclusion (in a rapidly changing market) is that it will be cheaper to just overbuild solar than to add beyond a certain amount of storage.
And somehow in your mention of Fukushima, you failed to mention the three operating reactors on site failed catastrophically after shutting down - so there's now a cleanup that they estimate will take forty years to complete.
As for you calling it an "almost" catastrophe, this was only the second level 7 nuclear accident, with Chernobyl. It lowered the ability of Japan and other nations to keep nuclear in the mix or expand it - Germany's unfortunate decision to retire their fleet is an outcome of this. France cooled on nuclear, too.
As for Japan -
"Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion). In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
There's no single solution to the single problem of decarbonizing our energy systems. Fukushima made it a bit harder for many OECD nations to still support nuclear.
1
@Ken
For information:
The generation of nuclear plants at Fukushima require diesel backup to operate after an accident. They actually did work properly until swamped by the tsunami. Batteries provide instrumentation for a few hours, the diesels are used to recharge them.
Generation III AP1000 plants rely only on batteries for safety power with a 72 hour backup time period. Diesels are still used to provide backup, but are not safety related.
1
Being tiny and having a pedestrian/ bike friendly layout go a long ways in eliminating greenhouse gasses. Outside of one or two eastern cities with barely functional subways, the rest of America has to use cars and energy to build or to simply arrive.
5
Coopenhagen's mayor and public appear to be making prudent decisions about uses of transport, garbage, and tax dollars.
American decision making is short-sighted based on greed, ignorance and corruption.
2
@G.E. Morris
Denmark had a tax on saturated fat. The greedy Danes did not want to pay that tax so they drove their fossil fuel burning cars to Germany to buy butter and cheese. The tax ended up collecting a tiny fraction of the revenue that had been projected, so the Danish governmant abolished it.
3
Copenhagen also doesn't want you to know how many dolphins and whales it kills every year.
4
@kt -- Copenhagen, the city, kills zero. You are talking about the Faroe Islands, that are part of Denmark, and Copenhagen is the capital.
7
Denmark exports huge amounts of natural gas and oil. If it wants to lead by example, Denmark should stop pumping these pollutants within 10 years.
6
Morning commuters on the Dronning Louises Bro, a bridge in central Copenhagen. Now that's an objective correlative. Notice no garish neon on the smartly dressed cyclists.
2
@Ed Ashland - who cares how they are dressed?
Garish colors have a much better chance of being seen by inattentive drivers.
1
@John - There are very few "inattentive drivers" in Copenhagen for a variety of reasons, one being that drivers respect cyclists commuters and do not "resent" them for using the infrastructure provided - unlike in the US. The infrastructure is also so much better with separations and, as the article notes, slightly elevated areas. Plus, commuting by bicycles is not a big deal the way people make it here in the US.
3
@Sam Yes, I am well aware of how much better drivers are in Denmark, having biked all over Copenhagen and from Copenhagen to Berlin (and France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Turkey, China, as well as many US states). The best drivers I have every come across are in Belgium. I don't know why.
The original comment noted that the commuters in Copenhagen were well dressed and did not need bright colors. This comment was taken as being in comparison with American cyclists, many of whom are colorfully attired. It is the American drivers that are inattentive. I have not biked in China in a long time, but I have seen more fatal accidents involving cars vs bikes in China than anywhere else.
I have been spending a lot of time in Copenhagen in the last few years. The Danes are, without a doubt, really focused on cleaning the environment. They try lots of things, and even the things that don't quite work perfectly are attempts to address the problems! (e.g. burning trash for heat solves the problems of (1) dumping trash in the oceans, and (2) using fossil fuels, but the ash/smoke does pollute the air)
Keep in mind, when criticizing specific partial solutions, that all solutions involve trial and *error*. They are trying, are looking for innovative fixes, and that's the only way to ultimately solve the problem. I love that the Danes are absolutely tuned in to working out ways of treating the planet with care and respect.
1
Please look at this. In Copenhagen we are fighting to keep our green rare common but the Mayor doesn't care about rare plants and animals, he needs money to pay of loan on the Metro system. So he got the Parlament to drop protektion of all conservation areas.... But we keep fighting. https://www.facebook.com/groups/amagerfaelledsvenner/permalink/2443111859243498/
1
@Malene Flambart - Malene, I found a Masters Thesis by a student at Malmö University that is concerned with what you point to. Obviously have not read it yet but I will and if appropriate will mention it at my blog.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Important voices are missing here in comment land, those of the countless American environmental organizations who are determined to oppose solid-waste incineration even as Florida goes under water.
Representatives of these organizations, for example the Sierra club, seem even unwilling to learn about solid-waste incineration as practiced in the Nordic countries. So to the governor of the state of New York.
Look to my USA, New York State and New England, natural gas pipelines extending their tentacles throughout.
The alternative. Solid-waste incineration, a renewable energy technology, to generate electricity with these results, all clearly established in the Nordic countries and perhaps in West Palm Beach FL.
1) Replacement of fossil-fuel electrical generation plants.
2) End of landfills generating methane and contaminating ground water
3) End of long-distance transport of solid-waste and food waste to landfills far distant from the source, New York City the truly worst.
4) Electrical energy in every region to run heat-pump systems 24/7/365 with the best of all systems, ground-source geothermal heat pump - good examples in Vermont and in the Bloomberg Center on Roosevelt Island.
5) Ideally the development of large-scale district heating as here in Linköping.
Move back to the USA to live in a fossil-fuel heated home? Not a chance.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
@Larry Lundgren
Nobody would care about Florida going under water if the population was at the level of 100 years ago. Less than 1 Million people in 1920 versus over 21 Million today.
Rapid population increases can create an illusion of sudden dramatic climate change. More people living in the path of hurricanes will do that.
3
A drop in the ocean, sure, but even a constrained project can yield useful data for larger efforts. The article, as others have noted, is a bit scattershot, and maybe off the mark with inventing Copenhagen’s supposedly grimy history. Burning trash, for example, is rapidly becoming a more important topic even in the US as we begin to be shut off from Asian recycling plants. Of course, a clean-burning plant refers to sulfur compounds and nitrogen oxides, not carbon, and ocean dumping may be ‘greener’, and wind power in a windy place, bicycle use in a flat place, are not all transferable conditions. Of course, the spotty European rejection of nuclear power is the elephant in the room, as it is in the US. Leave things to the popular will or their elected representatives, and we’re doomed. Leave it to engineers, and we might not be doomed, but it will not be fun anymore!
1
@Marat1784 - I have frequently encountered in reply to countless comments on Nordic solid-waste incineration in the form "but what about the CO2".
I can only reply in simplified form here. Take the case where a solid-waste incinerator system replaces a coal-fired plant. Consider Somerset MA near the Braga Bridge in Fall River. There was a giant coal fired power plant there, a long-standing villain, that emitted CO2 and sulfur and nitrogen compounds.
Replace it (in your mind only, not likely to happen) with a copy of the Copenhill plant (one of the names used for the plant shown in this article). Think of the waste as an energy resource produced locally, waste that otherwise would go to a landfill.
This waste is seen as a renewable energy source in proportion to the mix of materials of which it consists. If the waste consisted of 100% paper then the resource would be seen as 100% renewable.
You can take this further by comparing the environmental damage done by coal mining or even by fracking for natural gas with the absence of such damage associated with Danish-Swedish systems.
Add to that the transport costs for coal, very large. The transport costs for solid waste are, in the case of my local system, Linköping SE, what it costs to pick up solid waste anyway.
Finally, consider the transport costs for New York City solid waste to distant landfills. Enormous.
You can take it from there.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
1
@Larry Lundgren -- fair enough ... but in fact waste incineration for power is more common in the USA than you think ... read here:
https://cen.acs.org/environment/sustainability/Should-plastics-source-energy/96/i38
There's a big plant in Rahway NJ, not so far from NYC. Plastics in its waste stream are about 1/3 of the total CO2 -- that's all fossil CO2.
Further it's critical for the plant to get those plastics, because they need them to keep the heat value of the mixed fuel high enough. Many waste burners add coal if they cannot get enough plastics.
And then "low transportation costs" -- Is Linkoping really self sufficient? In Denmark they are importing the trash they burn from all over northern Europe to get enough. (Rahway gets plenty from fairly close.) There simply isn't enough trash for this to scale up to a broad energy source.
Trash burning using Oxy-cycle combustion with subsequent CO2 sequestration does look attractive on paper in a CO2-constrained future -- and if done then whatever fraction of the fuel that is renewable actually becomes BECCS. The advantage of this system is that all the nasty pollutants (PAHs, dioxins, mercury, sulphur, NOx) go with the liquid CO2, so you don't need any orher pollution control and the system is truly emissions-free.
Another big advantage is that combustion with pure oxygen eliminates the fuel-value issue.
But you need a hole somewhere to pump the CO2 underground.
1
It's nice to see that Green is actually possible.
2
Saving the planet is going to take two things: changes in personal behavior and changes in public policy.
Starting today anybody can one's carbon footprint. Eliminate beef and reduce fish/fowl/dairy in your diet. Use your bike for trips less than 2 miles. Even get an electric bike to make the hills/headwinds/miles melt away. Make your next car electric. When remodeling your home, make sure you make it as well insulated and efficient as technically feasible.
Public policy changes are also needed to make those personal behavioral changes more feasible and effective. Start building protected bike lanes. Give buses their own lanes and priority at traffic signals. Foster higher densities along high capacity public transit lines. Get your electric power monopoly to allow fractional ownership of solar farms (making it feasible for apartment renter to go solar).
Many people mistakenly think that European cities have always been transit friendly. They were rebuilding their cities (destroyed in WW2) along the same lines as we were: automobile dependent. However they realized that was not going to work and changed course, emphasizing public transport and higher densities. Not that all European public policies were good; their decision to encourage diesel vehicles has made air quality a real problem.
As I tell my kids, when faced with a problem, start on the solution right now. Do the most cost-effective stuff first and work on it little by little.
3
Going Green and aiming for Carbon Neutrality is a must. This is what the people in Copenhagen wants as well as the rest of Denmark wants so it is what the government does.
But let us be realistic as well when we use the words Carbon Neutrality or Net Zero Carbon Footprint. Denmark, like other countries, buy electricity from where it is cheapest which means some of it comes from countries with dirty energy like German or Polish coal burning power plants.
Driving electric cars or using other electrical devises who's electric consumption is from coal, oil generating plants is just another outsourcing of pollution.
3
Strange that the author didn't put the urban Danes' attitudes in the context of what's going on in France? i.e. that urbanites can afford to think about climate change and don't need cars.
2
"Carbon neutral" is not realistic if the chemical equations include all activities associated with energy production and usage, The root cause of all global environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate of the planet is overpopulation, but there is no leadership to address it. As the population increases from 7.6 to some 10 billion carbon-generating human heaters this century, incremental increases in per capita energy efficiency will not be sufficient to fix our ongoing environmental disaster. Humans have chosen quantity over quality; the inevitable results are just beginning.
20
Blaming climate change on high population growth rates in poor countries completely misses the source of climate warming emissions. Carbon emissions have far more to do with wealth than with absolute numbers of people. The vast majority of carbon emissions are produced by only a small segment of the population worldwide.
7
Looking at the 1850-2010 time span USA contributed almost one third of worldwide co2 emissions, with western Europe together that amounts to slightly more than half.
Yes population is a factor but even more important is the issue of "way of life".
3
@BarneyAndFriends It’s both. Clearly it’s not Ok to blame our current problems on high birth rates in developing countries, but as consumption rates rise everywhere, it’s going to be harder and harder to sustain the population without doing all kinds of irreparable damage to the Earth and ourselves.
2
I live in the Detroit area about 10 miles from an incinerator in downtown Detroit. When the wind is from the right direction and my windows are open, the smell wakes me up. It is not a pleasant awakening.
I wish the cafe that is opening up next to Copenhagen's incinerator the best of luck.
6
@James M. Rine
You missed the point! The cafe is there to show that the steam coming has removed most, if not all, harmful chemicals (generally the main reason of that awful smell). If the cafe actually starts to do well then that will be a great ad for the efficiency of that plant apart from the food and the service. Anyway, I like there initiative and creativity.
3
Steam coming out nearly a mile in the sky. Like Tokyo!
@James M. Rine - fresh news from The Motor City:
"GM, Ford to fully power Michigan facilities with local wind from DTE Energy"
"DTE Energy, the largest investor-owned utility in Michigan, will provide 300,000 MWh of wind energy to General Motors to fully power two facilities, according to a joint company statement last Tuesday.
The previous week, Ford Motor procured 500,000 MWh of wind to power a Michigan Assembly Plant and its Dearborn Truck Plant with 100% renewable energy. The Assembly plant already has a 500 kW solar system."
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/gm-ford-to-fully-power-michigan-facilities-with-local-wind-from-dte-energy/549566/
And let's not forget that most of our American cities are Democratically governed.
Yet we're almost nowhere, don't even have Low Emission Zones.
And that's not even about climate change, but mainly about the air we breathe every day. Even Tory right winger Boris Johnson introduced an Ultra Low Emission Zone in London when he was still a mayor.
Yet it's not even a topic in the mayoral race here in Chicago, for one. We need to build awareness first, which means better monitoring of toxic and carcinogenic gases, fine dust etc.
The exact thing Republicans are trying to destroy (EPA).
People need to know they are shortening their lifespan by living in American cities, unless they take control and set better rules for who enters their living space.
11
@Liz - Exactly, Andrew Cuomo, totally uniformed about 21st century systems, said no to incineration anywhere in New York State. Reason: Environmentally harmful.
Ignorance is Cuomo's bliss.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
2
Missing from any major coverage in the liberal news media are articles discussing the huge environmental law that Trump recently signed. It does more than anything done by Obama. It sets aside many new public lands and protects areas and wildlife that Democrats have ignored.
1
@Richard Winchester - His recent bill designated 2M acres for actual protection, but he also killed laws on coal, methane, fuel economy, massively reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase - Escalante (by more than 2M acres!), censored "Climate Change" from websites.
One act doesn't balance the rest.
2
Suggestion for the steam stack: Condense and capture the water for irrigating a rooftop garden or hothouse.
8
1. This looks like Heck.
2. Feel-good energy generation. We have maybe 1,000 of these monsters within 150 miles of my home in West Virginia. The peaks of the Alleghenies and Appalachians are quite windy, and apparently need to be put to use, rather than standing idle for idle people to look at them.
3. The turbines are terribly polluting, visually. Positioned on ridges, many of ours are visible from 30 miles away.
4. They are very inefficient. To match our nearby Mt Storm coal-fired electricity plant, 1600 MW---a little one, would require 500 average turbines @ 3 MW. Crammed together to the limit, they would top 50 miles of ridge.
5. Try 500 turbines at Hatteras NC, or Mt. Desert ME, or Assateague MD, or Loveland Pass CO, or San Francisco CA, before deciding to cover the US with them.
6. My prediction: after living around these inefficient 400-foot-tall monstrosities, you will begin to realize that nuclear power might not be so satanic after all.
7. And indeed nuclear power is green. And safe. We don't have the primitive Chernobyl and TMI models anymore.
8. Spare us the Fukushima disaster. That was a 30-foot high tsunami that killed close to 20,000 people. The wave damaged a nuclear power plant.
Nobody was killed by radioactivity. Local authorities claim a fantastic 1600 people died because of the evacuation. They refuse to provide details, so discount it.
The lesson: even with a tsunami, nuclear power is safe.
4
@alyosha
"Spare us the Fukushima disaster. That was a 30-foot high tsunami that killed close to 20,000 people. The wave damaged a nuclear power plant."
Fukashima was about 30-60 minutes from becoming a full scale Chernobyl 2 disaster. Some very, very brave technicians avoided that outcome, with car batteries from nearby abandoned/crashed cars.
That plant was theoretically built to withstand a tsunami and an earthquake, yet reality hit as it usually does when man thinks they've outsmarted nature and the laws of physics.
10
@alyosha I disagree with nuclear power being safe, at least in the US. Nuclear waste is piling up next to the reactors, because so far nobody wants a nuclear waste site in their back yard. It's a national security and safety risk. Before this is addressed, building more nuclear power plants should be an absolute no.
The same holds true for coal fired plants. The way coal ash is allowed to be dumped in lakes next to power plants is scandalous. Our Illinois Vermilion river is continuously polluted by leaks of a nearby one, for example.
When coal is no longer economically viable, you can bet with 100% certainty that the owners, after decades of profits, will let their plants default and leave the cleanup of these sites to the tax payer.
Technology is advancing rapidly. 10 Years of government funded fundamental research in Belgium has resulted in working prototypes of hydrogen solar panels at the KUL University which can store energy instantly on site. And that's just one example I'm aware of.
14
@alyosha - you present a location that is a coal-dependent state that suffers financially due to that. Mining out the narrowest of seams in Appalachia led to greatly increase silicate dust, a big part of why lung diseases have been striking younger and younger miners in your area.
Their healthcare is now at the mercy of the public, since so many of the companies declared bankruptcy in recent years, shedding pesky liabilities like pensions and healthcare. Of course, the owners still find enough cash in the kitty to send millions to our President for his inauguration.
Meanwhile, coal generation keeps sinking because of things like those "inefficient" turbines.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/majority-of-coal-plants-are-uneconomic-to-nearby-wind-solar-report-finds/551187/
And West Virginia, which had that coal-washing chemical spill into your drinking supply a few years ago, is a state still piling up coal ash - ensuring groundwater issues for generations to follow, like sites around the country.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/virtually-all-coal-plants-monitoring-groundwater-show-ash-pollution-repo/549648/
3
If they can do it, we can do it. We must replace our political leadership first though.
9
@Cal Page
It's a wonder why corporate America, backed by progessive government investments and regulations, haven't developed the World's largest wind turbine/solar industry at home looong time ago.
The Danish energy sector makes Billions in exports and offers high paid jobs to tens of thousands of employees.
Why still rely on oil exports from the Saudies and fracking, when new technologies offers better solutions for your power demand?
3
@Cal Page
The main US Cities are already in the Democrat's hands.
It's hard to sell an environmental agenda when the public schools are bad and overcrowded, gun violence is rampant, there are insufficient affordable homes, etc.
I'm just not seeing it.
4
@Liz - if you aren't seeing it, please look:
"The Chicago Housing Authority is halfway through a $31 million energy-efficiency project that is replacing outdated systems in its public housing portfolio – allowing for improvements in more than 9,000 apartments."
That's from The Chicago Crusader site.
"More Chicago Public Schools students are earning diplomas than ever before, reaching a record-high graduation rate of 78.2 percent, according to new figures from the district.
CPS officials say that 2017-2018 graduation rate is part of a steady increase from 56.9 percent in 2011, a 21-percent increase."
https://news.wttw.com/2018/09/03/cps-touts-increased-graduation-rate-acknowledges-work-ahead
And the city is also benefiting from efficiency initiatives.
"Chicago is the seventh city in the world to receive top-level certification for its sustainability efforts focused on green buildings. [...] Earlier this year, a city report found that Chicago’s largest buildings decreased emissions by nearly 20 percent over the past two years. In 2017, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced a commitment to transition the city’s municipal buildings and operations to 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2025."
https://news.wttw.com/2018/09/10/chicago-becomes-leed-certified-green-building-initiatives
The environmental agenda has been under way and working.
In the US, the biggest problem for reducing carbon emissions is in the suburbs not the cities. More people live in the suburbs than in the bigger cities and they have higher per capita emissions. And to make matters worse the suburbs have numerous local governments, many of which are too small to have adequate resources to deal with reducing emissions. Just look at the situation in the NYC area. Westchester County, just north of NYC has a little less than 1 million people but something like 47 local governments. And the situation is fairly similar in Rockland, Nassau, Suffolk, Fairfield counties, etc. And the biggest source of emissions is transportation in the suburbs which is a difficult sector for reducing emissions. There are roads everywhere and things are spread out. Until there is more focus on reducing emissions in the suburbs there is little chance on winning this battle against climate change.
9
American living for many years in Cph here.
Just a few examples of why I love my city:
1. Today I was in the brand new KU Life Sciences Faculty building. I discovered that in the basement, there is a parking garage... For bikes. (Stacked 3 levels high)
2. More than once I have seen someone with Down Syndrome independently driving a custom tricycle down a bike path.
3. I don't have to live in a car if I don't want to.
4. My kids are more familiar with sitting in a cargo bike than a car seat.
5. My living quarters have human proportions. I am not overwhelmed. It is hyggeligt.
6. I am surrounded by people that want to do something collectively positive in the face of climate change.
89
Surrounded by prosperous countries which have been virtually carbon-free for decades (Sweden, France), you'd think stubborn little Denmark would erect a little, 400MW nuke plant and be done with it: abundant carbon-free electricity day or night, windy or calm.
Irrational fear of radiation can make good people do crazy things.
5
@BobMeinetz
Nuclear is the most expensive power source of all, measured in $ per MW hour.
As of now, on-shore wind MWs costs less than half of nuclear MWs to produce and you don't have to spend additional Billions in dealing with the waste product. And prices for wind keep dropping, while prices for new nuclear plants are rising.
Just asks the Brits, currently building the most expensive nuclear plant ever made at Hinkley Point C, massively over budget.
6
Humorous. Denmark’s average load is over 4 GW. A 400MW nuclear generator would not at all be “done with it”, it would be 10% of average load.
Rather—in approximate numbers—Denmark is building offshore wind in chunks of 400MW capacity every two years or so, plus more land wind. At 50% North Sea capacity factor, that means they are building another 400MW average output every four years. This is 2x times the speed at which nuclear can be built, and it’s done in steady increments not as one project. Based on recent European nuclear builds, e.g. Hinkley Point, the cost of nuclear electricity today is about 2x the cost of wind. What merits paying twice the cost and taking twice as long to implement? “Steady power” has a small value, granted, but not worth that cost premium, abundant literature on this. And with 4 GW load, loss of a 400MW central unit is a crisis; essentially no unscheduled outages with wind. (see my other comment on this article)
There are many thousands of power engineers rebuilding the Danish power system. I’ve never met one who’s afraid of radiation. They are building a cost-effecive, highly reliable system, that is also a low carbon one.
1
@BobMeinetz - I think that well-run, existing nuclear plants should be kept in operation as we work to eliminate coal, and also boost electricity as replacement of fueled vehicles and other processes currently fossil-fueled.
Illinois has more nuclear power than any other state and I'm fine with that - but the Department of Energy projects that by 2050, we'll be behind only Texas in wind generation.
The new modular reactors many are promoting these days might find use - particularly where process heat is needed over electricity - but the economics of electrical power are changing now in ways that won't be stopped, and don't necessarily favor large central generation.
Distributed generation, demand management, storage (especially when vehicles become batteries on wheels) and just the fact that wind and especially solar will keep getting cheaper for quite some time to come will make it harder for nuclear to compete. Not impossible, perhaps, but it remains to be seen what markets are like as those unproven new technologies hit the market.
But one competitor that nuclear will face is a more integrated transmission grid - with HVDC starting to expand.
Resilience through better distribution
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/chatterjee-transmission-could-be-resilience-docket-solution/550551/
The windy Plains States generate lots of power
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/missouri-regulators-approve-23b-grain-belt-express-transmission-line-but/550996/
1
Wait a minute...
" ...net carbon neutral, meaning it plans to generate more renewable energy than the dirty energy it consumes."
The creation/consumption of 'dirty energy' produces, by definition, climate-changing greenhouse-gases.
How does creating/consuming additional 'renewable energy' in any way effect the problematic emissions that were added to the atmosphere by the 'dirty energy'?
Neutrality would, I think, have more to do with balancing emissions and sequestration (natural or otherwise) rather than balancing various methods of energy production.
2
@Mark Farr
Good question. By creating more than they need, they can sell it to other places on the grid, thereby replacing the carbon-based energy those places would have purchased. It's not perfect, but it's very good.
6
According to the article the definition of carbon neutral is to generate more renewable energy than the dirty energy it consumes. How can that be "neutral"? Want to burn more dirty energy? Just produce some more "clean" energy. You're still putting lots of carbon in the atmosphere. None of the clean energy takes carbon out of the atmosphere. Even burning wood does not really take carbon out - burn one tree and you've put all that carbon in the atmosphere, and it takes 20 or 30 years for another tree to grow to the same size to remove the carbon. Using this definition of carbon neutral obscures the fact that the carbon pollution continues. To me, carbon neutral should mean that you are not putting net carbon into the atmosphere.
8
Copenhagen is a great city and Denmark is a lovely country. But not everything is green ad Denmark has small amount of preserved nature compared to other EU countries. Denmark have just voted to destroy a preserved area in copenhagen only to get money for development of the Metro. Selling preserved nature for cash is not really green is it.
4
@Martin Bay it's not selling it "for cash" it's selling it to get people to rely (even more) on public transportation.
4
Reading this I was reminded of my mother's Danish friend who had a serious bike accident in Copenhagen. I was also reminded of why I left New York--because I could no longer take the subway because I can no longer climb stairs (nor can I ride a bicycle.
6
@Anne Accidents do happen, also when driving a car, flying or getting on a train. Cycling, however, is a very safe mean of transport if the environment is right. It's something I dearly miss in the US and I got to say, the experience in Portland, Ore. wasn't even half bad.
Would you still ride a bicycle if instead there was a tunnel to leave the metro station? I believe some places in the Netherlands offer exactly that.
3
I hope Copenhagen succeeds in meeting its goals. It will be a model for more of the world.
28
I worked as an electrical engineer in Copenhagen for 6 months in 2011, and I return about 2 weeks a year for ongoing collaborations with Danish Technical Univeristy. This article is a good description of the City’s efforts and life in the city. Import car tax is about 100%, and income tax high, spent for great public transit, bicycling and walking facilities, free higher education and health care. Literally, in 6 months my wife and I needed a car ONE time, a pleasure. At rush hour, there are far more bicycles than cars on the road. Very few obsese people in Copenhagen.
On average, 50% of the whole country’s electricity comes from wind power, at times over 100%. Denmark, not just Copenhagen, are well along the transition away from central fossil generators to many wind, solar and biomass generators. Their power system is living proof that 50% to 100% of variable generation is easily managed. As one power operations person said “It’s easier to manage many fluctuating generators that we can predict moderaterly well (via weather forecasts), harder to manage the failure of one big unit whose time of failure cannot be predicted.”
As a (legal) temporary guest worker, I had a national health card, just swipe it at the local doctor’s office. Yet, not = to US Dem. positions, hard to get guest worker status and harder than US to become a citizen (need fluent Danish and small details of national laws and culture). Low/no tolerance of illegal immigration by public nor by law.
40
How will these policies affect Denmark's ability to defend itself ? Has the Danish army retrofitted their armored vehicles to use alternative fuels ? As long as the United States is the leader of NATO, we must vigilantly monitor the military capabilities of all member countries. Those who are not pulling their weight should be recommended for expulsion from the alliance.
2
@Dan M well, for one, they're less likely to engage in foreign wars for "energy security" motives.
9
@Dan M Sorry to inform you that NATO is an alliance, there's no "leader", and the US certainly doesn't have the authority to "expel" anyone. Also, what in the world does the article have to do with NATO and Denmark's military?
5
@Dan M
Give me a break. The Danes are actively trying to save a dying world and you are worried about their war machine? I've heard of very few enemies of Denmark. Yes they have to contribute but give them some credit. We just keep encouraging climate change with our support and use of fossil fuels and that is a recipe for disaster.
14
This article seems a bit boosterish, and while I guess it's good for a city to go carbon neutral, I'm not sure it's quite the achievement it may seem. What, for instance, is the carbon footprint of the entire Copenhagen area, including areas in Sweden across the Øresund, not just the city proper?
The article also exaggerates the extent to which the city was polluted in the past. Copenhagen has always been windswept, and as a result air pollution there has always been fairly negligible.
2
@Luder
Denmark is not responsible for the behavior of Sweden. That is a different country. They are making a credible attempt while we do little and our government denies the problem altogether.
5
I'm sorry but I chafe at stories like this that do not address the economics of climate neutral or more sustainable living and economic development. People will not do what's against their economic interests. Much of what Copenhagen is doing might have a strong return-on-investment, but we aren't informed about it one way or the other.
I recently completed a fairly comprehensive look at the models created by orgs such as Global Commission on Climate and Economy, Drawdown, etc. They are taking very careful looks at how living sustainably can be better economically (which has been the case the past four decades for anybody who cared to look carefully), and the weight of the evidence is that we are better off with low-carbon economies - provided we take sensible whole-system approaches...and get moving sooner than later! Citizens, and NYT writers, need to learn about the variables in these models - it isn't rocket science - to make up their own minds.
2
@cljuniper When Denmark started out on this project it was one of the richest countries - on a per capita basis - in the world. Today it remains one of the richest countries in the world. In that respect, you can say it has cost nothing.
In many ways, the costs are offset by the savings made. E.g. there have been heavy investments in energy savings, MWs per unit produced.
Offshore wind power is cost competitive with almost every other energy.
The "great" mayor of Copenhagen is NOT as green as it sounds, unless you think it's okay to build and expand the city on land where endangered species are living.
As of now, 3 big landsigts surrounding Copenhagen that were conservation areas, has be reversed so they can build big condows on them.
Mayor of Copenhagen is master of self-promotion.
2
Every example of enlightened, pro-active responses to climate change - however partial, even however debatable - nudges the movement forward, creating examples, momentum and efficiencies that can inspire others. Thanks, Copenhagen!
Now, when do we go from "Yes, They Can" to "Yes, We Can"?
12
"... incinerator, 85 meters tall, or about 280 feet... It’s just a short walk from one of the city’s most POPULAR restaurants, Noma."
On Noma's website, right now the only listed offer is 'Seafood Season menu' (presumably for one person?). With wine, the menu is priced at 3850 DKK= $583. I wander how POPULAR Noma is.
3
@math45oxford People come from around Europe to eat at Noma. It is a very very popular very high end world famous restaurant.
Perhaps not the most sustainable way to feed people and certainly not the most affordable.
Noma is a two-Michelin-star creative restaurant run by chef René Redzepi.
4
@math45oxford The incinerator burns clean, generates power, and even has a recreational ski slope on it for exercise, a positive feedback loop. This type of thing could be widely used in cities across North America. FYI, Noma is one of the most famous restaurants in the world and it is hard to get a reservation there. Denmark produces power from wind, solar, and now, its refuse-genius!
5
Per capita. We are overall the biggest polluter in the world, hands down (not China, as many falsely guess).
Due to cheap sources of energy we burn it like no other.
We need to learn how other countries work so hard to be socially responsible.
We can't go on like this. We are the most powerful nation in this world. We can be the leader in renewable energy.
Ignore the President's false statements in climate change. Because he and the GOP sleeps with the energy industrialists.
132
@Goahead
.."Per capita. We are overall the biggest polluter in the world, hands down (not China, as many falsely guess)."...
First, there is the question of what precisely you mean by 'pollution'. For the sake of my comments, I will use CO2 emissions.
China generates the largest share of global CO2 according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. In fact China generates almost twice as much as the US (2015 stats). If you divide that total output by China's vast population, then, yes, per capita the US takes over the top spot.
This is how statistics are manipulated to support arguments.
I'm not saying it's wrong to use per capita numbers. I'm not saying the population of the US isn't a huge contributor and shouldn't be changing how we do things. I'm only pointing out how important it is that we take care to understand the numbers.
Whenever someone chastises the 'US' as if it is a addressable person, and especially when they use per capita numbers, I always ask: "and what have YOU done TODAY to change YOUR habits so that the per capita numbers will decrease?". That's what per capita means of course. It translates from the Latin as "per head" and is reference to the average person.
6
@B Dawson. Per capita is the more accurate form of measurement.
Let say per argument China drives 1.4 billion trucks and US drives 327 million trucks every day (analogy to population), it is common sense that more people=more carbon emissions. That is a fair statement. A family of six members produce more pollution in their lifetime than a family of three.
Furthermore, all of the pollution from the manufacturing goods produced by China, we are their biggest consumers.
Again, we are the part of the problem.
17
@B Dawson, both countries are going to have to significantly reduce their C02 output. China, the US, India, as well as the rest of the industrialized are going to have to reduce C02 output or we all face the consequences.
It is incredibly silly to say, as some of our lesser pundits have claimed, that we don’t need to reduce c02 because China et al are still emitting it.
7
Um ... and then there is the person holding what appears to be 2 single use disposable coffee cups with plastic lids in the photograph of wind turbines along the strait.
@ncb People are not logical or always well informed. Denmark and Copenhagen in particular is very good example that we should learn from.
2
@ncb They look like ones I have that are reusable.
2
@ncb
Good catch!
This illustrates how people believe that their OWN actions don't contribute. They wait for the government to tell them how to behave.
Proof? What the heck does government have to pass laws against plastic bags? We've had reusable bags available for 20 years. The answer is of course, that it takes individual action to change an individual's behavior. It's easier to blame politicians that make changes in your personal life.
Good for Copenhagen. Though I think man caused global warming has about as much truth in it as the Trump-Russian collusion story, there is no harm in being environmentally friendly nor in turning to a less fossil fuel intensive way of life as eventually the world's supply will run out.
However, to assume that whatever they do will translate to other cities is a stretch. Let's look at Houston (metro area) v Copenhagen. The Houston area has roughly 8-10 times the population, area, and is much less densely populated. Houston grew as a car dependent city with little towns all around it where commuters commute in to business areas. The town is insufferably hot and humid most of the year and people must have AC to survive. Whereas Copenhagen developed in a time before cars, is in a much more pleasant area climate wise (don't need AC).
So, not every big city in the world will necessarily be able to follow a Copenhagen model. Oh, they may be able to take the inspiration and do what they can, don't think you'll see people in Houston riding bikes to work very often.
Or let's consider he NY metro area -- huge, zillions of people, and there is mass transit. But people outside of Manhattan, certainly in NJ, Westchester, CT, et al, are car drivers -- and the area is sprawling.
4
@Ralphie each place must adapt according to the environment it exists in. Copenhagen is windy, has wind farms. Houston is sunny, can have solar arrays. We all must do what we can, look for opportunities, not obstructions.
6
Copenhagen’s experiences should teach us the kinds of challenges we face to reducing emissions. They have taken some significant steps, spent significant funds, redirected energy systems, etc., and now are up against the difficult last part of reaching their goal. And they see the enormous cost of accommodation to climate impacts. Their 2050 vision is seawalls, and more seawalls. Billions in seawalls.
They now confront the problem of their rural/urban disconnect. The very issues they seek to address in the urban areas present an economic barrier to people in the rural areas. The USA, India , China, all countries will have to confront and solve this problem.
There is a policy that works for this problem: Carbon Fee and Dividend. Why? Because both urban and rural communities will see the same increase in carbon emitting products’ pricing, and the same return of dividend revenues to households. Both will see the same market forces creating innovative new technology that makes energy more renewable over time. Both will have time to adjust, by making decisions based on the new market signals in the energy sector.
The problem is systemic. Only a systemic solution will work. Carbon pricing is that systemic solution. HR763. Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. It’s a real bill before the House right now. Write your Member of Congress today to voice your support for this transformative legislation.
9
It's true that even if Denmark gets to carbon neutrality, it will make little to no difference to reducing the world's GHG emissions. However, in the journey they will be learning, evaluating, and perfecting carbon neutral technology that they can sell to other countries, who are behind - in some cases, far behind - in reducing their GHG emissions. It's worth the investment.
104
I’m reading “uninhabitable,” which I recommend to all. If this book of research does not wake you up, nothing will
8
@David - an important thing to keep in mind is that Denmark getting to carbon neutrality does make a difference in global emissions. If Hawaii gets to 100% renewable it makes a difference. If Germany, with emissions now below where they were in 1965, keeps reducing, it makes a difference.
Painting it otherwise can give the wrong slant - as many who desperately don't want the USA to do anything try telling us.
It's all percentages. No single nation, even China (biggest current emitter) or the USA (biggest overall emissions) will make THE difference.
And no single solution will work, either. Wind won't be 100% of generation, nor will solar, nor technologies we haven't seen commercialized yet. Efficiency won't fix everything, but should be applied everywhere.
It's a jigsaw problem and all the pieces matter.
10
@b fagan -- unless there is a magical breakthrough on fusion power (unlikely, I think) the reality is that whatever mankind does to diminish CO2 production will be dominated by wind, solar, and improvements in efficiency.
These two are the cheapest there are now, and scaling fast. Nuclear simply is not in the running. We "gotta dance with the one ya' brung..." the music hasn't just started ... it's looking like closing time soon.
4
funny how this stuff always comes around to penalizing drivers. instead of trying to discourage driving, why don't they ever try to encourage other means of trans portion? a carrot instead of a stick would work better. people will always have reasons for not using public transportation but the biggest are going to be convenience and a timely schedule. if the transport doesn't go where you're going or you can't rely on it getting you to your destination on time people are going to drive no matter the "punishment" cast upon them by the anti-car crowd.
3
@AC I think you missed the estimate that almost half of Copenhagen's workers commute by bike.
10
@John Harkey And this truly has been the difference between Copenhagen and the vast majority of American cities. Copenhagen both discouraged driving AND encouraged alternative means of transportation by heavily investing in their bike lanes and public transportation (which is world class in my mind). American cities only try to make driving in-town much more expensive, while refusing to invest in alternatives. Most personally to me, parking in Boston has become ridiculously expensive, and the commuter trains (in their dilapidated states as they are) are only getting more expensive as well while offering the same poor quality. Now, Boston is it's own beast when it comes to public spending, but it is very much in the vein of most cities when it comes to spending money on public transportation. The average person will almost always benefit from less cars on the road in urban areas, but alas, we aren't the priority.
I am an American who has lived in Copenhagen for over 40 years and I can tell you that it was not a dirty city when I arrived - there were hardly any cars! Today there are about 10 times the number of cars as there were in 1975. The city had clean air and rents were dirt cheap. Today it is a boom town for young high paid technocrats and rents and housing rank among the world's highest. The city is jammed with cars 24/7 even with the extreme high % of bikers. It is very costly to have a car here even if you never drive it. I am all in favor of Mayor Jensen's plan but he is a feather in a storm regarding the Danish carbon footprint, not to meantion the world!
10
Once again the Europeans lead the way in climate change while we watch our government dismantle 50 years of environmental protection laws. There comes a point where climate change is virtually irreversible and we’re almost there. Our grandchildren will never forgive us. Nor should they. We’re a disgrace of a nation.
209
@Mike L
Do not be fooled, he is not as "green" as he says, in a few weeks he is building condows on land where endangered species are living, in the middel of Copenhagen.
Frank Jensen is lying.
1
@Mike L
If you don't like this country, there's probably an airport within driving distance of your home. Love it or leave it. At least a billion people on this planet would give their right arm to be able to have your place.
3
@Woofy
Funny, I missed the place where he said he didn't love the country. Americans, by Constitutional law, have the right to freedom of speech. He offered an opinion. You also have a right to your opinion. But accusing him of something he never said is wrong.
24
Every tax paying American should see for themselves what a better deal folks in Scandinavian countries get for their higher taxes. When you factor in free health care, education, paid parental leave, child and senior care for the Danish people, then compare it to what we pay out of pocket for the same services in the US, it becomes painfully clear what a raw deal we get from our Federal Government. We've allowed ourselves to be cowed by politicians into thinking that paying higher taxes is wrong. The lesson that Denmark teaches the world is you really do get what you pay for.
285
@Gspan
Unfortunately, many in our nation have been fed propaganda for too many years to realize that a democratic-socialist form of government offers numerous benefits to their public (education, healthcare, mass transit, etc.).
Instead, these same Americans reflexively react to the word socialism and then take it to the next step of communism or somehow look at Venezuela. Which plays into their delusional world of government taking away "freedoms".
What these same Americans fail to understand that without some level of socialism, we have no public schools, highways, police, fire, water treatment, etc.
All we have to do is look at the outcomes of these countries to see that we are quickly and possibly irreversibly falling behind in virtually every measure.
84
@Woofy You most likely have never been in Denmark and probably not been in Vermont as well. I don't think Vermont, with its almost all white population, has universal health-care, free public education, paid maternity leaves, etc. It would do you good to go to see the world has a lot to teach us. From the fastest developing economies in Asia, to culturally diversifying countries in Europe and yet, Scandinavian region. Narrow race based world view has been rejected by majority of countries long time ago. People who dreams of Great Again has obviously passed their prime time. But this country, the USA has always been great with the the contribution of its citizens of all races and colors. In our great state of California, we are making great progress toward an energy efficient and green economy. We can learn a lot from Denmark.
13
@Woofy
You refer, of course, to the 78 percent of Americans who have no savings whatsoever, and who live paycheck to paycheck. USA! USA! USA!
5
When I was in Copenhagen visiting my daughter, I rode a bicycle to get around. This was convenient and easy on an extensive bike-lane system (including separate stop lights at city intersections) even taking my rental bike on the subway. The subway had bike ramps alongside staircases, large bike elevators and many cars with large, dedicated cycle parking areas with racks. I'm not a cyclist and a late middle-aged fellow. It was fun, smart easy and the right thing to do. Only downside was I fell off and broke my ankle! But within two hours I'd visited the emergency ward, been seen, x-rayed, fitted with a cast and crutches and sent on my way. Free-for-all medicare of course!
263
@Anthony Jenkins My son is over there right now and I hope he has a similar experience with transportation minus the broken ankle of course.
15
@Anthony Jenkins
So, in socialist countries people can't afford cars.
Thanks for pointing that out!
1
@Anthony Jenkins
As a Danish person, I dont really understand as to why it was free for you since you aren't Danish? Obviously, nothing is free and we pay for the care through our taxes and since you are not a citizen then, in theory, you should have payed for it?
2
Dear NYtimes!
Maybe you should also bring the true story about the citymayor of Copenhagen and a lot of other danish politicians who just have withdrawn an old nature conservation law, destroying
ancient unique nature in the main capital of Denmark which can never be replaced - the opposite of fighting for the climate, hypocrites!!!!
2
"Climate change" has become a charged phrase. Conservatives have ruined it the way they tried to ruin "liberal." While talking with some climate-minded folks, we decided that "extreme weather" should be the talking point and the focus because THAT is something that scares everyone and has effected nearly everyone. We're seeing scores of extreme weather events, and anyone who watches the news can't argue with that the way they can argue about whether or not "climate change" is real. Try it with your obstinate conservative family members and see!
3
Our city has a climate plan now. We are doing many of these same things. Today was the first workday that a nearby bridge closed to raise the height for the new MBTA Green Line trains we are going to get. It has increased traffic on my street right now. But like most residents, I am here for the greater good of the train line and we'll be fine for now.
https://www.somervillema.gov/climateforward
But I like the model of Copenhagen for us because it is a place with winters. We need better biking infrastructure. And we need to get better at plowing sidewalks for pedestrians.
6
@memsomerville I agree 100% about plowing the sidewalks and bike paths as the greater Puget Sound area had huge snowfall in February and this was a problem for weeks. I had to drag my bike uphill 3 miles through snowbanks on the sidewalk to work. And lifting a fully loaded commuter bike over a 3 foot snowbank at an intersection is not that easy to do.
2
@Roberta
Which illustrates a point that is usually overlooked, at least in this country, when we discuss things like biking. Not everyone, in fact probably a lot of people, half or more (?) could not drag a bike uphill there miles or, worse, life a "fully loaded commuter bike over a 3 foot snowbank". These demands for bike lanes, etc. often seem to suppose as a given that there are no elderly, disabled, injured, etc., people who still have needs like transportation, getting groceries, etc.
4
@George S It also ignores that we do have people biking and walking on roads with no shoulders outside of the big city, as their employer isn't providing transportation and the local busses don't go from home to work faster if they exist at all.
One thing that needs to happy is the return of affordable SRO near commerical areas or the transportation corridors. Another thing is reducing the cost of buying and selling homes...we would see people move homes more often if they didn't have to fork over 5% for each sale.
Copenhagen was never a dirty grimy city.. My first impression on landing there, from the ship Oslofiord, 66 years ago, was how green ,clean and pleasant it was.
3
Drop in the bucket if there is no change in China and India.
3
@LMJr
That's the attitude that makes the USA a follower, not a leader.
17
@LMJr Yes, but meanwhile, Denmark companies will have perfected the green technology that will make it possible to be carbon neutral. They can then sell it to China and India and prosper.
4
@LMJr India is switching to renewables from coal, it's just going slowly--kind of like the way it's going here.
I applaud the Copenhagen Mayor's dedication. Here in Charleston SC, we can't even get a majority on City Council to support a bike lane over a bridge. And Charleston is the "progressive" city in South Carolina. Depressing.
19
@Forrest
Do not be fooled, he is not as "green" as he says, in a few weeks he is building condows on land where endangered species are living, in the middel of Copenhagen.
1
@Forrest I love Charleston and hope it gets the bike lanes it needs.
This is great news for Copenhagen and an excellent example for the rest of us. But seriously, "once-grimy city"? Grimy? Compared to what other city? Copenhagen has always been one of the cleanest cities in the world.
1
Can this translate to the Big Apple? Easier said than done. Even just getting congestion pricing passed is like turning the Titanic around. There is STILL no easy way to get a family with luggage to the airport other than a cab. Everyone and their cousin wants to modernize the subway and make it more efficient, and yet here we are.
Maybe instead of importing good ideas, which we are awash in, we should import Dutch politicians.
4
@megachulo I think you mean Danish, not Dutch. But either would probably be an improvement.
7
"By 2025, this once-grimy industrial city aims to be net carbon neutral, meaning it plans to generate more renewable energy than the dirty energy it consumes."
"Net carbon neutral" means that consumption and generation are equal, balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal. If Copenhagen plans to consume more carbon than it produces, they are going a step beyond net neutrality.
4
We have so much to learn from others about curbing greenhouse gas accumulation, developing a workable consensus on universally available health insurance and eschewing involvement in politico-ethnic feuds elsewhere in this world.
4
On the one hand it's heartening that Copenhagen is so committed to making change. On the other hand, it's deeply disturbing that even in Denmark people manage to turn climate change into a political issue just as is done so perversely around the world. It is extremely difficult to fathom the degree of stubborn foolishness involved. It's akin to having a family debate on whether it does or does not make sense to allow the children to play on the freeway or whether rattlesnakes would make good family pets.
11
Someone tries to do something to clean up the air and the critics who want to do nothing say but it won’t fix everything! What hypocracy. You have to start somewhere and it seems the mayor is on to something. I say good luck.
32
@Justice Holmes - Politicians love to oppose on the basis of a plan not being perfect. I say something is better than nothing, and perfection is the enemy of excellent.
7
Wow...imagine having a trash burning silo where steam is emitted and it's emissions are so clean you would consider putting a coffee shop there? Just amazing...and here in the US Trump has tried to reverse vehicle emission laws and requirements and to bring back coal?? Americans voted for this to MAGA?? We should be embarrassed if not downright ashamed of ourselves!
113
Whatever will become all the “back channels”?
1
Americans need to learn from this. To save the world we have to work together and motivate our fellow citizens. American cities are desperately in need of real bike paths; painted lines on the road do not protect bikers.
18
What an inspirational place! So much more forward-thinking than my city, Johannesburg, which is still so backward in embracing a green lifestyle. That said, the most important step we can take to fight climate change is to eject Trump in 2020. Trump is the single biggest obstacle to the US leading the fight against climate change, which MUST happen if we have any chance of avoiding the cliff edge.
67
@Mark Crozier Not just Trump. We also need to get rid of the Republicans in congress who support Trump's policies.
9
If this represents the best example of dealing with global climate change then we better be prepared to deal with adverse impacts rather than trying to reduce carbon emissions.
1
As Copenhagen, indeed all of Denmark, become pre-industrial grimy free again, trump wants to Make America Grimy Again with clean coal ash, soot and diseases.
Yes, Copenhagen "is small, it is rich and its people care a lot about climate change." It is called capitalistic-socialism, or democratic-socialism at its best (yes, improvements are still needed). Unlike American cities with mostly poor and middle class families and the tiny astronomically wealthy who are busy dodging taxes while deciding for the rest of enriching themselves in the process by polluting and warming the planet - and it is this tiny few who want nothing to do with remedying climate change and changing their portfolio to green technology to continue enriching themselves. Bizarre.
Cities are essentially socialistic constructs. Free for all capitalism cities with no rules that benefit everyone end up resembling New York in the movie "Escape from New York" (1981), except adding in empty gleaming towers for the rich.
Electric cars are a perfect solution in cities where the driving distances are limited, and charging points should be plentiful - wind powered contact less induction chargers in the street at every stop light?
11
@PAN
Do not be fooled, he is not as "green" as he says, in a few weeks he is building condows on land where endangered species are living, in the middel of Copenhagen.
Frank Jensen is lying.
2
@Malthe Jørgensen
Greetings, my fellow Dane - I'm originally from Esbjerg.
Hopefully the condo Jensen is allowing to be built does not have "Trump" on it. Politicians are imperfect everywhere.
You are right, being green also means protecting land and all species we all inevitably depend on.
1
I hope they educate their people and put pictures on how to use the recycle bins. In Spain there have 4. Where my mom lives in the US they have two, where by brother lives, in another city, they have two also. But one does not take plastic grocery bags. Another does not take glass. (Can you believe they don't take glass?) . In Spain there are no clear pictures or explanation of what to put where. So I put the stuff where it seems logical.
So will 8 work? If they don't train the people then all 8 containers are going to end up containing the same items.
2
@Walker Rowe Danes have never met a rule they wouldn't follow! If any people can figure out the 8 bins and use them diligently, it will be the Danes.
Glass is very expensive to recycle as compared to metal which can be reclaimed more economically. In Denmark they have reusable pop bottles which helps.
https://recyclenation.com/2010/11/denmark-glass-recycling/
4
@Walker Rowe - My guess is that Denmark in common with Sweden has very likely the most advanced recycling systems to be found anywhere. During April and May, the full-scale recycling centers will be open here in Linköping 7 days a week.
At these centers you can leave everything imaginable, even toxic materials, and every bin is labeled very clearly.
I only visit the USA once a year, for about a month, and nowhere have I seen any recycling location that is satisfactory.
I also note that whereas the trash that goes to incinerators in Denmark and Sweden is picked up by completely mechanized systems, requiring only that the pickup team roll plastic containers to the truck, what I see in New England and Albany NY is pretty primitive. Here in Linköping and in Gothenburg, the waste container is weighed so each of us pays a monthly bill depending on weight. Never in my America.
I also enjoyed seeing your location since I am a volunteer at the Red Cross and weekly meet people from just about everywhere but only rarely from Tunisia.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogtspot.com
11
@Walker Rowe - Here in The Land of The Free (old, white, rich men) we can't even be bothered to recycle properly.
China and SE Asia are refusing to accept our recycling because Americans are unwilling to separate by category thus our trash that we ship abroad is too cross-contaminated to recycle profitably.
4
Kudos to Copenhagen, but it is misleading to say they will be carbon neutral. All their food is brought into the city- each calorie of food requires about 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce. Also, the manufactured goods they bring in are made with fossil fuel, but burned elsewhere. People traveling to and from Copenhagen will use fossil fuel burning jets. A lot of fossil fuel is used mining the minerals for their cell phones.
They are to be admired, don't get me wrong. We still have a long way to go.
6
@John Dyer - John, you cannot expect a single article to even provide the highly technical definition of carbon neutral that would be required.
Given how far from even beginning to discuss adaptation of the Danish and Swedish systems in my USA I am not sure exactly why you provide your observations. I would justify them in an effort to help Americans realize that the natural gas they plan to keep using forever has to be produced and transported by systems that emit all to much greenhouse gas even before the natural gas itself is burned.
I rewrite your closing sentence. "We in the USA have so much farther to go than do the Danes, that I see no way the USA will ever reach the goal the Danes have set, assuming they reach that goal."
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
4
@John Dyer
That's right. The target of being carbon neutral does take into consideration of imported products produced outside of Copenhagen. The carbon neutrality follows the principles in international emmissions accounting. So, for Copenhagen, that entails heating, electricity, transport (including ships, trains and planes), industrial process emisions, waste management etc.
The municipality will have a hard time reaching the target, especially because there is no reduction in traffic related emissions in sight. They are planning to compensate by exporting renewable electricity, but that will only work if - in 2025 - there is still fossil based generation taking place in the rest of Denmark. And coal is being faced out really fast. So carbon neutrality will be a huge challenge.
9
@Freddy - Thanks for your expansion which I see just under my own reply.
Larry L.
2
Finally, an article about Nordic progress toward a carbon- neutral future with a stated target year and a plan and actions to get there.
The last time the Times had such an article was Elisabeth Rosenthal's masterpiece in 2010 in which she presented a much more complete view of one element of Nordic progress, advanced technolgy for using solid waste as a natural resource.
Here, today, author Sengupta uses the most suitable word for solid waste, "trash", exactly once. Then it becomes "garbage" which for me, old enough to remember the garbage man who picked up household food waste, is a deliberately negative and misleading word to use for the material that goes to the incinerator.
The Linköping system is the most advanced in the world, since food waste goes into green plastic bags that are optically separated from the rest of the "trash" picked up every other week throughout Linköping county.
Times International had an article on the system in my city, Linköping SE, designed by Danish Babcock & Wilcox that also designed the Arc incinerator pictured here.
Amy Yee's article @ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/sweden-garbage-used-for-fuel.html shows that she did not fully understand the system so I plan to correct at:
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
32
@Larry Lundgren This link takes you to a detailed presentation in English of the technology employed at Copenhill-Arc incinerator.
http://www.volund.dk/Waste_to_Energy/References/ARC_Amager_Bakke_Copenhagen
I note that a Swedish student at Malmö University, who apparently is also a political figure, has written a Master's Thesis in English criticizing the political decisions made in Denmark. I have read it yet so will wait to cite it, perhaps at my blog.
3
Why are we ignoring the impact of livestock on climate change? Even a cursory Google search would reveal that you can drastically reduce your carbon foot print by adopting a plant based diet. Care about climate change? Stop. Eating. Meat.
42
@N I'm on my eighth day without meat, eggs or dairy. When I heard the blunt, searing testimony of young climate activist Greta Thunberg in her maiden speech protesting global warming to the world, I stopped. Whenever I think of eating meat or anything that had a mother, I think of her and loose all craving. Oh, and my body feels so much better in just a week.
8
@N - Absolutely, I'm all in on reducing consumption of meat - especially beef, which consumes far more resources and produces much more GHG per pound of protein than poultry, let alone carrots, for example.
However, transportation and electricity produce more GHG than Big Ag. Decreasing/eliminating meat from our diets is valuable, however, reduction of air and vehicle travel, sealing leaks and increasing heating/cooling efficiency in our buildings and just turning off the lights when unneeded, is essential.
10
@N - I agree, I do not eat meat, but this is not an article about everything but rather an article about technologies at least one of which are fiercely opposed by American environmental groups.
In other words, here is a technology already in widespread use that has a short-term effect greater than ending eating meat.
The good news from Sweden is that meat eating has shown a measurable decline since 2017-
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
11
I was in Copenhagen in 1972.
Even back then the city had extensive bike lanes with bike traffic lights. For a cyclist like me, it was bike heaven.
54
Denmark has progressive social policies. It also forces immigrants to attend indoctrination classes, while its neighbor Norway exports carbon-based fuels to other countries. Everything exists in a context.
14
@Mike Livingston
You raise a good point, Mike. Let's consider this, too:
Denmark is tiny by comparison, and, to an extent, it has survived over the centuries by dint of it's internal [and comparative] regional diversities -- which have often, down through the centuries, absorbed the blows of adversity by its national resilience.
Bottom line?
It has frequently had to compromise and work together willingly as one nation, despite regional differences and invaders [we'd call that "flexibility]. Conversely, how many times have we as a nation been run over by brute forces?
Nada, when you come right down to it.
]And how did they accomplish that?
They learned know how to "shovel side by side".
Us?
The bulk of our regional differences were long ago absorbed into a single national fiber.
Do we think the Founding fathers were smart enough to create states "out of the gate" which could flex and absorb shocks from outside their bounds without the national government having to intervene from time to time [eg: The Civil War]
Then there's Canada, which created individual governing entities so huge that they became almost individual national entities from the git-go.
And if they didn't?
Megalomania [eg., A Soviet Union] would eventually have swept them up into a dustbin we could call a single "nation".
2
@Mike Livingston Politically I am to the left of Gandhi and Mandela, and I see nothing wrong with the Danish government making all of its immigrants cognizant of their duties and obligations of being a citizen of their very prosperous country that took them in and ranks as one of highest in the world regarding the status of women and also on the happiness index.
Legal immigration is privilege, not a right. My fellow progressives have lost their minds regarding open borders.
25
@Mike Livingston
What are these indoctrination classes you are talking about? Language classes?
4
Call it anything, but climate change. Call it "the burning of fossil fuels, which causes severe, life-threatening weather events." We are not adapting to climate change. We are adapting (or not adapting) to the steadfast refusal of national governments and businesses to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Humans always project their destruction of the environment in language as something that happens out there in nature, like nuisance species, invasive species or nuisance flooding. Language matters as Frank Luntz, famous Republican pollster, would tell you. When you talk about it, name the cause, not the effect, which is a scientific construct that most people don't understand anyway and is highly contested as the last 40 years have demonstrated.
49
@Lisa McFadden - Lisa McFadden, I pose this question to you on the basis of my long experience as Professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Rochester and 22 years of experience living in Linköping, Sweden, where my home and the entire city is heated by hot water coming from the most advanced solid-waste incinerator in the world, one designed by the Danish company Babcock & Wilcox that also designed Copenhill - Arc incinerator.
What sources did you use for the completely misleading, even errouneous assertions you make in your sentence 2?
A solid-waste incinerator does not burn "fossil fuel".
A solid-waste incinerator does not cause climate change. The very existence of incinerators designed by Babcock & Wilcox is to replace fossil fuel systems with renewable energy systems.
In the USA, known for the extraordinarily poor ancient incinerators scattered throughout the country, there is one 21st century incinerator, and that is the one in West Palm Beach FL designed and built by Danish Babcock & Wilcox. WPB FL is said to have made the decision to build because it no longer had space for the landfills that seem to be so loved by American environmental groups for reasons I have never seen presented.
My first comment awaits review. You can also see pictures of the Linköping and West Palm Beach incinerators at:
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
24
Well, with a long peninsula in the midst of a tame sea you have to admit lovely and pacifist Denmark has a TAD of a headstart on the rest of us here in New Hampshire. :) That said, I thank them. But they also have a lot more at stake at things than we New Hampshire'ens do what with our state and nation being essential a landlocked island if we want to get technical. Yet, I nonetheless applaud them.
The qualifies as a "one small step by a man and a giant leap by homo sapiens in general.
My last thought?
"Fingers crossed," America. Can we give up our electronics and homes if called upon?
Probably not right out of the gate, I assume. But perhaps being shamed by Copenhagen will be the equivalent of Donald Trump saying "I'm sorry" and we all live happily thereafter.
"Yes, indeed. Finger's crossed."
2
@Melvyn Nunes - Melvyn In June I will be in the Green Mountain State right next to your Live Free or Die State.
Why don't you learn some more about Danish - and Swedish - progress toward meeting the goal that is not even discussed in the USA - and then ask why your state has not moved into the 21st century?
By the way, here is a question I often pose to which Times readers and comment writers, all of whom profess to be "environmentalists" will not answer.
How is your living and work space heated and cooled, that is what are the systems used. You can reply her or to my Gmail at
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2