I hope the mayor has thought this one through, and considered costs as well as hoped-for benefits. The devil will very much be in the details.
The costs of retrofitting and renovating existing buildings is likely to be very high, particularly in a city with notoriously high construction costs. If asbestos abatement and/or scaffolding for exterior work is necessary, the costs will be higher still. Secondary expenses, as tenants and occupants are relocated to allow for the work will be enormous, and there may well be serious unplanned consequences.
New York City already has some of the highest costs of housing in the country, and this will raise these burdens still higher. Most of the costs will be paid by what's left of the city's middle class, at least those members of the middle class that don't live in rent controlled or rent stabilized housing.
This article provides little information on what will be required to meet the requirements of the law, so it's hard to pass judgement. But there is good reason to fear the law may do more harm than good.
I hope the powers that be in city government have done their homework. The $4 billion mentioned in the article is likely to be very, very much lower than the true costs.
5
Somebody told me about an energy efficient high rise in Toronto that used it's sewage water and heat exchangers to cool and heat the building. In the summer heat was transferred to the sewerage to cool the building. In the winter heat was taken out of the sewage and transferred to the building.
The simple heat pump concept. Uses energy, but a lot less than other more traditional methods of heating and cooling. Sounds brilliant.
2
They're shouldn't be an exemptions for low income housing or houses of worship. If those buildings are inefficient, like almost all old buildings in New York, we should tear them down and rebuild them instead of letting them rot.
New York needs a massive revitalization effort for everything from roads to underground pipes to our buildings.
Squeezing one part of the problem only pushes it to other areas
7
These large buildings, especially the glass monoliths, do lots of damage to birds too.
6
<>
This is why this legislation is such a big deal. It will make a huge difference in emissions. It isn't perfect and it couldn't possibly be perfect, but much work has obviously been done to balance different needs. This is the kind of significant action we must take if we want to survive—and finally, finally we're taking it.
Prepare for difficulties ahead, but breathe a sigh of relief too.
4
Most intelligent I read all day.
@Wienke Not because we need drastic changes it means every drastic change is good. This law is poorly designed, with lot of negative side-effects, on the economy in general (if building managers start discriminating against certain industries or tenants) but also on an environmental basis only (we are in effect favoring small buildings over large ones, while high-density allows for much less energy use per capita).
2
If it meant buildings would have to turn down the AC (or completely off from September to April, that would be the greatest thing in the world for me personally). I am so sick of wearing a winter coat indoors all year long.
1
I bet their analysis is suspect, and their ideas unconstitutional. But then what do I actually know.
1
This is a great example of how not to fight climate change. This measure is too limited in scope to achieve much. And yet will impose arbitrarily high costs on some. It will invite all sorts of abuses (who gets exemptions, etc.) It will produce distortions in the real estate market and drive away people and businesses from occupying tall buildings which are actually much more eco-friendly than surburban sprawl. Ultimately, NYC will become a less attractive place to live and work.
The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is going to be with a carbon tax. It can start off small and gradually increase each year according to a schedule known in advance to all. This will allow people to plan and invest in an economy that becomes ever more efficient and harnesses the power of the free market to achieve the highest reductions in emissions at the lowest cost. The costs and benefits are shared by all.
It is time to do the hard work and make a carbon tax politically possible at the national level. Local ad-hoc, feel good measures such as this is will just make a mess on many levels without achieving much to improve our climate.
7
@ dan
You hit the nail on the head
Fighting climate change is the distraction of the moment.
We caused it, everything we do to "improve" the planet hurts it, yet we suddenly have the knowledge and wisdom to repair it? That's delusional. Everything humanity ever did to "improve" the planet (a narcissistic notion in the first place) has caused trouble. When humans are gone, the planet will repair itself. As of now, labeling things GREEN is just a sop and a marketing gimmick.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
Did you see the tv series “ life without people “?
1
@El Barto: Never heard of it. Will look it up.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
There’s another one called “ life beyond people “
Funny, I always thought that people who lived in high-rises and didn't drive cars much were a net positive for the environment compared to SUV piggies in the suburbs who drive a half mile to get milk and eggs. But now Blowhard Bill has set me straight. He says we're the problem and need to change -- or else pay him. Meanwhile he flies to fundraisers in New Hampshire and Iowa because he thinks carbon rules don't apply to him. Typical liberal.
11
Carbon emission changes (warms) the climate.
Does that "hurt" the climate? Unproven and unknown.
2
I really wish that New York, both City and State, would strongly encourage co-generation (heat AND power) to be implemented every time a boiler is to be installed or replaced. The currently still low interest rates make the higher up front costs of cogeneration systems more economical, and not wasting the heat produced generating electric power improves the overall carbon footprint. Lastly, several companies in the US are world leaders in building small and very small gas turbines (microturbines and miniturbines), so deploying those systems also helps creating skilled and well-paying jobs here.
3
Maybe if the city didn't hand out construction permits like candy for all these monstrosities, the problem wouldn't be as dire as people claim.
It claims to be concerned about climate change but can't wait for the day when the tax assessor comes knocking with the new property tax bill on these new buildings.
4
@skater242 You miss the point. People have to live and work somewhere. Cities, with all those monstrosities as you call them, use less energy than their suburban counterparts. Not building in cities would produce more greenhouse gasses.
3
Decades ago, my apartment building—which was built in 1883 and renovated in the 1930s—installed double-glazed windows, low flow toilets, and other energy and water-saving upgrades.
In recent years, all the lighting in hallways has changed to CFLs or LEDs. Apartments and water are heated by natural gas. The roof was replaced with modern insulated material.
The biggest visible change in any photo of NYC is the near-total elimination of black tar roofs, replaced by energy efficient reflective surfaces.
5
@Andrew Porter. I wish more buildings would change their roof surfaces to highly reflective ones. It cuts down significantly on air conditioning use, and pays for itself in a short time.
Tax, tax, tax is the Democrat way.
3
As with most articles summarizing legislation, there is much that is not covered. Perhaps the Times should provide links to legislation it discusses for diligent readers who would like to see it for themselves. In this case, here is a link:
https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3761078&GUID=B938F26C-E9B9-4B9F-B981-1BB2BB52A486&Options=ID|Text|&Search=1253
1
How about the NYCHA buildings, public grammar schools and high schools, city owned offices, etc.?
If the boy mayor was serious he'd start with energy efficiency in the buildings he has a bit of control over.
He should set an example instead of exempting many city owned structures.
And I bet organized crime is licking their lips. Remember the scandal with replacing NYCHA windows? At least that ended up with many criminals behind bars.
8
I imagine a high rise building surrounded by a rigid outer framework extending several feet beyond the façade. In the summer, adjustable blinds would prevent sunlight from touching the building's surface, while allowing a breeze to blow through. In winter, translucent coverings would turn the outer framework into a greenhouse. The building's screened windows could be opened in summer, allowing the natural breeze to provide cooling except on the hottest days.
For this to work, summer business clothing should also be altered, requiring businesses to permit employees to wear knee-length dress shorts and dress sandals.
2
@JPH. Many office buildings in Europe have adjustable outside shaders that do exactly what you suggest. Not sure why they haven't caught on here.
1
This looks suspiciously like a way to drive the middle class out of the city and leave it solely to the 1% and the poor. It also looks like a fast-conceived way for Deblasio and the city council to reap a political harvest without the sweat and tears of a thoughtful, well-researched plan for environmental improvement that doesn't lead to socioeconomic injustice and upheaval.
NYS has an interesting requirement for environmental impact assessment: including economic and social impacts. This plan should be subjected to environmental impact assessment according to the NYS requirements. Otherwise, we could end up with a situation like that in France where a policy meant to limit greenhouse gas emissions triggered vast unrest from a long-simmering sense of inequality.
8
New York should take steps to confront climate change, but this is an ill-conceived policy. Setting an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all cap on emissions will introduce a host of economic distortions, such as the incentive to turn away high-energy tenants. In addition, some buildings might leave entire floors vacant to bring down their energy use per square foot. All of this could be avoided by a simple carbon tax which naturally encourages everyone to reduce their emissions in a way that’s economically efficient.
31
@Phillip Vest
The simple carbon tax raises consumer spending in way they cannot control and cannot even identify.
The politically well connected will get their goods and services exempted, creating major market distortions and excess profits for the politically well connected.
3
@Phillip Vest Great until that carbon tax, it has been tried and failed, and unless it is world wide it won't make a significant difference either. Not to mention all the cheating on measuring your carbon.
1
It’s not one size at all. The article describes many kinds of adjustments.
3
Bravo for New York City! Everyone talks about Climate Change as a BIG problem that can only be solved by big national legislation -- which is extremely difficult since even climate change supporters don't agree on a solution.
Ultimately, to be successful in fighting Climate Change, we need to test different strategies to see what works, refine strategies, and get individuals motivated about developing a solution. This works better when a decision is made close to home.
Although this may not be exactly the right solution, it takes a step. An even a small step is better than no step. Since the City Council is elected locally and needs to be responsive to New York City residents, hopefully the City will monitor the success of the new regulations and mold them as necessary to be more effective and less onerous on individuals that need help; something that can't be done at a national level.
21
@Cary
The Kyoto Protocol, a creature of the UN which is dominated by the huge number of third world autocracies, decided, with no science to back it up, to favor "renewable" energy sources over fossil fuels. Here's some of the government policies that followed.
Indonesian rain forests were burned down to make way for palm oil plantations. Oligarchs made lots of money. The land and water was polluted. Indigenous peoples were paid tiny amounts for whatever limited property rights they had. More greenhouse gases that had been sequestered in the land were released than if the equivalent amount of coal had been burned and air pollution of traditional pollutants would be less. [The US corn ethanol mandate increased costs, damaged equipment and increased CO2 production.]
Great Britain eliminated coal fired power plants and raised electricity prices. Londoners switched from unaffordable electricity for heating their homes to wood burning furnaces that polluted the air.
Germany replaced coal with wood pellets imported from the US.
A small step that moves things in the wrong direction is not a good idea. Raising energy costs for the poor is never a good idea.
De Blasio is prepared to sacrifice the poor in his attempt to advance his political ambition to be president. Just like Cuomo's ban on fracking.
4
Installing double pane windows not only conserves heat in the winter and is cooler in the summer; it reduces noise dramatically and is much nicer to look through. It would be worth it to New York to create a fund to publicly pay for new windows for rent controlled apartments as a demonstration model of how great they are. This would be an immediate energy savings, not cost the landlords or tenants who can least afford it and show everyone else that being green is to live a better more comfortable life
37
@Dani Weber - There are more effective first steps to take to improve energy efficiency of buildings. Replacing old, single-pane, leaky windows is beneficial. Otherwise, the first step should be a blower-door test to locate and seal leaks, including window leaks.
7
@Dani Weber
The NYC Housing Authority spent $2,000 per apartment to replace lighting with LED bulbs. From a cost perspective, the housing authority will never save enough on their electric bills to recover the cost.
What are the odds that NYC would be able to replace a single window for less than $2,000? The scheme works for De Blasio if the "fund" is paid by parties who can passively pass the costs on to the consumers in extra rent. That is how you empty out the city of taxpayers.
It would be a positive for the NYC metro environment if the population declined by, say, 50%. That way the city might be able to stop dumping a million gallons per year of raw sewage because their 100 year old system does not use modern technology.
3
The headline implies that "big buildings" have an outsize climate impact. I was hoping to see an analysis of per capita energy use in buildings of different sizes to back that claim up. It is my understanding that detached houses generate the most emissions, and midsize buildings generate the least. I am curious how skyscrapers fit into that spectrum. In any case, any policy that incentivizes more low density sprawl by making urban living more expensive is wrong headed in my view.
59
@Ryan K
This was also my understanding. The average amount of living space a person uses in a more suburban or country setting is normally considerably more than in a large urban city where a lot of people have smaller apartments. So I was always led to believe that on average people living in suburban/country settings were having a larger impact on the environment. Maybe that's wrong though?
4
@San Antonio People living in suburban/country settings have their carbon footprint offset by trees and open fields.
2
@Ryan K There is no debate here: NYC’s power consumption per capita is one of the lowest in the country, despite many buildings being incredibly inefficient (drafts, insulation with standards from different times, many overheated places due to poor central heating design…). That’s because high density allows most people to not commute by car.
15
Big buildings is why per capita emissions in NYC is a third of the national average. The last thing we need is to make it even more expensive to live in an apartment as opposed to a house. Houses are much more energy intensive than apartments. They require more energy to heat and cool, and they take up more physical space. So, if anything, this could result in a net increase in greenhouse gases.
If they are going to require expensive modifications, they should require them of everyone. Especially townhouses. Townhouse owners tend to be richer than people who live in apartments anyway.
I'm guessing that De Blasio, who owns a townhouse in park slope, wants to encourage people to prefer houses, so that his property value will go up. Just like he opposes congestion pricing since he likes driving from Brooklyn to Manhattan.
52
@Laura
You are conflating a couple of issues.
NYC does not generate much in the way of electricity, so it does not consider itself accountable for any CO2 from its electricity consumption.
NYC has high population density. That means, when looking at conventional pollution that results in poor air quality, there are a lot of people who each breathe in really dirty air, but it seems OK from a per capita view. NYC needs to consume less fossil fuels to clean up its traditional pollution. A city with a population of two million does not, even if its per capita emissions are higher, because the pollutants are spread over ten times the area.
@ebmem “NYC does not generate much in the way of electricity, so it does not consider itself accountable for any CO2 from its electricity consumption.”
Source please? I highly doubt that measures of CO2 consumption by anyone serious would “forget” to account for electricity consumption. Maybe they forgot to account for oil and gas too because they didn’t produce it either?
Regarding the concentration of population, we are talking about greenhouse gas here: concentration of this pollution or how spread out it is is irrelevant, because its effects are global.
1
@Bob Robert @ebmem
The emissions associated with electricity use in NYC are included in the NYC Greenhouse Gas Inventory. This annual inventory looks at consumption-based emissions, so it does not matter where the fuel was burned to produce the electricity.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/GHG%20Inventory%20Report%20Emission%20Year%202016.pdf
2
NYC has already embarked on an ambitious plan to fight climate change: giving out tens of thousands of additional parking placards. This will surely and happily offset efforts to limit these buildings’ emissions. The hypocrisy of it all...
1
There are many things NYC could do to reduce energy consumption. This bill, however, won’t help much. But it will give NYC politicians the ability to pick and choose categories of winners and losers, and even to grant exemptions. Can anyone else smell a rat? The best we can hope for is that they’ll use these powers to reward political supporters and to punish political rivals. But on top of that, I think we can be sure that money will change hands.
What could the city do? How about a change to the building code that says that every radiator has to be controlled by an effective thermostat. I’ve lived in quite a few NYC apartments, and in almost all of them, I’ve shut off all the radiators, and opened windows all winter long. Last night, I ran an air conditioner (on a 50 degree night) so I could get the temperature down to a point where I could sleep. I won’t go into the technical details of why this happens, but it’s because many buildings still control their heating systems with 100 year-old technology.
There are plenty of other things the city could do, but let’s start with one that will clearly work, and not with one that will just add to the overall level of corruption.
6
@Rick
When they install those double paned windows, how much do you want to bet that residents will not have the ability to open them?
Another bad idea to cut emissions. Why target one particular source? It makes about as much sense as only charging 20-years for cheeseburger because they eat the most cheeseburgers. We need a broad base carbon tax. Tax carbon at its source, and let the power of the market decide the most efficient way to reduce it.
5
@Joseph
Exactly! The trick is being smart about how the proceeds are used. If the government just rakes in the cash to pay for pet projects, the tax becomes regressive, and the people get angry. Ask Emmanuel Macron how that worked out.
One approach is send the money right back to the citizens, on a per-capita basis. Another approach is to send it to owners of buildings, on a per-square-foot basis. Either way, anyone who uses an average amount of energy will be unaffected. Anyone who uses more than the average amount of energy will pay out, and anyone who’s below average will actually make money. But everyone will have huge incentives to conserve.
Let market forces do what they do best!
2
@Rick
That is the logic between the "revenue neutral" carbon tax proposal. People are unaware of what carbon dioxide they are creating.
They know what their utility bill is and what they pay for gasoline or heating oil.
They have zero information as to whether the fruits, vegetables, meat, shoes, clothing, etc. are high carbon or low carbon. Directionally, they may know that beef has a higher carbon footprint than soy protein, but they have no way of knowing that the head of iceberg lettuce purchased at Walmart has a lower carbon footprint than the "locally sourced" bag of organic artisan salad greens.
For the masses, they will be tricked into believing they are getting a bigger dividend than they are paying in carbon taxes, because they will look at their utility bill and gasoline consumption and see that the increase in their carbon tax is $300, and their quarterly refund is $500. In reality, their food, clothing, bus fare and all other goods and services increased by $300, so they are behind $100 for the quarter.
Meanwhile, Walmart will decrease the price of a head of lettuce from $1 to $.89 because of their efficient supply chain, and the "locally sourced" salad greens will increase from $3.89 to $4.29.
A free market requires visibility to price and quality. Your magical carbon tax has very limited visibility. Prices will increase every year, and the big boys will increase in wealth.
This column leaves out a hugely important caveat: in the future, we must, must, must build UP. While older buildings may generate more emissions, newer buildings do not. We need to prepare for denser, taller areas. Single family homes should be exceptions, not the rule.
4
Tax, tax, tax is the Democrat way.
8
After reading this, one should ask 'what's wrong with NYC'?
It's perfectly fine to chase the green targets etc. but that is, as with absolutely everything else one can think of, a lot easier said than done.
This law is obvious rubbish since it is not in the realm of what can reasonably be achieved, all people and buildings considered.
Car fees make a lot more sense.
3
So it looks like that “benchmarking” process was actually a “set up” to measure energy consumption of individual buildings, derive data based on construction and mechanical components, and then apply a bar so low with the new law that that it can not possibly be met, assuring billions in revenue for the city coffers. Very clever.
3
Accurate accountability; includes all business functions to improve the entire organizations, would you agree upon this? Experience of this magnitude has not been developed overnight, successes have hard won, commitment has been tireless yet the rewards of seeing an idea take hold of people's imaginations for better green house gas testing to this day is one of my greatest motivators, and it is a skill I'm keen to demonstrate!
If they fine buildings for wasting energy, Trump Enterprises will be paying a lot. They track energy consumption of buildings here in Chicago, and their building, fairly new, and built when lots of efficiency materials and practices were available, scores a 9 out of 100 on EnergyStar rankings for structures. Tenants must be spending a bundle on utilities.
2
Surely there should be a substantial cost attached to monolithic buildings' capacity to block sunlight and ventilation. Not only for people's health, but that of plants and animals trying to live in NYC spaces.
This is a problem with which New York, Chicago, and many other American cities have been wrangling for a very long time, whether the problem has been seen as coming from towering behemoths, or from block-long boxes that cram workers and residents into poorly lit interiors and lower floors.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/how-the-battle-for-sunlight-shaped-new-york-city/510917/
The toll of tall, trophy buildings in crushing out Central Park's sunlight was profiled in a striking NYT article not long ago.
2
@Caroline What is the toll of suburban sprawl on damaging and eradicating the living areas of plants and animals? What is the toll of short buildings outside the city, that place a stress on the land because of spread-out distances and excessive amounts of land given over to asphalt? The focus on tall buildings for energy efficiency is laudable, but exclusively focusing on tall buildings is mistaken.
4
I could go off about how New York's statist politicians are pushing people to leave, but I won't do that. Here I just want to mock this very illogical move.
If you look at the most traffic-jammed cities, they're the ones that put arbitrary height limits on their buildings. This means there can't be enough supply of space in the city center, so people have to move outside and commute.
In fact, the foundation of a city - where people are so close together and interact, share ideas and create new businesses - depends on large buildings.
This would theoritecally "nudge" more outside of Manhattan - both business and individuals. The emissions would move from the buildings, to the cars.
Ostensibly that's what the "congestion" tax was all about, right?
Let's be honest. It's a money grab disguised as environmentalism.
6
Actually the birds are eating insects in the WTC spotlights, refueling on the wing. Don’t turn them off! And another correction: including single family homes, it’s more like 2,000,000,000 wild birds killed by window strikes in the US each year. Roughly the same number killed by domesticated cats. Where’s the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when you need it?!
1
Climate change activists have ruined the environmental movement. And they have nothing to show for it. What a sad group of pathetic crybabies. There are so many more troubling and pressing environmental problems facing our planet...outright development and chemical pollution being much more worrisome to real environmental scientists.
3
@Chris McClure - well, there's the commentary from the home of the Simpsons.
"Outright" development? Climate change in the form of sea level rise and increasingly intense precipitation exacerbates the flooding caused by sprawl. It also increases the chemical pollution washing into our waterways from farms, roads, lawns with herbicides and fertilizer.
Chemical pollution?
Oil spills release large amounts of chemicals into the air, land, water. Alaska's still dealing with the Exxon Valdez from decades ago.
Coal ash releases chemicals (lead, arsenic, mercury, lots of other nasty stuff) into the groundwater and drinking supply. Burning coal releases more radioactive materials into the air than nuclear power plants, and there's all that sulfur dioxide to put expensive scrubbers in to catch.
Fracking requires taking water, mixing it with proprietary mixes of chemicals, and injecting it into the ground. Fracking also brings to the surface large quantities of salty water laden with more chemical pollutants.
Seems we'd reduce a lot of what you claim to care about if we acted against what you call names. Sad!
@Chris McClure - I forgot to mention the massive amount of pollution from gasoline and diesel-powered transportation. More chemical pollutants emitted while adding to global warming at the same time. Air will be far cleaner when transportation is electrified.
The only way to stop these crazy Socialists is to hit them in the pocketbook. Major corporations, including Wall Street firms, need to announce they’re leaving—for Miami, or Dallas. When NYC’s finances begin to collapse, the politicians may begin to learn that business is not a captive entity, that can be forced to fork over their earnings to a voracious bureaucracy with endless needs.
8
Must see to believe. Promises thus far, far from reality, to help the environment. Some of us, skeptics, shall await to see solar panels and gardens in all open spaces (on buildings), in addition to improvements in insulation to conserve energy. For now, meeting the rejection, if not repudiation, of real estate developers in NYC, remains an ominous sign.
1
I totally support actions to cut emissions from big buildings, just like any other sources of emission.
However, this article and some of the critics really miss the big point. Big buildings area already super efficient compared to every other form of habitation that humans undertake. New York City is already super efficient in terms of GHG emissions.
While yes, NYC should strive to cut emissions further, from an ecological and climate stand point, the real debate should be how do we get the rest of the country to level NYC is already at.
4
My goodness, all the ney-sayers in the comments. Don't know how we ever got the moon or became seen as a Technology Leader...boggles the mind. "We don't do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard..." and because that are necessary if we are to survive what is to come.
These efforts will also spur technological improvements and invent things yet unknown. We used to be a bold people looking to the future, but we are slowly becoming small and scared of our own shadow.
8
@KaneSugar - I assume that you neither live in a co-op or condo building with more that 25000 sq. ft. or that, if you do, money is not an issue for you. It is very easy to uncritically embrace feel good populist measures like this one when someone else is paying for them. While the goals are laudable, the measure exempts buildings owned by the City itself through NYCHA, and protects the Council's favorite constituency , rent stabilized tenants, among others. As I am sure you know, rent stabilization is a lottery that bestows the benefits of an artificially low rent to lucky individuals without regard to income or net worth. But this measure ignores older individuals like me who live in co-ops and condos and whose principal if not exclusive source of income is a pension. I am expecting my maintenance to go up exponentially and/or to be showered by special assessments imposed to provide funds to my co-op to undertake the improvements required by the legislation. By adopting this measure the City Council is in effect pricing me out of my neighborhood that I have lived in for 35 years and helped to make it the great place to live it is today.
8
The quotations in the article about the difficult costs the landlords face demonstrate that the capitalists haven’t really been putting up the capital for quite some time.
1
@Shannon
These landlords have forgotten more than you will ever know about operating real estate. This sort of ignorance persists because tenants outnumber landlords 100:1, and politicians and the media are all too happy to pander to them.
3
@Andy Deckman
So let’s here an alternative proposal from you and your knowledgeable landlord pals. Donothingism doesn’t lead to much progress.
Really? Two words for ya: Hudson Yards.
3
Fix this: Con Ed loses 60% of the electricity that it generates not to mention that we, the customers, wind up paying for this outrage.
See 7th paragraph:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/realestate/commercial/25cogen.html
1
A little late, like 100 years, for this info.....good luck, ha
2
Another effort by NYC's Dem-Lib-Scocialist cabal long on good intentions but short on practicality. Set new energy conservation standards for buildings to be constructed going forward? Fine, as long as such standards are commercially and technologically feasible. However, in the case of the Empire State Building there is only so much that can be reasonably done with a building that's almost one hundred years old. Buildings that are even older will no doubt also be affected. Perhaps de Blasio and the other progressives can help with the financing through the tax windfall they will receive from Amazon. Whoops, scratch that! The deal was blown away by Dem progressive socialists like AOC. Oh well, someone will pay for it. Just raise taxes again, the favorite go-to financing method of Dem progressives. Even better, as AOC with her Boston University economics degree suggested, just print more money. There you go! As bad as NJ is, you could not pay me to live in NYC.
6
So if 67% of NYC emissions come from buildings, why is he so focused on congestion pricing to keep cars out of Manhattan?
2
@bored critic, because it’s not about emissions—that’s just the cover story. It’s about a ravenous government that can never get its hands on enough money. Anything they resist will be redistributed into social welfare spending—including millions for illegal aliens.
4
@Jesse The Conservative--yes Jesse. My comment was sarcasm. Diblasio is well known for his unthoughtout proposals and pushing them forward at the cost of taxpayers. He wants to show how progressive he is on climate and immigration (remember NYC is a sanctuary city--but he said he'd use trump if trump sent illegals to NYC). And when his proposals prove ineffective or negatively impact the city, he will be long gone.
2
Another way to make NYC buildings less competitive with buildings in other cities and regions of the US. There are approx 28,140 buildings in NYC containing at least 25,000 square feet, for a city-wide total of approx 3.3 billion square feet. Many of these buildings are more than 75 years old which makes retrofitting a near impossibility.
All NYC buildings =+25,000 sqft (.xlsx) - - https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Afdb40351-8706-42df-8365-1eb7587317a4
2
Tall apartment houses make it easier for people to live closer to their jobs. They don't have to drive to work. Population density is good for the environment.
10
I always found it absurd that in our old building the way everyone cooled it down in winter when the super had the furnace going full blast was to open the windows. Residential in low rent areas especially where the City is providing the utilities or controlling the rent is where to start. At least the big buildings have a financial incentive to control utilities while those in rent stabilized or city housing could care less. DeBlasio is clueless but has he ever lived in the real New York?
4
This is going hit right at the heart of the last bastion of middle class housing in the NYC, cooperative buildings. The assessment for compliance are going to wreck the value of the apartments.
9
Always remember the law of unintended consequences. The cost of these mandated modifications will be astronomical, and will be paid by someone (landlords, tenants, taxpayers). And to all of the apparent experts here convinced the modifications 'pay for themselves,' ask yourselves why they aren't already implemented if that were truly the case. And to those convinced city living is accelerating climate change, look outside your bubble to see how a vast majority of America lives (large, sprawling homes, single occupant vehicles driven everywhere - all things consuming disproportionate amounts of energy).
The city Pollyannas are no different from the state Pollyannas who are about to pass rent regulation that removes the one incentive (higher rents) to invest in rent regulated housing. If you think 'good' housing is lacking now, just wait. Again, remember the law of unintended consequences.
The solution? Tax energy consumption for everyone, equally. Cue the 'but that's a regressive tax!' rebuttals.
9
Stop insinuating that tall buildings or intense development are bad for the environment. It's exactly the opposite. NYC has by far the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of any US city. Yes, older buildings aren't as energy efficient as new ones, but they are still vastly superior to car-oriented single-family home development. Condo buildings are inherently efficient due to sharing walls and a small roof area and also having minimal surface area exposed to the outdoors. Also, New Yorkers live in the smallest homes in America which limits their energy use and material consumption. Having 67% of emissions come from buildings is a good thing; it shows that transportation emissions are very small. This is borderline irresponsible journalism - change the title! Also, highly recommend reading "Green Metropolis."
6
Why are there so many big buildings going up in nyc
1
Meh.
They will simply say they were built before x date, thus cannot be held to the same rules, present a 50 year plan to upgrade, and that will be the end of that.
2
@AutumnLeaf
Precisely. This will become a government exercise in choosing winners (those exempt) and losers (everyone else). But as long as the politicians pander correctly, they will be re-elected, and continue pandering until their hand is forced, in an economic downturn, to abandon their do-goodery for common sense.
1
Common sense legislation: all new buildings have solar roofs. Tax breaks to those buildings that retrofit with solar roofs. No more collective hot water tanks in buildings but small tanks in individual units: heat what you need when you need it and pay for it yourself. No more free electricity to anyone. Pay for what you use and you’ll use less.
6
@Ellen Tabor--who gets free electricity? Homeowners pay electric. Office building tenants pay electric. Apartment renters pay electric. Who gets free electricity?
@Ellen Tabor
What makes you think hundreds of small water heaters would be more energy efficient than one large one? The large tank can actually be heated with the waste products of other mechanical heating and cooling systems.
I look at this legislation as a starting point, not an end point. There is much in it should be corrected, and emissions measuring and penalizing doesn't start until 2024. That gives the city time to do better. There is a lot that can be done with payback coming from energy savings, and technology is getting better all the time. Let's look to achieve a balance of technology, funding, tax abatements, etc. Climate change is real. We have to start sometime.
4
Finally! This is a good start and I hope it spreads to other cities. Does it include hotels and retailers? Just thinking of times I am freezing and thinking, “what a waste of energy.”
3
We were traveling in Europe last summer - we stayed in six hotels. In five of them, you had to put your key card in a slot inside the door in order to "turn on" the electricity in the room. No card, no lights. No card, no iPhone charging.
2
@Maggie Interesting!
@Maggie
That only works when renters can't get an extra card key for their room.
2
Won’t the trump organization just massage the numbers to fit whatever cap is imposed, regardless of what the actual emissions are?
2
Big buildings like the Empire State Building and Trump Tower are home to hundreds of businesses and residences and therefore much more resource efficient than smaller office buildings and houses.
8
I have doubts about this.
There’s a lot of efficiency in urban density: miles of saved utility lines/pipes/..., footprint vs. horizontal population spread, transportation economies, etc.
I suspect the total picture looks much better.
6
@Anne
So, no sense in trying to improve upon that lesser footprint by bringing better efficiency to the operation of that density??? Is that the best we can do? Technology is always improving, why not apply it and get even better.
1
Face it. This is nothing more than a revenue enhancement, otherwise known as a stealth tax. The 40% reduction goal can be obtained, by firing 30% of the workers in these buildings and making the others work in the dark.
7
You know what isn't environmentally-friendly or conscious at all? All those new developments going up everywhere, you know the ones where no one lives full-time. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted to construct a new building is staggering in terms of resources spent in materials and shipping. The greenest building is the one already built! Yes, let's fix these leaky buildings and make them clean buildings, but let's also rethink the merits of rampant (over)development going on in our city.
19
@James Over-development? Not many people will agree that there is too much housing in New York…
Both can actually go hand-in-hand: build more (and taller) close to where people work to avoid urban sprawling (and also because newbuilt can be much more energy-efficient than the current housing stock) AND make sure what you build is inhabited most of the time.
3
So, the problem that created the most climate change is buildings, not cars? So, why are people insisting we get rid of cars in favor of trains? Trains would have leakage when people get on and off at every stop. And their leakage would be exponentially hirer than an automobile.
So, where is out climate change problems coming from? The Democrats want you to believe everything is bad, unless they tell you it's good.
2
@djaymick
This is another example of illogical reasoning masquerading as a "truth bomb." It sidesteps all issues and even basic logic. Buildings and cars both have enormous climate impacts. Nobody said otherwise. In NYC in particular, buildings have a bigger impact than cars because...more buildings. So, reducing the climate impact in buildings is a good place to start. Not the only place. Nobody said otherwise.
Likewise, cars and trains both have a climate impact. Nobody said otherwise. Cars have a bigger impact than trains because...more cars. Obviously 1 train has more negative impact than 1 car. But 500 people on 1 train instead of being in 500 cars is better.
It isn't Democrats wanting us to believe everything is bad. Carbon in the atmosphere traps heat. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the more trapped heat. That is an indisputable fact as much as it is a fact that ice is cold and fire is hot.
Physical facts of how the world works are not partisan. They just are. To deny that carbon traps heat in the atmosphere is the same as calling the earth flat; there is no basis in reality for such a claim.
4
Large buildings are the solution, not the issue.
There can be a debate on the energy consumption of an old building vs a standard house, but just the fact that tall buildings allow for higher density rather than urban sprawling completely tips the balance: someone living in one of these buildings downtown or where public transports are efficient uses so much less energy than someone commuting by car. How much heating oil or propane do you use in a year compared to how much gas do you put in your car? It’s just a different order of magnitude.
Besides, the devil is in the details: cue the debate about the energy consumption and wealth of different users, and all the different rules and exemptions that will result. It would be much easier to make power and energy more expensive for everyone, and just help those who need it (with the additional money collected) in the new deal of cards. This way you don’t have rich people living in expensive buildings benefitting from the building’s exemption because it has 5% of rent-controlled apartments, while the next efficient building is taxed because it houses companies with powerful servers, or other stupid situations like that.
8
It does seem that one of the richest cities in the world in the most technologically advanced nation in the world could prod their building owners to install energy-efficient windows and other upgrades that will save energy and pay for themselves over time.
The only possible objection is from those who favor short-term over long-term planning.
Regarding the many exempt residentail buildings, it does seem like an opportunity for the city to do something to bridge the divide, like offering bonds to fund the renovations and taking a cut of the energy savings to pay them off.
3
Well it seems to me that nobody wants to do anything about climate change. It might hurt business. So let’s continue to stick our heads in the sand.
7
Every time Blasio opens his mouth I find something to disagree with. No exception here.
8
@kwb - hello and I read on Wiki that Cumming, GA is the birthplace of famed fountainpen nibmeister, Pedleton Brown. I also read about your mayor, Troy Brumbalow and that your town's Veterans War Memorial is being shut due to lack of maintenance and yet you find NYC's mayor disagreeable? The scope of the man's responsibilities and cares is unfathomable to us not in his place. I think it's excellent that one of the sources of urban pollution is being examined - lives will be saved if these emissions are curbed.
2
@Jenny--your. comments come from Connecticut, not New York. Mine come from NYC. Diblasio doesnt give a hoot about NYC and he has yet to do anything right. Everything he puts his hands on turns into a disaster
3
@Jenny
You need to read more carefully. The War Memorial is being moved because of water infiltration under the stone platform. As for Pendleton Brown, I was unaware of his being born in Cumming, but Zac Brown might have been a better choice for wider recognition.
As for Blasio, I prefer to think that the scope of his irresponsibility is more germane. Add the city council to that list too.
3
I'd like to know how the City Council made their demands for upgrades to older buildings for energy efficiency jive with earlier research showing that older buildings are more energy efficient than newer ones:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/earth/new-york-citys-effort-to-track-energy-efficiency-yields-some-surprises.html
"Older buildings tend to have higher Energy Star scores because they have thicker walls, fewer windows and less ventilation — superior 'thermal envelopes.'"
7
High-rise steel and glass behemoths like the Hudson Yards nightmare are very energy wasteful: how much insulation can there be in walls of glass? You cannot open these windows for natural ventilation on warm days to catch breezes from the Hudson River and must instead rely on running air conditioning and ventilators non-stop; the windows, which must be tinted to reduce sun glare, requires constant use of lighting anyway. So these soulless looking building have high heating costs in the winter, high cooling costs in the summer, not to mention the costs of running and maintaining powerful elevators, and the killing of thousands of hapless birds flying into them. When will the city stop them from being built? Plus, most of them are ugly!
8
@Janetariana That is funny. Each of the Hudson Yards buildings is LEED gold or platinum.
The windows of affordable housing units should certainly be double glazed, low E - to reduce the cost of maintenance in winter and make them more comfortable in summer.
This makes economic sense for private older housing so it must make sense for older public housing. There is no excuse for not upgrading buildings - they are an investment in our future. With respect to private housing, the costs can be amortized and used to reduce the income taxes of owners.
When everyone has to do it, the cost drops considerably as there is more competitive bidding for improvements to save energy.
Poor people need energy savings even more than rich people!
5
How frustrating it is that NYC is going after big buildings while continuing to permit an ever-increasing number of food trucks to clog the street corners at intersections all over the city, belching the noxious exhaust from the generators that powers each of them. Is there any sense of consistency, or rational thinking at City Hall?
7
@GMG 100,000 food trucks might be able to equal the power consumption and pollution of one sky scraper building.
3
Wait a sec. What about this? https://www.usgbc.org/articles/empire-state-building-achieves-leed-gold
4
I did not see in the article whether the emissions caps are required at 2030 or whether there will be incremental checks on the way to 2030.
This is no minor detail.
If the city plans to wait until 2030 to start fining building owners, everyone will drag their feet, hoping regulations change, the next owner will deal with it, or hope there is enough backlash from all the owners who dragged their feet, that the city will make modifications.
If verification and the fines are incremental, a whole industry will be built around making buildings more efficient in NYC that, in is itself, will add efficiency to the process.
Hopefully, this is not just a political play, but practical regulation. I'd like to know more about the details.
New York City residents already use the least emissions per capita in the country. This will add even more expense to live here and that’s the opposite of what we should be doing
19
@Peter
Not true according to a 2012 study. Car-centric LA, San Diego and Phoenix have lower emissions per capita. Perhaps because they have newer, more efficient housing and commercial buildings?
1
As Dani Weber here comments (see below) , better for the City to stand up and reduce emmissions at her own buildings first --- to lead the way. Weber suggests double pane windows for NY's public housing projects as a great example, another commentor suggests sealing leaks in public housing too...and these are simple & immediate fixes for public housing (and should also include all other city buildings like city office buildings, city precincts, libraries, fire houses, etc., etc) so that the high-minded City Council and The Mayor can show the way and begin the process of more energy efficiency...instead of the council washing it's hands and demanding others (not us) need to do the heavy lifting... PJS
7
@pete That would require work and leadership. It's much easier to tell everyone else what to do and then feel good about how they are saviors of the environment.
4
@pete You mean the same NYCHA that mishandled lead paint and mold inspections? Perhaps their inability to provide heat to apartments was a green initiative, not gross mismanagement. This is just another money grab by a fiscally profligate city government.
2
There should be all sorts of quiet, made in USA, wind generators on those buildings. What a waste of power. No need for Trump's black lung coal mine victims.
@Getreal Quiet, efficient and economical generators to be installed on top of buildings do not exist. For the following reasons:
1) First and maybe most important point, roof top space is incredibly valuable in NYC. The little power you can produce from that space, even from much more efficient solar panels, is an order of magnitude less valuable than that. Electricity is easy to transport, so why producing it where space is the most expensive?
2) Small generators are much less efficient than bigger ones. That’s why you have large ones in wind farms.
3) There are turbulences on top of a building, because buildings are irregularly-shaped obstacles to wind. And because there are neighboring buildings that also create turbulences.
4) You can’t produce power without your turbine running fast. If the turbine runs fast, it won’t be quiet. Maybe enough to not be heard from inside the building, certainly not enough to be able to enjoy the roof next to them.
5) You need a very good anchor for the mast of your turbine if you don’t want cracks in your building. That’s expensive, and very heavy, not ideal from an architectural point of view on the last floor of a tall building.
12
The best news i heard all week. Since the climate deniers Trump don’t care about automobile exhausts damaging our climate then go for their big apartment buildings they build.
1
Everybody wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but nobody wants to make the sacrifice. There is no legislation that will provide a fair approach to managing greenhouse gases; it can only provide the flexibility for adjusting to vulnerable populations. I applaud the City of New York for owning this responsibility and drafting legislation to address the issue. The successful fight against climate change will be a road of sacrifice, not an easy road.
6
Double pane, lowE (2 or 3) windows make a HUGE difference—easily as much as 10F in both winter and summer—for building interiors.
Some double pane windows installed 2 decades failed to have low E glass, so really are not energy efficient.
5
this is reminiscent of Amazon II. If costs/regulations exceed profit, the value of the properties will diminish and the owners are going to sell/leave NY. I expect a large economic downturn. This reflects the worst of flaky left wing policy
10
@sh You will need a lot more tax than that to turn profit to zero on apartments worth several thousand dollars a month. This is not the issue here.
3
Yeah because let’s not do anything about climate change if it hurts Big Business.
2
You are so right. Mustn't anger the Trumps and Kushners. Tut tut.
We waste more than half of the energy produced in the US, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories/EPA. We waste roughly 20% of residential, commercial and industrial energy use and 75% of transportation energy.
With a tad of effort, we could cut waste, save money, reduce consumption and slash GHG.
Good start, NYC!
13
I hope Macklowe does not get the zoning variance he is seeking so he can building a bigger building than the other developers before he dies. We do not need any more congestion in midtown. There is no reason for yet another ego tower.
12
Duh??? Smart buildings save money. The owners of these behemoths should know that. Retrofit the buildings to capture waste heat and the like and use it, not waste it. New construction should be designed to take advantage of such technology. When you hear the refrains of "Burdensome regulations" and "too expensive" it means they do not want to even contemplate doing anything, even if it is in their own self interest. Hold their feet to the fire NYC.
31
This is ridiculous. Nothing more than a revenue grab by the city and will contribute the the decline of the City. Politician’s will wake up some day and wonder why no one is left to pay taxes.
22
What a bunch of self serving garbage. I have been watching the skyline of NYC get steadily narrower and higher and richer and uglier for years now. There is nothing about what is being done there that is “green” or even environmentally sound. 600 million birds die a year from those disgusting decadent buildings. This article may ease someone’s crafty conscience, but its hogwash.
20
@Doug
No one will be left to pay taxes because we will have been suffocated from your GOP pollution from coal and fossil fuels.
4
Of course private homes are even worse for the environment. So we must fine all of them too!
12
@Amy LOL! There are over 600,000 1,2,3 family homes in NYC. Good luck with that.
Private home -- Count -- Total bldg sq ft
1-FAMILY -- 314,854 -- 508,659,040.00
2-FAMILY -- 250,122 -- 544,948,412.00
3+FAMILY -- 73,067 -- 215,279,618.00
NYC totals = -- 638,043 -- 1,268,887,070
I live in NY and I switched my electricity provider (ConEd is still the supplier and maintains the delivery system) to a company that generates 100% from renewable sources, mostly wind but also solar. It was easy and seamless. Every New Yorker has this right under the law. I assume that buildings and landlords do too.
The electricity that comes into my home, of course, isn't directly from those sources, but ConEd does have to acquire the equivalent of my energy usage from the company. So, my carbon electric footprint in my home is 0 just by signing a form at a street fair. Can't these buildings do the same? If the proposed legislation doesn't allow for this option, it should.
I should say also that my bills went down a tad. There are several "green companies" out there, some are a little more expensive, some are the same price as ConEd, and mine is slightly cheaper. In any case, it would be one way to reduce carbon without much of an additional cost and give needed money to the companies that are adding renewable energy to the grid.
5
And once this policy is fully implemented, what is the percentage that world-wide CO2 emissions are reduced. My guess? About 0.001%. This is more feel good nonsense that is more about sticking it to wealthy.
And the bottom line - office buildings are heated by natural gas. Once Indian Point is shut down, more of their electricity will be generated by natural gas. There are no alternatives. Building windows are already state of the art.
So how exactly, are emissions going to be significantly reduced?
9
@Erik Everybody's little percentage eventually adds up to the whole. That's how things like this get done.
9
@Erik
The law aims to cut 5.31 million metric tons of carbon from our annual emissions. The worldwide total is around 37 billion metric tons per year, so roughly a 0.014% cut. That's 14 times your estimate, does it change your mind?
I think it is a good idea to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions from these large buildings in NY City. I also think that subsidizing housing modifications, instead of exempting them, to continue to decrease the greenhouse gasses could work too. I remember the 1970's when insulating your home and making it more energy efficient was partly subsidized by the government in the form of tax credits, did a lot for the Midwest by decreasing their energy usage. The same could be done for NY City via their income tax. Allowing the utility company or the apartment owner to put solar on the roofs of every complex, not just white roof coatings, could go a long way in keeping the brownouts to a minimum. Plus it would be good for the environment.
10