Climate Change: New York City Buildings to Face Greenhouse Gas Limits

NY Times ^ | April 17, 2019 | William Neuman

[flaglady47]

?This would be a good method of political retribution. Owners of buildings who the mayor does not like could be subject to endless fines.”

Bingo. This is what de Blasio really wants. The fine money to fund his Ponzi scheme corrupt government and to have more money for his wife to spend up. And to strike back at whomever he wants to punish at any given moment in time. Hope Trump can think up some way to get back at de Blasio, for this, some way of over-ruling his money making scheme by s0mehow changing environmental rules to prevent de Blasio from profiting off of this latest moneymaking environmental whacko scheme.

[Right Wing Assault]

"Hey! I've got an idea! Let's voluntarily put the brakes on one of the greatest economic engines in the world!"

[The_Media_never_lie]

"Hey! I've got an idea! Let's voluntarily put the brakes on one of the greatest economic engines in the world!"

---

Yep, growth is bad for the environment. And, I'm getting mine via the GW hoax.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“But think of the savings that the improved weather will bring. It will be a paradise.”

lol. It will bring more snow to the city, which means more taxes for the cleanup.

[Svartalfiar]

Will be a huge boom for my industry (construction).

Contractors, Engineers, Architects, and building equipment/material manufacturers are all excited.

Yup. Just like window companies are excited when kids start throwing bricks through everyone's windows for fun. Forcing that 'business' is not good for the economy...

[varyouga]

“Yup. Just like window companies are excited when kids start throwing bricks through everyone’s windows for fun. Forcing that ‘business’ is not good for the economy...”

It’s not about breaking and replacing though.

The idea is to encourage upgrade to the latest technologies that will save money for the building users long term. It can be 100% documented and engineered how much they will save.

Right now countless short-sighted building owners dont even realize they are throwing money literally out the window because they don’t even wish to spend a few bucks to evaluate their systems. I work to get in touch with several such customers every week but many owners don’t care and never respond.

Proven technologies will pay for themselves in short order, stimulate local economy AND give the city cleaner air.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

I was in the electric power business developing new technologies for 30 years. Energy conservation in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and processes was all the rage the entire time. Regulators loved Amory Lovins’ “Negawatts” concept. Th elbow hanging fruit was eaten decades ago. These are corporate welfare projects that will never end. There is always an infinite demand curve for “free money.”

[Svartalfiar]

It’s not about breaking and replacing though.

It's about the same. Taking a perfectly good, usable building, putting months or years of construction on it, and then hoping you save money eventually 10+ years down the line.

The idea is to encourage upgrade to the latest technologies that will save money for the building users long term. It can be 100% documented and engineered how much they will save.

No, the idea here is to force upgrades on all these companies, that are expensive and take years to decades to maybe pay off. Per the article, the Mayor's office estimates the cost of all these upgrades to be about $4 BILLION. If it truly was that big of a savings to the bottom line, companies would be doing this on their own. Contrary to popular belief, businesses are not in an all-out war against Mother Earth.. Especially at the expense of their bottom line.

Right now countless short-sighted building owners dont even realize they are throwing money literally out the window because they don’t even wish to spend a few bucks to evaluate their systems. I work to get in touch with several such customers every week but many owners don’t care and never respond.

And many aren't. Land owners don't always care, because the rent is the same whether they spend millions to replace the caulk or not. And they aren't paying the water or electric bills. Tenants don't care because they don't own the building - repairs, upkeep, improvements are all the purview of the landlord.

Finally, this entire bit of legislation focuses on a single source of "climate change" - carbon dioxide. Wouldn't this be much cheaper for the city to just require every building to have a potted plant in each corner of each room? And a garden on the roof. Bam. "Climate change" emissions have now been offset, AND we're stimulating the economy for the local nurseries / plant watering staff!