There are 22,000 buildings in New York City. Some, including the City, claim that these buildings account for 80 percent of total carbon emissions (alternative-transportation advocates would probably argue that autos are responsible for more than the unclaimed 20%, but that’s splitting hairs). The city’s mayor wants to reduce the city’s total emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Sounds like too little too late, but it’s something.
His recent proposal was to conduct energy-audits of all buildings more than 50,000 square feet, determine how to make them more energy efficient, and then for the owners to pay for some of those changes. He was forced to drop the part of the proposal that calls for building owners to make the recommended changes. You could imagine the roar of opposition from building owners, who see no financial benefit in any of this.
“Where’s the economics?” they cried. “We don’t have the money for this.”
The proposal didn’t even require the owners to make all the changes, but only the changes that would save them enough money on their energy bill after five years to make back what they spent. Apparently that’s asking too much.
So now the mayor wants to push for the energy audits, and not require building owners to do what the report recommends. That much seems to be acceptable to building owner organizations. And that’s a heck of a start. For one thing, the audits will recommend what owners and tenants can do to reduce their energy use – new windows, new boilers, insulation, etc. (Of course there are plenty of building owners opposed to paying for the audit. After all, why do they care about their carbon footprint? Let someone else deal with it.)
While it might not change the behavior of building owners, it might affect the behavior of the tenants. Good information like this is bound to raise consciousness, lead to new behavior and possibly real energy reduction.
(Sadly, the media reporting on this topic, like all the mainstream reporting on any energy-related issue, including the NY Times in this case, never touches the real impact – what it means to our future planet. Instead, the focus is on what it means to the city’s economics, the jobs it might create, the political fallout, etc.)
Enough of big picture policy-talk looking down from the Hubble. Let’s get closer to the planet and look at one person: my friend. My friend took the bus from Boston’s Chinatown to New York’s Chinatown for $15 on Thanksgiving weekend. That means he saved on gas money, no wear and tear on the car, no tolls, he got to read, nap, listen to music, meet someone new – and yes, save the world a little pollution. The outcome: he’ll never do it again. Too much hassle, not worth the effort, he thinks he caught a cold from the people, etc. I didn’t get into a debate with him. In fact, I can understand: We’re American. We need convenience, we come first and everything else second. So I didn’t argue.
But after reading about the New York City building energy issue, and then talking to my friend, I thought: these are people somewhat tuned in. These are people who understand the issue, but still don’t feel engaged. What about the billions who are unaware of the issue, and have not even reached the starting point to form a judgment?
Which leaves those of us who care to take this on by ourselves, to continue to raise the alarms louder, until everyone can hear it – even the deaf ones — and then we raise it louder so that they can’t hear anything else, until every sound they hear is the sound of the planet suffocating.
Too often those are the only sounds I hear.
