SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
New York to Approve One of the World's Most Ambitious Climate Plans
New York lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan that calls for the state to all but eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, envisioning an era when gas-guzzling cars, oil-burning heaters and furnaces would be phased out, and all of the state's electricity would come from carbon-free sources.
Under an agreement reached this week between legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would require the state to slash its planet-warming pollution 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and offset the remaining 15 percent, possibly through measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
If the state manages to hit those targets, it would effectively create a so-called net-zero economy, the ultimate goal of environmentalists and others seeking to slow the pace of global warming.
[...] The challenges of reaching such goals are daunting. New York has so far only managed to reduce its emissions 8 percent between 1990 and 2015, according to the most recent state inventory.
"New Yorkers are going to pay a lot for their electricity because of this bill," said Gavin Donohue, the president of the Independent Power Producers of New York, whose members produce about three-quarters of the state's electricity. "There's no doubt about that."
There are also numerous questions about whether the energy, real estate and business communities can adapt by 2050, and how much it would cost to do so. Business groups in the state had derided the bill as impractical and potentially disastrous for companies forced to move to green energy sources.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday June 23 2019, @03:43PM (9 children)
I should say there's plenty of doubt that this change will be costly. Entrenched interests have always spouted such fearmongering crap. They've often been proven wrong. Big Media is always trying to stop the latest tech, claiming it will hurt their business, that the supply and demand curves of Economics 101 somehow don't apply to them, and been wrong time and time again. The automotive industry constantly whines that safety and pollution reduction requirements would put them out of business. And so on.
In this case, something has to change, that's clear. We could have refused to use seat belts and airbags and lived with a lot more injuries and deaths on our highways, but we can't lean on fossil fuel forever. Whether because of Global Warming or Peak Oil, or both, we'll have to cut way back, or figure ways to produce lots of biofuel. Got to do something. And we have things we can do, things that will actually cost us less. What does Mr. Donahue of the power production industry suggest we do, if we don't switch over to renewable energy? Stick our heads in the sand and deny that there's a problem?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday June 23 2019, @04:43PM (3 children)
I *WILL* be costly. Replacing infrastructure is always costly. But the increased costs may well not be ongoing. (Note: I'm talking costs, not prices. When prices go up, they rarely come back down.)
OTOH, if one of the several companies promising fusion power within 5 years is successful, even the prices could drop. I think New York is far enough North that solar will probably prove impractical, even with a huge storage system. I don't know their status WRT wind power, but I wouldn't estimate (working in ignorance) that they would find that practical either. So their choices seem to be either nuclear or importing their power. In that case they need to invest in plants that can use the spent fuel rods from other reactors as fuel. (I believe that there are a couple of choices. I think molten salt is the one most highly developed.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2019, @06:15PM
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Workers make most of their money from wages so capitalists pay them in wages. Repeal the Corn Laws.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 23 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)
Germany is also far enough north and gets 6.2 - 6.9 [wikipedia.org] of its entire power (about 20% of its renewable power,) from PV-es without storage.
While not a major percentage, I wouldn't call it trivial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday June 24 2019, @04:47AM
The problem is efficiency. Closer to the equator (other things being equal) solar will be more efficient. That's why in California (a long thin state with a North-South axis) PG&E has been building solar plants in the Mohave desert, not near Sacramento. The Mohave is a LOT further South. (Well, the land is cheaper too, but I expect maintenance is higher.)
So, yes, you can use solar power far into the North. But half the year it's going to be quite inefficient. And even at its best it's going to suffer less insolation.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @01:00AM (4 children)
So is Big Media providing electricity and heating to New York? Otherwise it seems quite irrelevant to the discussion.
It's quite clear that you're gonna die sooner or later. So we should kill you right now, right? Got to do something.
Let us keep in mind that if doing the something is more harmful than not doing the something, then we can always not do the something, and be better off for it.
Why not do the switch when those become a big problem? What is the rush exactly?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday June 24 2019, @01:17AM (3 children)
The rush will come when YOUR house goes under water, I guess.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @01:46AM (2 children)
My house is above 2000 meters. There's not enough water in the world no matter what the climate does. What's the point of making these threats?
And even if I were sitting on the seashore with my house wiped out by climate change in oh, 25-50 years, that's still a long time for a house in that location. The drama of me moving then moving to higher ground wouldn't be significant either - either to myself or to future generations. People already move all the time without causing a huge fuss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24 2019, @07:43AM (1 child)
Yea, it will get crushed by a glacier though.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 24 2019, @02:13PM
Then the movie goes to the heroine staring intently out the helicopter window. Clearly the frowning is meant to convey that she's thinking deeply about something.