Richard
Lot of good points here. In addition to household energy usage we also need to
account for transportation GHG emissions.
Just to amplify your comment on construction. In general construction accounts
for about 40% of a building’s GHG emissions over its life cycle yet it is
rarely if ever acknowledged in City or County policy
Paul C
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 27, 2022, at 11:51 PM, Richard P. Cember <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I won't comment on mayoral candidates because I am not familiar in enough
detail with their positions. I do want to comment on the general approach to
city climate policy.
Most of the single-family and small multi-family housing stock that we have
in TP is pre-1960. It has been renovated to varying degrees. Further
renovation and retrofittingwill be very expensive and is also extremely
burdensome for the owners in costs other than money. Renovation and
retrofitting is not simply a matter of writing a check, even if you have the
money.
The true bottom line is not energy efficiency but CO2 emissions reduction. An
inefficient house using wind- ot solar-generated electricity for its AC
results in less carbon dioxide emission than an efficient house of the same
square footage using fossil fuel-generated electricity, even if the first
house uses a lot more electricity. The relevant metric should be emissions,
not efficiency. This allows the owner to achieve the emissions goal in any
way that works best for him or her.
You incentivize the emission reduction with a city carbon tax. You make it
revenue neutral overall, i.e., whatever is collected in toto results in a
corresponding decrease in total property or income taxes that go to the city.
People who emit less will pay less than people who emit more. There a lot of
ways to structure such a tax.
The key question is, how do you know what a property's emissions are? Simple:
from the energy bills. For example, my electricity bills shows that I am
using renewables, and how much. My gas bill shows that I am buying offsets,
and how much. The energy source can be known from the energy bills. You have
an annual " city energy return," similar to a tax return, which is subject to
audit and a penalty for cheating. It can be one page long, maybe two. That is
enough. This program can be started at any time. It won't take many years to
implement. The carbon tax rates get adjusted over time as goals are being
met, or not. Credit for offsets might be phased out over time. (Offsets are a
whole discussion unto themselves, but until we get close to zero, they are
real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.)
It is a little more complicated for wood, but we can solve that. (Honestly,
we shouldn't be burning wood anyway. Wood smoke is a deadly pollutant, but
that is not the subject here.)
The other good thing about this approach is that it is objective. The bills
are the bills. You won't have a lot of litigation and appeals over efficiency
audits. It will be far less contentious. There is also much less labor cost
in the administration of the program than in one that depends on physical
assessments and inspections.
Finally, any construction is itself very environmentally burdensome. Just
look at the dumpsters parked in the driveways of houses that are being
renovated. New construction is even worse. Construction debris and waste
account for something like a quarter of municipal solid waste nationwide.
Wind and solar are not impact-free, but they are arguably lower impact than
construction.
We need climate action, but I find that jurisdictions, including TP, are
always myopically focused on efficiency, which is a proximal goal and not the
real bottom line. The bottom line is emissions. Focus on the energy source.
Richard Cember
412 Boston Ave.
