New York City Just Passed Historic Climate Legislation—Its Own Green New Deal

“I hope other cities follow suit.”

Gary Hershorn / Contributor/Getty

This story was originally published by HuffPost and is shared here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. 

The nation’s largest and most economically influential city passed a historic bill Thursday capping climate-changing pollution from big buildings and mandating unprecedented cuts to greenhouse gases. 

The City Council approved the legislation in a 45-to-2 vote Thursday afternoon, all but ensuring its passage by a mayor eager to burnish his climate bona fides ahead of a potential run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. 

“We are on the precipice of climate disaster, and New York City is acting,” Corey Johnson, the council speaker, said in a statement. “I hope other cities follow suit.”

The effort demonstrates one of the clearest examples yet of what a municipal version of the Green New Deal, the national movement for a multi-trillion dollar climate-friendly industrial plan, might look like. The legislation is forecast to spur thousands of blue-collar jobs and make it easier for the city to take advantage of future state and federal funding for clean energy projects and climate change-ready infrastructure.  

The measure, introduced by Councilman Costa Constantinides, a Democrat from Queens, is the centerpiece of a suite of six climate bills packaged together as the Climate Mobilization Act. 

The legislation sets emissions caps for various types of buildings over 25,000 square feet; buildings produce nearly 70% of the city’s emissions. It sets steep fines if landlords miss the targets. Starting in 2024, the bill requires landlords to retrofit buildings with new windows, heating systems and insulation that would cut emissions by 40% in 2030, and double the cuts by 2050.

“This legislation will radically change the energy footprint of the built environment and will pay off in the long run with energy costs expected to rise and new business opportunities that will be generated by this forward thinking and radical policy,” said Timur Dogan, an architect and building scientist at Cornell University.

Its proponents bill the legislation as the largest single mandate to cut climate pollution by any city in the world. The new rules would create demand for more than 3,600 construction jobs per year, by one estimate, and another 4,400 jobs in maintenance, services and operations, fueled by the sheer magnitude of the investment required to meet the emissions goals.

“The market signals sent by this legislation are significant,” Nilda Mesa, a senior research scientist at Columbia University and a former director of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, wrote in Crain’s New York. “The largest real estate market in the U.S. will be seeking products and services to cut energy.”

The Climate Mobilization Act’s other components include a bill that orders the city to complete a study over the next two years on the feasibility of closing all 24 oil- and gas-burning power plants in city limits and replacing them with renewables and batteries. Another that establishes a renewable energy loan program. Two more that require certain buildings to cover roofs with plants, solar panels, small wind turbines or a mix of the three. And a final bill that tweaks the city’s building code to make it easier to build wind turbines. 

The cost to landlords is high. The mayor’s office estimated to The New York Times that the total cost of upgrades needed to meet the new requirements would hit $4 billion. 

There are loopholes for houses of worship and buildings with at least one rent-regulated apartment in hopes of preventing the law from triggering large-scale improvements that would allow landlords to jack up rent and evict working-class tenants. The Real Estate Board of New York, the powerful lobby that represents large developers and property owners, came out against the legislation last year, arguing it provided too many carve-outs for smaller buildings and put an unfair burden on big landlords. 

But the lawmakers forged ahead anyway, vowing to update the legislation if state legislators in Albany win better protections later this year for the city’s dwindling stock of roughly 990,000 rent-regulated apartments.

The policies omitted from the Climate Mobilization Act are significant. The package does not include an existing bill that proposes creating a new city agency to direct and oversee New York’s adaptation efforts, or another mandating all-electric school buses. Those are expected to come up for a vote later this year.

Other proposals have yet to make it into legislation. Those include a plan to close the notorious prison on Rikers Island and convert the 413-acre facility into a solar farm, water treatment plant and a blueprint for a wind energy manufacturing hub on the rapidly gentrifying industrial waterfront of Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood. 

Nor does the legislation set a 100% renewable electricity target for the city that goes beyond the existing rules for city-owned buildings—something New York City is likely to face greater pressure to do since the Chicago City Council voted to adopt a similar measure last week.

The bill is an imitable first step for a city with a gross domestic product large enough to rank in the top 20 economies. But it represents low-hanging fruit. Nearly 70 percent of New Yorkers live in Brooklyn and Queens, boroughs on the western tip of Long Island, a glacial moraine.

While New York City ordering aggressive emissions cuts raises the likelihood that other big cities will adopt similar policies, the emissions reductions alone will do little to halt surging global temperatures and the subsequent extreme weather and sea level rise. Emissions cuts are “just less disruptive” than new zoning laws and potential rules barring waterfront construction, said John Englander, an oceanographer and president of the International Sea Level Rise Institute.

Still, backers of the bill were elated on Thursday.

“It’s not every day the real estate industry loses a major policy fight and not every day one of the world’s biggest cities passes the world’s biggest cut in pollution,” Pete Sikora, a senior adviser to the climate and housing justice group New York Communities for Change, say after the vote. “Both happened at the same time.” 

 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate