Another day in the life of the climate fight.
Re. the New York landlords, I’ve long been of the opinion that landlords should be responsible for utility costs (electric, gas, water) for exactly this reason. They are the ones making repair/replace (and with what?) decisions for the property, but the cost of these choices is often externalized to the tenants.
When the tenant pays for electric, when a unit’s fridge dies, the fridge from the 1970s the landlord has in the back of a storage unit looks like a good solution. If the landlord is paying the electric bill, a new energy-star model (at ~$20/month to run, vs ~$80 to 100/month for the old fridge) becomes a better option quickly.
Likewise, when the tenant pays the gas bill, the smallest repair that will get the wildly-inefficient 1940’s boiler running again is the economical choice. If the landlord pays that bill, the whole system is getting ripped out ASAP and replaced with the highest efficiency system they can possibly buy. (This is not hypothetical, it is my personal experience with two upper-Midwest landlords--guess which one was heat-included with the rent?)
I also think this is a reasonable sell for a landlord because they can use it as (reasonable) justification to increase rent, and it stabilizes monthly costs for tenants. If they try something like a one-time rent hike with guidelines based on square footage of each rental unit, and the average, median-efficiency utility bill for that amount of space, then it becomes a profitable endeavor to get the absolute most efficient systems that they possibly can. And let’s be real, that is the whole point of being a landlord.
My letter to Gavin, sent through https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/
Soon SB 253, the Climate Corporate Accountability Act, will be on your desk for a signature. I strongly urge you to sign it.
This legislation could have an outsized impact on our future. Continued investment in carbon polluting needs to stop as soon as possible. By requiring companies to disclose all the ways they are contributing to carbon emissions, pressure will build to truly decarbonize quickly, which is exactly what we need. Signing this single measure could change our future more than most bills. Please don't bow to the dark forces that want to keep their continued emissions in the dark. Please sign it right away.
So grateful for your work 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Thanks, Bill. Good to get global perspective!
ConEd, get with the program!
I can't urge you all, strongly enough, to watch Oliver Stone's documentary called "Nuclear Now" on Prime.
One little piece of legislation here and there will NOT achieve enough, soon enough, to make the difference that is necessary to save our species and all the others form extinction.
This film is worth your time.
Thanks for your time
I am also pleased with the outcome of the Ecuador plebiscite. But the next day, the government said they would continue to extract oil. That the ruling opinion should be the population in the region...not the full population. The government spokesperson said that 58% of the voters in the region affected by the question had voted No. To not stop petroleum extraction. Next step is the presidential runoff. If Gonzalez defeats Noboa on October 15, her left-wing government might follow through on the plebiscite. But we (rich countries) must step in to support the people who will become unemployed by the end of oil extraction.
Thank you so much for your astute observations. Immediately went to my library’s web page to put Naomi Klein’s book, Doppleganger, on Hold. My library has ordered the book, so it isn’t available just yet. I am #14 in line for it once it comes in.
What goes on here is a gift to us all. Why does the following fit in this thread? Money in politics, . . need I say more? My own life is centered elsewhere, more diffuse., church. I do not contribute here. Bill's blogs are the only ones I have not unsubscribed, the others done months ago. I am for some time now pre-occupied with sendnomoney.org and that is my my agenda here. Can a democratic citizenry VOTE for WHAT we want, rather than who? This 'who' business has been unsatisfactory or worse for most of my voting life (age 76, too old to serve, tho young enough to still know that I'm too old) I'm 'round the bend. Money out of politics; want that, don't care about the who choice much at all.
I've tried to contact Bill via enough ways to worry the family might think me a stalker of some sort. Looking for someone to run in Vermont's primary. Get delegates to the convention play whatever hand there. For president, though not how one might think: i.e. WHAT not who. I said it for days before it made sense to me . Maybe there is a discussion within this e-crowd, someone else to be found. Everywhere so far is all tentatives. I'l do New Hampshire whatever the case; Bill would serve Vermont better than me in New Hampshire. Bill has separate email arrived or coming, though not so sure how that works. [Tech help for me is just now on the way . . . whew] Peace, JOhn Vail