<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Gotham Book";}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.pa0, li.pa0, div.pa0
{mso-style-name:pa0;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.A3
{mso-style-name:A3;
mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Gotham Book";
color:#211D1E;}
span.a7
{mso-style-name:a7;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:normal'><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>In order to achieve informed policymaking in our society of limited resources and a market-based economic system, it is imperative we define the problem correctly the first time by asking the right questions now. Continuing to define problems that are not grounded in the reality of a socio-economic context, will not only lead to false paths, but waste the little time to solve the problems at hand.</span><o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The first sentence identified the problem (limited resources and the system that is limiting them). If we continue to define the problem within the reality of the problem though are we not simply perpetuating the problem? It is like using blinders on a horse. We are using a system that depends on the exchange value of limited resources to define how not to use those resources? There is a problem here. Similar to the issue of renewable recently discussed. That paper identified the most significant problem for renewable in europes being one of valuation of a resource that has no value within the ‘ market based economic system’. It is a snag as you can’t have a product in those terms without a valuation based on its scarcity. The system jumps in and in NA has identified storage as a potential for emerging markets – which is potentially a ‘false path’ as the grid supplies the storage needed – it just can’t put a value to what it is putting out. Within your context that might be perceived at the right path.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>If infrastructure was truly based in our market system we would have no roads, bridges or much of any infrastructure. The realm of governance (policymaking) is distinct from the realms of commerce and always has been . The paths don’t cross though they have parallel lines. Do military spending decisions fit market based economic systems without shoe-horns. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I think I am most concerned here with your comments is that though you go to great lengths to provide a persuasive argument it is basically a rhetorical means to and end based on a simple premise. You are making what you think are shared assumptions about our culture and how it needs to proceed and making prescriptions for failure. What if the dialogue needs to open up a little?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I referred to the report as a ‘strategic report’. You seem to dismiss it as a position paper but the reality in communities is that they need starting points for dialogue and professionals that are open enough to facilitate that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Michael Iversen<br><b>Sent:</b> March-21-13 9:05 AM<br><b>To:</b> David Bergman<br><b>Cc:</b> Green Building<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Greenbuilding] NYC 90% emissions cut with windows<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>David ... this is not a research paper published by a peer-reviewed journal, nor was it written as such. It is a self-described “study” by an advocacy non-profit organization. I view it more as a position paper from a demonstration study. </span> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Rather than a hypothesis / research question, the study is based on advocating a policy goal for reducing New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2050. As I have previously noted, the study’s stated target of a CO2 atmospheric</span><span class=a7><span style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#211D1E'> </span></span><span class=A3><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>concentration less than 450ppm is in conflict with the goal of its cited reference to James Hansen’s paper of 350ppm, both stated in the opening paragraphs of the study. As any policy is defined by the CO2 concentration target, I am concerned that the report claims a scientific basis while at the same time selecting a contradictory and more permissive CO2 target. <br><br></span></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Its conclusions are based on modeling that demonstrates that by 2050 New York City could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more than 90 percent from 2010 levels through a combination of existing and near-term efficiency technologies and shifting all remaining building loads to carbon-free electricity. In other words, it works backwards from it stated goal to find the conditions favorable to the findings needed to demonstrate the goal may be achieved. This is not research, nor it is problem-solving.<br> <br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>To try to make the distinction between assumption and conditions as if this was a scientific research paper is missing the entire point, as the study itself does not bother with this these distinctions. What is clear, is that the study is based on <i>conditions</i> which include underlying <i>assumptions</i>, which result in certain conclusions which I brought to question. Any given condition needs to be valid and feasible onto itself. It was the underlying assumptions of the given conditions which I brought to question. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>For example, the <i>given condition</i> that energy consumption in the building sector may be reduced by 50-60% by 2050 is based on the <i>scaling-up assumption</i> that all existing buildings have the ability and capacity to achieve deep building retrofits including the listed energy efficiency technologies. Obviously, any assumption of implementation achievability should be substantiated, and provided in terms of scenarios of likliehood. Simply assuming 100% implementation achievability of a deep retrofit scaling-up of the entire building sector without providing substantiation is not acceptable, and will only result in invalid conclusions. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The same applies to the underlying scaling-up assumptions of 100% achievability for the stated conditions of rooftop photovoltaics on all buildings, and that all remaining building loads (39-50 TWh) to be carbon-free electricity. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>You are correct in that there are plenty of caveats throughout the paper regarding the scope and limitations of the study. For the most part, the front end inventory and analysis of the NYC building sector appears valid and of great value. My concern is that despite the caveats and limited nature of the study, the paper presented findings and conclusions that went far beyond the substantiation of its analysis. And therefore, it mispresented itself by providing an invalid message on a very important subject, knowing that this message will be cherry-picked by the media that only reads the paper’s abstract and conclusions. <br><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>In order to achieve informed policymaking in our society of limited resources and a market-based economic system, it is imperative we define the problem correctly the first time by asking the right questions now. Continuing to define problems that are not grounded in the reality of a socio-economic context, will not only lead to false paths, but waste the little time to solve the problems at hand.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Michael Iversen</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><br>On 3/20/2013 9:39 PM, David Bergman wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>In response to Michael Iversen's post:<br><br>The report clearly does NOT make those assumptions. They state that they are the <u>conditions</u> upon which the reduction <u>could</u> occur and then establishes them as goals. This is supported by your own underscoring of the word "if" in your statements.<br><br>"...in determining the feasibility of this goal, we have focused on what is <br>physically possible with presently available and reasonably <br>foreseeable technology. We did not restrict our analysis by <br>current political constraints, and gave only moderate attention <br>to economic constraints."<br><br>"And, of course, many issues will arise when the political and <br>economic aspects of such a project are investigated in greater <br>depth, issues that we have purposely avoided, but that must <br>be addressed in the near future."<br><br>Thus they clearly acknowledge the issues, serving up the report's detailed and substantiated conclusions as a method of (sorely needed) advocacy. See also the rest of the "Next Steps" section on page 5 of the report.<br><br>I also disagree that the outlays "</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>need to be placed in the context of local, state, and federal economic deficits." First, most of the costs would not be government expenditures since most of the retrofits would take place in non-governmental buildings. If anything, the expenditures would help reduce deficits and stabilize the economy by encouraging private spending and creating new jobs and taxable income. Second, their figures state the undertaking is cost neutral (an estimate, by the way, that I believe does not include savings from reduced externalities, meaning their estimated savings are extremely conservative). <br><br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>As to the "unrealistic" aspect of the report's conclusions, the alternative to the unrealistic here is, at best, a highly uncertain and very costly future, and, at worst, a massive die off of the human species. That choice makes the seemingly unrealistic a whole lot more appealing.<br><br>I fail to understand why members of this group would find disagreement with solid research pointing the way toward potentially feasible -- perhaps even realistic when viewed in the above context -- courses of action.<br><br>David Bergman RA LEED AP<br></span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>DAVID BERGMAN</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'> ARCHITECT | <b>FIRE & WATER</b> LIGHTING<br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>architecture . interiors . </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:teal'>ecodesign</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'> . lighting . furniture<br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'><a href="mailto:bergman@cyberg.com">bergman@cyberg.com</a> <a href="http://www.cyberg.com/">www.cyberg.com</a> </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>212 475 3106 twitter: @EcoOptimism<br><br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:gray'>author - <a href="http://ecooptimism.com/?page_id=58">Sustainable Design: A Critical Guide</a><br>blog - <a href="http://www.ecooptimism.com/">EcoOptimism</a><br>adjunct faculty - Parsons The New School for Design</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <br><br>At 12:53 PM 3/20/2013, Michael Iversen wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>I reviewed the ’90 by 50’ report, and its conclusions are based on invalid assumptions, extrapolations and projections placed outside the context of reality in terms of economic and social behavior. Basically, the report concludes that IF ALL buildings in NYC were retrofitted or designed with rigorous energy measures, and IF ALL buildings were equipped with rooftop photovoltaic systems, and IF ALL source energy was carbon-free electricity, then a 90 percent reduction in building sector-related GHG emissions is possible by 2050.<br><br><b>Report Assumption 1</b>: All building stock is assumed to be retrofitted / designed with existing and near-term efficiency technologies, specifically; air sealing, heat recovery ventilation, and additional insulation, to a point where all heating, cooling, and hot water can be provided by electric heat pumps. Capital outlays are estimated at a discounted net present value $94 billion.<br><br>- <i>Comment</i>: While energy retrofitting of existing building stock is a valid strategy to reduce GHG, the projection of findings based on perfect model simulations for each building type to the entire building stock is extremely unrealistic, in terms of financial costs and building ownership / management behavior. The $94 billion costs need to be placed in the context of local, state, and federal economic deficits. The report needs to project the extent of retrofitting based on historic data, not unrealistic goals.<br><br><b>Report Assumption 2</b>: All remaining building loads to be carbon-free electricity. After reducing total building energy use by 50 to 60 percent, all remaining building energy in 2050 (50.6 TWh) is to be supplied by carbon-free electricity, in order to meet the 90 percent reduction target.<br><br>Photovoltaic arrays may be added to every single building in NYC (covering up to 60 percent of the available rooftop area), so as to provide 10.7 TWh.<br><br>The report enumerates potential sources of adequate carbon-free electricity, but states that a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Besides the previously mentioned electricity from photovoltaics (10.7 TWh), the remaining 39.9 TWh are to be provided a) 2,600 4.0MW wind turbines, occupying 35 to 40 square miles, b) an additional 86 million square meters of photovoltaic panels with a footprint of 66 square miles, c) 3 or 4 new 1000 MW nuclear power plants, d) increased hydropower from Quebec, and e) electricity generation from biogas derived from waste and sewage treatment.<br><br>- <i>Comment:</i> To assume 100% of buildings will be retrofitted with pv arrays covering 60% of roof area is an unsubstantiated overestimate, and does not factor building structural capacity, financial capacity, and social behavior of private building ownership / management.<br><br>- <i>Comment:</i> To simply assume that 39.9 – 50.6 (TWh) of source energy is to carbon free is equivalent to saying it will be provided by magic beans. Any proposed strategy would be valid of all remaining source energy would be carbon free.<br><br><b>Summary</b>: if anything, this report points to how difficult it is to achieve a 90 percent reduction of GHG emissions related to the building sector by 2050. While some of the data findings were of value and interest, any interpretation of findings, unless grounded in the relatity of economic and social behavior, will provide only false conclusions.<br><br>I welcome other viewpoints on this study.<br><br>Michael Iversen<br>Architect, LEED AP, PhD Candidate<br>Department of Urban Planning and Policy <br>University of Illinois at Chicago<br></span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><pre>______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Greenbuilding mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org"><o:p></o:p></a></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org"><o:p></o:p></a></pre><pre><span class=MsoHyperlink><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><p><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>