After several months of posting data and complaints, I have spent the last month detailing what I would do at the state level if it were up to me. Now that I’m on record, the reader will have some appreciation of my perspective as I attempt to judge the policies of the next administration in Albany. I really won’t know what they have done until the data comes in some years later, since you cannot go by what they say, but I’ll try my best. My point of view, however, isn’t just a collection of initiatives, or even root-and-branch overhauls, such as I have written about thus far. It is a set of policies and priorities the spring directly from fundamental principles. Do expect any of my specific suggestions to be enacted next year? No. But I am hoping that state government will move closer to the operating principles I would like to see, and farther from those that have been in effect in recent decades. As a summary, I’ll plagiarize what I wrote when I was a candidate for (or rather against) state –legislature as to what those principles theirs and mine — are.

Given that all energy sources have environmental impacts and risks, people have to accept that while none is perfect some are better than others. Natural gas, solar power, wind and (waste disposal aside) nuclear are less damaging and less risky than coal, with its massive environmental impact, and oil, with its significant impact and politically uncertain sources of supply. And with hostility to the United States in the world, hostility to the Northeast in the United States, and hostility to New York City (and, by connection, the rest of Long Island) in the Northeast, Downstate would be wise to meet its own energy needs to the extent possible, and to diversify sources of supply otherwise, even at a somewhat higher cost (which would also encourage conservation) and despite some impact and risk. For New York City, relying on Upstate New York for additional electric power is a bit like relying on countries where Osama Bin Laden is popular for oil.

Given that all energy sources have environmental impacts and risks, people have to accept that while none is perfect some are better than others. Natural gas, solar power, wind and (waste disposal aside) nuclear are less damaging and less risky than coal, with its massive environmental impact, and oil, with its significant impact and politically uncertain sources of supply. And with hostility to the United States in the world, hostility to the Northeast in the United States, and hostility to New York City (and, by connection, the rest of Long Island) in the Northeast, Downstate would be wise to meet its own energy needs to the extent possible, and to diversify sources of supply otherwise, even at a somewhat higher cost (which would also encourage conservation) and despite some impact and risk. For New York City, relying on Upstate New York for additional electric power is a bit like relying on countries where Osama Bin Laden is popular for oil.

Given that all energy sources have environmental impacts and risks, people have to accept that while none is perfect some are better than others. Natural gas, solar power, wind and (waste disposal aside) nuclear are less damaging and less risky than coal, with its massive environmental impact, and oil, with its significant impact and politically uncertain sources of supply. And with hostility to the United States in the world, hostility to the Northeast in the United States, and hostility to New York City (and, by connection, the rest of Long Island) in the Northeast, Downstate would be wise to meet its own energy needs to the extent possible, and to diversify sources of supply otherwise, even at a somewhat higher cost (which would also encourage conservation) and despite some impact and risk. For New York City, relying on Upstate New York for additional electric power is a bit like relying on countries where Osama Bin Laden is popular for oil.

In prior posts, I covered the energy situation for transportation. The good news is that New York City is an inherently energy efficient place, thanks to its high transit use and many pedestrian trips. The bad news is there is no political leadership to improve things further, by organizing a large-scale carpooling system for places not readily accessible by transit, for example. This post is about the energy required for other purposes, for heating, cooling, and use in buildings. Here again, the good news is that New York City is inherently efficient, since attached houses, apartment buildings, large office buildings, and other commercial space in multistory mixed-use buildings have less exterior surface area per square foot, and thus require less energy to heat and cool. And, the New York City lifestyle is energy efficient, because New Yorkers have less (because there is nowhere to put it) but do more. Making, moving and disposing of goods takes more energy than services, which rely on the human energy New York has in abundance. The bad news is that Downstate New York faces a local shortage of both electricity and fuel for heating, cooling and cooking — above and beyond the overall energy problem in the Untied States and the world — based on access to supply. And NIMBY’s gone wild, both outside the Downstate area and inside it, are blocking any and all possible solutions to that shortage, stoked by puffery from pandering local pols.

In prior posts, I covered the energy situation for transportation. The good news is that New York City is an inherently energy efficient place, thanks to its high transit use and many pedestrian trips. The bad news is there is no political leadership to improve things further, by organizing a large-scale carpooling system for places not readily accessible by transit, for example. This post is about the energy required for other purposes, for heating, cooling, and use in buildings. Here again, the good news is that New York City is inherently efficient, since attached houses, apartment buildings, large office buildings, and other commercial space in multistory mixed-use buildings have less exterior surface area per square foot, and thus require less energy to heat and cool. And, the New York City lifestyle is energy efficient, because New Yorkers have less (because there is nowhere to put it) but do more. Making, moving and disposing of goods takes more energy than services, which rely on the human energy New York has in abundance. The bad news is that Downstate New York faces a local shortage of both electricity and fuel for heating, cooling and cooking — above and beyond the overall energy problem in the Untied States and the world — based on access to supply. And NIMBY’s gone wild, both outside the Downstate area and inside it, are blocking any and all possible solutions to that shortage, stoked by puffery from pandering local pols.