As i've noted before, I have a lot of experience working with and against the New York City Council on environmental issues. Highlights from the past include working with them to pass the groundbreaking Lead Paint Law and a bill to require a percentage of new taxi medallions to be set aside for clean-air vehicles. The lowlights? There are so many to consider. Perhaps it was the city's failure to pass a sustainable wood bill/policy, preventing the use of rainforest timber on city-owned properties (New York City's government is one of the largest purchasers of rainforest woods in the world ). Or maybe it was the lost fight against the new Yankee Stadium (this from a dedicated Yankees fan).
Anyway, it was this past experience that made a couple of articles about environmental bills before the City Council catch my eye yesterday. The first was introduced by the City Council's Environmental Committee Chair, Jim Gennaro, an environmental expert, politician, and a good guy (a rare combination). According to the New York Sun Council Member Gennaro has proposed a bill to require the city to reduce its emissions by 25% by 2015 and 30% by 2020. The bill would also require the city to inventory private sources of pollution but would effect only pollution from city-owned sources. This is essentially a local solution to the global climate change problem.
While this bill sounds great, on the surface, there are a couple of problems that I would like to point out. First, it must be said that the bill succeeds in bringing the city's pollution problem to light during a time when climate change is taking center stage, thanks to Al Gore's efforts. The City Council deserves credit for that and I hope it leads to a more serious effort to reduce pollution from both public and privates sources in the city. But, as Council Member Gennaro knows, a bill that effects only public sources of pollution in just one city in the United States has little chance of making a dent in the larger global warming problem. Yes, it provides environmental leadership, but we need that sort of leadership in Washington, not New York City.
The other bill is only partially environmentally related. During a Health Committee hearing on the city's obesity problem on Wednesday, the committee chair, Joel Rivera, proposed that the city pass new zoning regulations to keep fast food restaurants from locating near schools and in neighborhoods with serious obesity problems. A similar type of law was passed in the 1990's to zone adult entertainment businesses away from schools and churches. That groundbreaking law helped to close (or least hide) the porn industry in Times Square and is credited with with the area's renaissance.
As we all know, fast food establishments are significant polluters, from their location in suburban-style, drive-only locations, to the millions of tons of paper and plastic waste they generate, to the huge amount of greenhouse gasses they emit from thier cows (methane) and truck distribution systems. I am no fan of McDonalds and I haven't had a bite from there in at least five years, but this proposal makes no sense. First, let's not forget what really happened to the porn industry in New York. Yes, some businesses in Times Square closed. Others, however, found loopholes in the law and figured out how to hide their true purpose. Others located in neighborhoods where the zoning rules allow them, causing a bunching effect in largely poor neighborhoods.
Also, while it is true that the city has an obesity problem that is quickly becoming a problem for our children (up to 50% of children and adults are now over weight), zoning fast food restaurants away from fat people will not help them to lose weight. Only good health education, exercise and self-control can do that. Instead of passing this sort of zoning restriction, the city should consider more funding for health education, gym classes and parks. That is the proper role for the city during this growing obesity crisis.
