Cutting Greenhouse Gases in New York

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/science/earth/05bloomberg.html?ref=science

Mayor Bloomberg has dropped a measure that would have cut New York's greenhouse gases--- a measure that when first proposed was to be a key component of "the world's most comprehensive package" to reduce greenhouse emissions from buildings. There was simply too much resistance from the public and counsils in charge of buildings in the city. This measure would have required large buildings to measure and provide information to tenants about individual energy use. The plan was deemed too costly. The package would have created 19,000 jobs for electricians, insulators and others. The bottom line is operating costs for each building would have had to be increased, and building owners would not have been receptive to that. Although economically it makes sense that this bill was turned down, this bill, had it been passed, would have been a great way for New York City to combat the problem of greenhouse gases. These buildings play a very significant role in emissions: 80 percent of all New York City's emissions come from the city's buildings. Bloomberg's ultimate goal was to reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2030. In a world where global warming is posing an ever increasing threat to society as we know it, the reduction of greenhouse gases is very crucial if we want to save our environment. While we need greenhouse gases to some extent to survive, but they should be provided by Earth's ecosystem. Once oil and fossil fuels were factored into the equation, that's when the problem began. The atmosphere continues to warm up, and eventually, life will become uncomfortable for human beings and other creatures on Earth. Ultimately, it is the job of the scientists to discover ways to curtail the problems greenhouse gases cause to the atmosphere. Proposed methods include using massive amounts of chemical scrubbers to clean our atmosphere and dumping limestone into the ocean, which would promote natural carbon dioxide removal processes. While these approaches are certainly better than not taking any action, the root of the problem has still not been addressed: they only approach the symptoms. The greenhouse gas problem will only be postponed if these implementations are put into effect. The best effort that can be made at this point to reduce emissions is to cut back on our own, personal contributions--- worry more about the smaller picture than the big one. In doing so, we will contribute enough individually for a difference to be made globally. We should also develop alternate energy sources and place stricter controls on current emissions in order to safeguard our Earth from any further damage and harm.