Author Archives
Bloomberg’s Assault on Wild Birds
According to news reports, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg wants to build a wind farm to meet 10 percent of New York City’s energy needs. In addition to the fact that the assumption that he could meet that goal may be more foolish than Don Quixote’s battle, the impact of Bloomberg’s quest could prove devastating for migratory birds. Windmills can basically make minced meat out of birds that migrate along the same coastal, windy routes that are suitable for wind farms.
Energy expert Robert Bradley Jr. notes that the country’s largest wind farm in Contra Costa California, called Altamont Pass, kills hundreds of birds every year. He notes: “On a percentage basis, the mortality rate per year at Altamont Pass under the estimate is eight times greater than the bald eagle kill from the Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in 1989, and it recurs every year.” The Center for Biological Diversity explains that the wind farm is particularly problematic because is located in a migratory route. They estimate that the wind turbines kill about 880 to 1,300 birds of prey each year, which includes 116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 380 burrowing owls, we well as hundreds kestrels, falcons, vultures, and owls. While wind farms in other locations might not pose as large-scale problems, explanation of this energy source would surely have drawbacks for avian wildlife. Bradley, for example reports similar problems with avian mortality in Europe.
Bottled Water–Not the Same as Tap
We keep hearing in the news these days that bottled water and tap water are basically the same thing or that that bottled water may not be as good because it is regulated less. In today’s Wall Street Journal, one reporter says “experts say tap water is held to more stringent standards by the EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency],” than is bottled water, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If those individuals who keep publishing such claims bothered to check the facts, they’d learn that the unidentified “experts” they cite are simply wrong.
Federal law demands that bottled water regulations be “at least as stringent” as tap water regulations. In fact, FDA bottled water regulations are nearly identical to EPA tap water regulations. Regulatory differences arise when the tap water regulations—which must address potential contamination from the pipes unlike bottled water—do not make sense for bottled water.
Regulatory standards aside, tap water and bottled water are not the same. If anything, tap water poses greater risks than bottled water (although the vast majority of tap water remains quite safe) because it is transported via pipes in which it can become contaminated. A piece in today’s Washington Times by Dr. Stephen Edberg—director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and professor of Laboratory Medicine, Internal Medicine and Chemical Engineering at Yale University—highlights the challenges and risks associated with distribution of tap water compared to sanitary packaging used for bottled water. It’s worth quoting in length:
The greatest disparity between tap water and bottled water is the distribution system. Tap is delivered through pipes where the most variability in the safety of tap water occurs. On average, a city loses between 18 percent and 44 percent of its water from leaking pipes. These pipes are often in the same trenches as our sewer pipes. It has been shown that even under normal operating conditions, pressure changes in the distribution system can cause environmental intrusion from the outside of the pipe to the inside, allowing sewage contamination to enter drinking water systems. This open distribution system is more vulnerable to contamination.
Bottled water, on the other hand, uses a more controlled process that can avoid external contamination from the source through the bottling process. Moreover, the bottle hygienically seals in the quality.
The Importance of Bottled Water
Bottled water is supposedly so “wasteful” that the U.S. Conference of Mayors had to issue a resolution calling on governments to stop buying it. But what do they say when government tap water fails to meet safety standards? Drink bottled water! That is one of the recommendations offered by public officials in Pembroke, Massachusetts, which discovered E. coli bacteria in its water supply. Governments often buy, or seek donations of, large amounts of bottled water to use in such emergencies. And they seek bottled water not only during major weather events. Tap water systems periodically have water quality problems for a variety of reasons that warrant “boil water alerts” and/or distribution of bottled water.
Public officials should remember before they tax, ban, or otherwise discredit the bottled water industry that, when push comes to shove, bottled water meets the needs of those people who choose to buy it—including government itself. And if officials are going to ask bottled water companies to provide their water for free in times of emergency (as they often voluntarily do), they would be wise not to put them out of business beforehand!
“Green” Agenda?
The Washington Examiner has an editorial today titled “Environmentalism is not about the Environment.” Indeed. The title says it all. When most Americans say they are environmentalists, they express the simple desire for clean air, clean water, and an appreciation for wildlife. But today’s environmental movement is much more focused on expanding government controls and bureaucracy than anything else. Much of what they advocate unnecessary and needlessly expensive. The impact on freedom and the economy is far greater than most people realize. If you doubt that, check out CEI’s research here and here on the topic. We have also shown that markets are better than the government in providing environmental amenities. If environmentalists are serious about protecting the environment, they’d begin to advocate free-market environmentalism rather than more government and bureaucracy.
“Right-to-Know or Right-to-Confuse?
Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation recently released an important paper on a Senate bill to create what some might call a product blacklist of allegedly unsafe products. Currently, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports on product recalls based on some level of validated data. This new legislation would mandate that the CPSC develop and maintain what promises to become a sloppy, inaccurate, and confusing list of complaints about products. Essentially, anyone could add to the list— including product competitors—products they don’t like for whatever reason in order to dub them unsafe. Environmental activists, who love to hype phantom risks, would have a heyday with such a program. Because the database would be government-sponsored, people would assume it contained weightier, scientifically validated information.
This case highlights the problem with so-called right-to-know laws that claim to educate people about risks. These laws don’t really perform that function too well. They more often are misleading and confusing. This proposed CPSC database, as Grossman so aptly demonstrates, would be among the most unreliable sources of information.
I disagree with Grossman on only one point. He suggests that a House bill to “study” the possibility of a database offers an acceptable compromise on the issue. However, once a government agency is given money to study the possibility of increasing its own budget, we can be pretty sure what it will conclude. In any case, this unscientific and sloppy database is clearly a waste of money, so why spend taxpayer dollars to study it?
We Told You So
If you ever thought that governmental economic planning or market manipulation is a useful tool, take a look at this article in today’s Washington Post on the impact of ethanol subsidies and mandates. It underscores the fact that governments are much better at making mistakes and serving political interests than they are at solving problems! CEI’s energy analysts warned (see here, here and here, for example) about such folly, but politicians apparently are not prone to reason.
Big Surprise: Political Agencies are Political
It’s a funny thing about the greens. They support government controls over everything in society in the name of Mother Earth, but after turning over our freedom to regulators they get angry that political decisions at political agencies are affected by politics! As if that was a big surprise! The Union for Concerned Scientists is upset because regulators at EPA have to listen to the concerns raised by lobbyists from industry and elsewhere.
Well, we at CEI are concerned about such politically driven decisions too! We don’t want agencies’ “science” to serve industry or the greens! That’s because, unlike the greens, we don’t trust government to command and control away our freedoms—be they economic or personal. We prefer market-driven decisions, which are based on what consumers want, what turns enough profit (and generates wealth for everyone), and what works! And if a product does a concrete and measurable harm, the institutions of liberty—such as a legal system upholding individual rights and private property—are there to demand a remedy. Everyone is held responsible for their actions in the marketplace.
Government decisions are based on what group is the most organized and can pull the most stings and levers in Washington. Parties are held selectively responsible for their actions, and often bad actions are supported via regulation or subsidies. The greens don’t mind this system as long as their friends are in charge of the levers, they can pull the strings, and they can gain the subsidies. But the minute any other voice is heard, they suddenly become the protectors of sound of science!
Frankly, science is better served when the greens are ignored, but that rarely happens. Political pressures to serve a “green cause” are very strong and that inclination is harming science more than industry voices. Indeed. During the arsenic in drinking water debate, scientists who served on the key National Academy of Science study on the topic reported such pressures to an EPA interagency liaison, complaining that they did not support the spin placed on the report and that they felt political pressure to support the green’s cause. Why didn’t the Union for Concerned Sciences complain then? Well, that wouldn’t serve their political agenda.
No Need to Fear Plastics
Reading the headline of a Washington Post story today, you would think that government researchers have made a new and major finding on a chemical that should make us all quiver in our boots. The headline reads: “U.S. Cites Fears on Chemical In Plastics.” At issue is a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed brief released by the National Toxicology Program that reviewed existing research on the chemical Bisphenol A, which is found in some plastics products. Instead of discovering a problem, the draft brief underscores the fact that researchers have been unable to find any impact on humans from the chemical. The key conclusions in the brief are as follows:
“The NTP has negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring,” and
“The NTP concurs with the conclusion of the CERHR Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is negligible concern that exposure to bisphenol A causes reproductive effects in non-occupationally exposed adults and minimal concern for workers exposed to higher levels in occupational settings.”
The only real finding of health effects involves studies showing health impacts on rodents that were exposed to “high” levels of the substance. Because of such findings, the NTP says it has some “concern” that there “might” be some impact on humans. Yet administering massive doses of a substance to lab rats (which are bred to be highly susceptible to cancer) is not the same as human exposure to trace levels of the substance.
After all, if government officials are so concerned about Bisphenol A for such reasons, they might want to show equal concern for carrots, broccoli, coffee, and myriad other foods that contain substances that give rodents cancer when they are exposed to high doses. But then that’s not reasonable. Nor are the worries raised by the Washington Post and the NTP researchers.
Green Limousine Liberals
Today, the new green badge of honor appears to be going to people who build and live in “green homes” that meet standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. Under these standards (known as LEED Standards), you apparently can’t be green if you have a large home … unless you have a very large bank account! In order to be called green under the so called LEED green building standards, larger homes must meet higher standards than smaller ones—and the costs can be substantial. Ironically, many of the standards are questionable.
Yet some green liberals are willing to pay for this indulgence. Consider the new community in Connecticut called Windermere on the Lake. According to a story in the New York Times, it is applying for the green seal of approval despite its lavish size. Should the homes of this new luxury community pass muster and gain green certification, they will certainly take the meaning of limousine liberal to a whole new level! It just goes to show: free-market advocates are not the only people who want to live well. The only difference is we don’t see anything wrong with allowing people who succeed to enjoy the rewards of their hard work. There is no need to atone for success.
Bureaucracy Waivers
The Bush Administration has decided that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is too bureaucratic to follow when it comes to building a fence along the border to keep out illegal immigrants. Accordingly, it will waive NEPA for this one project. NEPA allows environmentalists and others to demand environmental reviews of federal activities that might impact the environment. Reviews can take decades and lead to protracted litigation.
“Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation,” Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is quoted in today’s Washington Post. But if the Act is a bureaucratic/litigation nightmare, why don’t they consider fixing the law rather than waiving here and there? NEPA is causing lots of problems as the greens have been using it to tie up a host of activities that affect federal lands. For example, they have been able to prevent logging operations and other activities in the national forests for decades. As a result, forests have built up dead and dying trees that have fueled the massive forest fires out west. Rather than simply waiving such problematic laws, it’s time that Washington lawmakers reformed them.
Don’t Take Away My Bottled Water!
Environmental activists want to regulate bottled water out of existence because they say that it is a waste of resources because the alternatives–such as filtered tap water placed in refillable containers–are just as good. What they don’t consider is where people will be forced to fill those refillable bottles when they are in public places. Most of us don’t tote around Britta filters, so when in public places, we are left to consider drinking from a public faucet, like a water fountain and public bathroom tap. No thanks! Even a child can tell you that those places are full of unappetizing germs. One 13 year old conducted a study last year when his school stopped allowing bottled water. He found that the water fountains provided water that was more germ ridden than the school’s toilet water! But that’s not all, those refillable containers can easily become germ incubators too!
Careful What You Wish For
It is ironic that environmentalist hype about global warming and green calls for alternative fuels are undermining some of the greens’ very own programs and objectives. A story in Greenwire (3/4/08) details the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to use land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to grow and harvest native grasses to support “cellulosic ethanol energy.”
Under CRP, farmers are paid by the federal government not to use 34 million acres of land, leaving habitat for wildlife. The greens are complaining that harvesting the grasses will deprive birds of vital habitat. Perhaps they should have thought about such possibilities before they lobbied for federal control of so much of the nation’s energy, land, and other natural resources. After all, there is a reason why people laugh at the phrase: “Trust me, I am from the government.”
Another Reason to Drink Bottled Water
In recent months, environmentalists have been saying that bottled water is wasteful and no healthier than tap. They are helping advance bottled water taxes, bans on bottled water in government offices and at public events, along with a host of other silly anti-bottled water policies. Their advice for those of us who want water on the go: use refillable containers. What they don’t advertise is the fact that those bottles can quickly become breeding grounds for bacteria—which doesn’t sound like a healthier alternative to me! Check this story out. It notes that one toxicologist recommends not only washing bottles regularly (remember washing with soap has environmental impacts too!), but swapping them out “as much as possible” to avoid bacterial build up. Sounds like yet another good reason to simply stick with fresh, convenient, and sanitary bottled water!
Green Polluters
If you are not on Junkscience.com’s, daily email, you might want to sign up. This daily dispatch sends along nuggets of good information and telling news items. Today’s email links to a Telegraph article on the greens’ carbon footprint. A survey of the travel habits of 25,000 people reveals that environmentalists–particularly those who are most likely to work for environmental organizations–have the worst environmental records and biggest carbon footprints. I can’t say I am all that surprised!
Economic Planning’s Trashy Results
A recent article on a garbage crisis in Naples Italy confirms what I’ve always believed—such trash crises all have roots in government planning. Nations around the world plan for waste disposal the way Soviets used to plan economies, and the results are equally disappointing.
In Naples Italy, government planners failed to ensure the supply of solid waste disposal sites would meet demand, and as a result, trash has been piling up in the city streets since December 20! When have you ever heard of such a catastrophe in a truly free market for a good or service? How often has your supermarket completely run out of food to sell because someone in the marketplace miscalculated supply and demand?
Markets may have their own glitches—which are followed by automatic corrections from time to time. But when governments decide to provide “security” by taking over a market, crises occur all too often and corrections come slowly.
-
About Us
OpenMarket.org is the staff blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. We believe that people improve their lives not through government regulation, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace. -
Search
-
Categories
Agriculture
Bureaucrash
CEI in the City
Culture
Economic Liberty
Energy
Environment
Global Warming
Healthcare Reform
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International
Legal
Mobility
Nanny State
Nano & Biotech
Odds & Ends
Personal Liberty
Politics as Usual
Precaution & Risk
Privacy
Sanctimony
Tech & Telecom
Trade
-
RSS Center
