environmentalists

WHO Study on BPA: No Measurable Risks

by Angela Logomasini on November 11, 2010

in Environment, Precaution & Risk

The American Council on Science and Health has a great post on bisphenol A (BPA), noting yet another study that exonerates the chemical, which is used to make hard, clear plastics and resins used in a wide range of valuable applications. Released by the World Health Organization, this study conforms with many others that have found: No significant evidence of any health problems. It also points out that non-food exposures to BPA from such things as receipts are of of “minor relevance,” despite the fact that activists hype these very minor BPA exposures to garner lots of news coverage and generate fear among the public.

But of course government bureaucrats around the world will continue to study and re-study the issue — as long taxpayer dollars continue to flow into government research budgets thanks in good measure to activists hype. We can expect greens to march into statehouses — such as California and Oregon — when they open legislative sessions next year to  push yet more government bans of BPA. At least a half dozen states have already banned some uses such as for baby bottles.

The Audi Super Bowl Ad’s Very Fitting Music

by Ivan Osorio on February 10, 2010

in Culture, Environment, Nanny State, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

I fully agree with Marlo’s take on the Audi “Green Police” Super Bowl ad. It well parodies environmental zealots’ authoritarian instincts, while at the same time suggesting that, with the Audi A3 TDI, it won’t be so bad. Still, I take it as a good sign that this kind of ridicule of green activists has gone mainstream to the point of being featured in an ad during the most watched televised event of the year.

That said, there’s a little detail that should give it further resonance: the music. The ad’s use of Cheap Trick’s “Dream Police” — changed to “green police” — is subtly appropriate. The song is the lament of a guy who thinks he’s going crazy because of a group of sadistic cops who persecute him in his dreams — and, like green zealots, never relent. This part is particularly fitting:

I lie asleep, they’re wide awake, they won’t leave me alone.

They don’t get paid to take vacations or let me alone.

They spy on me, I try to hide, they won’t leave me alone.

They persecute me, they’re the judge and jury all in one.

Of course, as Richard Morrison notes, CEI came up with a similar idea a couple of years ago, with the Department of Pre-Regulation. Videos of the Audi ad, the Department of Pre-Regulation, and Cheap Trick’s original song are below.

Baby Bottle Politics Trumps Science at FDA

by Angela Logomasini on January 19, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment

The greens are rejoicing today because the Food and Drug Administration has softened its stance on the safety of Bisphenol A, a chemical used in the production food packaging and containers, such as baby bottles. Humans consume trace amounts of BPA in food products, but there is no direct evidence of any human health problems after decades of use.

For years, FDA has reported that BPA levels were too low to pose any significant health problems to humans. Scientific reviews around the (EU, Japan, Canada) world have drawn the same conclusion. Now FDA says it wants more study and might want to regulate in the future. But the science hasn’t changed–just the politics. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fear mongering and hype is more powerful than science.

So exactly what did FDA report this week? They “reviewed the research” and are suddenly more wary about the substance because of conclusions drawn in a 2008 National Toxicology Program report about BPA impacts on rodents. The agency notes that it could not find any direct evidence of problems among humans. It expressed minimal to negligible concern for almost all potential BPA risk factors. It expressed “some concern” in one area because some studies showed associations indicating that bisphenol A “can cause changes in the brain and behavior” and have “effects on the prostate gland” of laboratory animals. The NTP expressed “some concern” that associations between BPA and rodent development may indicate possible impacts on the development of children and human fetuses. NTP called for more research before such concerns could be dismissed.

Yet those concerns are drawn from rodent studies that have largely been dismissed around the world (as well as by FDA) as not particularly relevant or adequate for drawing conclusions. The NTP report noted: “These studies in laboratory animals provide only limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health.”

It is difficult to believe that FDA has suddenly found these studies compelling on scientific grounds. Instead, it appears the studies’ limitations are now being overlooked to justify a political agenda. FDA will now likely spend millions of taxpayer dollars to study this issue, but it is unlikely to find anything new. But whatever they find, you can be sure they will use it as an excuse to expand their regulatory power.

Why does recycled paper make such crappy toilet paper?

by Michael Fumento on October 1, 2009

in Environment, Global Warming

“I remember the importance of toilet paper while being shelled a few times, a couple of times while on the throne. I don’t understand why they can’t do re-cycled AND fluffy. Why are they exclusive?”

122 mm shell
One 122 mm mortar round can ruin that beautiful experience on the throne.

That’s from an officer I befriended at Camp Corregidor in Ramadi, Iraq, where it rained shells so often we had to wear body armor at all times outside of fortified buildings. He saw my blog “Enviros want to wipe out soft toilet paper!” concerning the greens wanting us to use recycled toilet paper instead of the softer kind from older – but not “old growth” – trees. Older trees are better carbon sinks, meaning better at soaking up CO2.

It’s all about fiber length. Longer fibers mean fewer knots and it’s those knots you feel, whether in TP or in your bedsheets or in clothes – albeit not in Army uniforms, which are part polyester anyway.

That’s why Egyptian cotton is the best, because it has the longest fibers. Recycled paper products inherently have fiber of short length, hence lots of knots. Not so important when you’re writing on it, but rather more so when wiping with it and – although I personally haven’t had the experience – doing so with 122 mm rounds dropping around your throne.

Enviros trying to wipe out soft toilet paper!

by Michael Fumento on September 27, 2009

in Environment, Global Warming

Okay, this time they’ve gone too far!

Now, says the Washington Post, environmentalists are trying to wipe out plush toilet paper!

They say that’s because plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made from older trees – though not what’s defined as “old growth” by any means. And older trees, they say, are better for absorbing carbon dioxide and thereby slowing global warming.

(Have you noticed that there’s nothing that can’t be tied into global warming?)

They want us Americans to wipe with the same stuff Europeans use, made from recycled paper goods.

Well, I’ve been to Europe a lot and while I’m no xenophobe I must say their toilet paper is just one grade above sandpaper. No, ifs, ands, or butts about it.

They’ll get my soft toilet paper when they pry it from my cold dead hands!

(Though I really don’t want to be found dead sitting on “the throne” . . . )

Reverse Tea Party to Reverse Freedom?

by Angela Logomasini on March 26, 2009

in Environment

This says it all: Green groups held a “reverse tea party” by dumping bottled water (minus the bottles of course) into the Boston Harbor. Why? They don’t like private enterprise or private water provision. They want the government to take more of your hard-earned dollars to spend on government water systems.

Yes, indeed, the term “reverse tea party” is oh so appropriate. Our founding fathers protested tyranny and called for freedom with their forward-thinking Boston Tea Party. Today, greens do the reverse. They protest freedom, private enterprise, and your right to choose. They call for more government, more mismanagement of our resources, and less freedom!!

The problems with government water systems (see section on drinking water in the Environmental Source) today have nothing to do with bottled water and privatization. They relate to politics. The federal government forces localities to spend limited precious resources (thanks to the green lobby) to widdle down inconsequential trace levels of certain chemicals in our tap water, greatly reducing funds to address much bigger, serious infrastructure problems.

The solution is not more government. It lies in more flexible standards—and yes—the “dreaded” (according to the greens) American way: free enterprise. Privatization could bring in the financial resources needed for upgrades. Unfortunately, local governments outlawed private provision of tap water decades ago when infrastructure of piped water was first under development. It’s a long road back to fixing that problem, but rather than call for the reverse of freedom and free-enterprise, we should employ the forward thinking of our forefathers whose advocacy for freedom understands the value of human creativity and achievement.

Ironic Snowfall for Resource-Rich Greenies

by Silvia Santacruz on March 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Natural Resources

Environmentalists characterize themselves as petite Davids battling gargantuan corporate Goliaths in order to grab media attention.  But hundreds of green activists demonstrated today to raise awareness of global warming and against coal production in front of the Capital Power Plant in southeast Washington D.C.  The group had plenty of resources ranging from a raised stage with microphones, to trucks loaded with food and coffee, to green plastic helmets, all the way down to fluorescent caps and fancy colored anti-industry signs.

We, the counter protesters, were comprised about 25 to 30 Davids.  Participants hailed from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)—the event organizers—as well as the producers of the film Not Evil Just Wrong, the National Mining Association (NMA), American for Prosperity (AFP), the National Center for Public Policy Research, Conservative Caucus and others.  All of us proudly held our no-frills signs celebrating coal, highlighting its importance to electricity generation and the nation’s economy.

Despite the disparity between the number of anti-coal demonstrators and the “Celebrate Coal” participants, the weather proved to be a major ally: the nation’s capital was anything but warm today, making the global warming argument sound absurd.  In fact, Americans needed a lot of affordable coal-generated electricity today to heat their homes.

One of my favorites images of today’s dual protest (see picture above) was a Greenpeace activist seen cleaning snow from the top of his solar-powered truck with a metal sign that read, “Stop Global Warming Now”.  One of my colleagues couldn’t resist and asked, “How is that global warming sign working with cleaning out the snow?”

The greenie was too ashamed to continue, and left.

The Energy Tax Budget

by Iain Murray on February 26, 2009 · 8 comments

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Stimulus to Nowhere

“Not one dime,” said President Obama in his address to Congress, referring to how much extra tax people earning under $250,000 a year will have to pay in his budget. Unfortunately, even if you don’t have to pay extra tax, you will have to pay extra fees for your energy, which are passed on to the government via energy companies. That’s the effect of the President’s cap-and-trade scheme for carbon emissions, an important part of his new budget. Energy companies will have to pay the government for permits for each ton of carbon dioxide or equivalent they emit in the generation of power. They will pass on these costs to the consumer, as has happened everywhere a cap-and-trade scheme has been tried. The Administration will split the revenues between $15bn for alternative energy pork and about $52 billion per year to help pay for the Making Work Pay tax cut/welfare check of $800 for “95 percent of all American workers.” By raising the price of fossil fuel energy and thereby making expensive alternative energy more competitive, the program is also aimed at reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.

How much will cap and trade cost households in increased energy costs? Well, we know from a CBO study last year that a 15 percent reduction in emissions from 1998 levels would cost each household at least $660. That target is about 25 percent more stringent than the budget target, which is simply a return to 1990 emission levels by 2020 (far less than environmentalists demand). So we can apply simple arithmetic to estimate that the current budget cap and trade program will cost each income quintile $510, $660, $870, $1125 and $1635 (in 2006 dollars, slightly more in nominal values) respectively. This is a significant offset to the $800 “tax cut” per worker.

To those who might object that most households have two income earners these days, that’s not true. While the “traditional” family model of a husband supporting his family only accounts for 7 percent of householders now, dual-income families actually account for just 29 percent of households. Moreover, it is the bottom three quintiles that have on average just one earner, meaning that they suffer proportionally more from this energy tax increase.

Finally, for the highest quintile, the lower income limit is just $88,000. If you earn that amount, even if you have two income earners in the household, you will likely lose money from these stealth energy taxes. So will the average household earning between $35,000 and $55,000. So much for “not one dime.”

The Dishonesty of Poltical Adjectives

by Fred Smith on January 19, 2009

in Culture, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Rhetoric is a noble field — the ability to use language skillfully to clarify and justify a policy. But the political use of language is often used In a far less honest fashion. Consider the language of some policy positions advanced today:

Fair Trade: No one likes to be seen as a protectionist.  Protectionism—the idea that a nation should help its own industries by taxing their foreign competitors—is now widely viewed as a discredited policy.  This is largely due to the failures of protectionism’s past, like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff policy which exacerbated the suffering of the Depression and was one of many causes of WWII.

Thus, modern protectionists favor trade that is “fair.”   This term signifies that voluntary exchanges between individuals is only justified if it meets the criteria of a wide array of other interests such as labor, human rights advocates, internationalists, environmentalists, religious advocates, or feminists. These other goals may be legitimate but if this criteria is used only trade approved by Greenpeace, Amnesty International, the AFL-CIO, the Christian Coalition, and NOW would be allowed. Few trading arrangements could meet the utopian demands of these disparate groups.   Thus, “fair” trade is another way of arguing for protectionism.

Safe Nuclear and Clean Coal: Americans believe that energy should be accessible and that the poor should not be shouldered with unnecessary costs.  Thus, those opposed to energy development allege that they favor expanded use of nuclear power — as long as it is “safe”, greater use of coal power as long as it is “clean.”

But there are no “safe” energy sources (only “safer” ones) and no “clean” sources of power.   Even the cleanest and safest processes for creating anything have some risks and some waste associated with them.  So, if we’re being honest, there are only really “safer” and “cleaner” methods than those now in use.  Environmentalists and others seeking restrictions on American energy (and thus higher prices) use the absolutes—”safe” and “clean”—  which are very deceptive qualifiers.

Green Jobs: A capitalist economy seeks to employ people to meet human needs and job creation is very politically popular. However, some environmentalists and others would focus job creation efforts on employment in those areas which would advance their anti-development aims — thus, “green” jobs.

Social Justice: We all favor “justice” but, as Friedrich Hayek noted long ago, “social” is a weasel word designed to weaken this core value of any moral civilization into a tool of redistributive policy. According to “social justice,” creating wealth and knowledge is irrelevant unless such achievements also increase income equality.

One professor was told by one of his Canadian students that he could never migrate to America. “How,” he asked, “could anyone live in a world with such a poor GINI (a measure of income dispersion) value?”

That those income differences (like the prizes granted athletes and others) might increase general welfare is viewed as secondary.

Political discourse would be more transparent and honest if such deceptive adjectives were banned.

What Obama Means for Environmental Policy

by Iain Murray on November 5, 2008 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming

My colleagues will be providing some commentary on what an Obama presidency means, realistically, for global warming policy. Here, I’m going to comment on environmental policy more generally.

First, I suspect that we will see the EPA Administrator raised to cabinet rank. With this will come a more radical and assertive EPA. This should not be surprising. Even within this Administration, the EPA has been flexing its muscles. The issuance of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act was accompanied by reactions from other government departments about how terrible the rules would be, rather than going through the usual process of dealing with these difficulties internally and watering down the rule. Given that Obama has said he will want the EPA, absent Congressional action, to go ahead with its plans, this may be an indication that EPA will become an agency that, in most cases, is primus inter pares.
[click to continue…]