Back to Basics

Everyone is aware of the democrats’ bill to take over health care, but there has been little attention given to another government take over – Cap & Trade.

I read some of this massive bill and found hundreds of pages dedicated to dictating what types of light bulbs will be available for use.  Naturally, certain areas would be exempt from these mandates, including Las Vegas and California – I wonder who represents those states!  Not quite understanding what all the fuss was over light bulbs I started speaking with others and was amazed at what I learned.

The new energy efficient light bulbs (CFL’s) contain mercury, which makes them hazardous waste.  Along with this comes special handling when replacing bulbs, disposing of bulbs and if a bulb breaks.  If you do not have recycling options for CFL’s then you will have to seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put them in the outside trash.  I spoke with someone who works for an electric company and he told me that the bulbs cost about $15 each to dispose of.

Beware if you break one of these bulbs, because of the mercury the EPA has issued recommendations for cleanup and disposal.  These recommendations include opening windows, shutting of central heat or air and leaving the room for 15 minutes or more.  All broken pieces need to be scooped up using cardboard and placed in a glass container with a metal lid or sealed plastic bag.  Then use duct tape to pick up any remaining pieces.  If the breakage was on carpet you can vacuum after following the instructions above and then you must remove the vacuum bag and put that in a sealed plastic bag.  If clothing or bedding is affected, they recommend throwing it away because washing the clothing or bedding may contaminate your washing machine and pollute sewage.  This is all because of the mercury in the bulbs.  They also recommend the next several times you vacuum that you shut off the heating or air conditioning and open a window before vacuuming and keep it off for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is complete.

So the bill to “help” the environment and reduce greenhouse gases would mandate that we use hazardous light bulbs that obviously pose a health risk, a contamination problem and a possible pollution problem.

I also discovered the bill will permit government officials to enter your home and evaluate and rate how energy efficient your home is.  The bill requires new buildings to be more energy efficient by 30% by 2012 and 50% more efficient by 2016.  For new construction these new energy guidelines can be included, at an increase cost to the home.  So while the housing industry is already in trouble the government is going to “help” by putting more mandates and controls on the industry.

But, we cannot forget about all the buildings, commercial and housing, already in existence.  They will also have to meet these new standards; otherwise you may not be able to sell your home.  Under these new requirements, a government auditor will be allowed to enter your home and inspect your windows, appliances, air conditioning, furnace and anything else to make sure your house meets these new national building codes.  Not only can they inspect it, but they will be able to mandate that you provide the necessary remedies within a specified amount of time regardless of the cost.  They are going to make funding available to help retrofit these homes in the form of loans, but this funding cannot exceed 50% of the actual costs incurred.

No building is exempt from this, including historic buildings and homes.  It is estimated that many of the older buildings will cost more to retrofit than the value of the property.  Some people are saying that many buildings will just be demolished.  If you don’t allow the auditors access to your home you can be criminally charged.

So, under the guise of the environment, the government will obtain legal access to your home, determine if it meets certain environmental standards, require you to retrofit your home to meet these new standards and they don’t care about the cost to the homeowner.

In these already difficult economic times, the government is going to further burden the people by putting additional demands that they might not be able to afford.  How many people are just trying to get by – just trying to pay their living expenses and feed their families?  What about those people living in very modest, older homes just so they can have a roof over their heads?  If homes are demolished rather than retrofitted how much more waste is dumped into our landfills?

A real case of government healthcare…

One of my daughters became pregnant and found to everyone’s surprise she was going to have identical twins.  The news came with mixed emotions as well as difficult decisions.  This was not her first child and she, like many in the family, believes in natural childbirth without medication.  Only her first child was born in a hospital while all the others were born at home with a midwife.

She initially started seeing her midwife for prenatal visits, but when they discovered she was expecting twins the reality of government interference took hold.  The state of Arizona does not allow midwives to knowingly delivery twins, so they had to find a doctor.  They are on the state insurance, which poses it’s own challenges.  However, trying to find a doctor that not only would accept the state insurance but would also deliver twins and accept a patient at 10 weeks became almost an impossible task.  It took her a month to even obtain the booklet of doctors she requested from the state to start her search.  She went through the book and was more often turned down because the doctors no longer accepted the state insurance.  With the help of her midwife and fortunately a state employee willing to help, she was able to obtain the services of a high-risk OB team.

Through the ultrasounds they discovered the babies were identical twins, had separate bags of water but shared one placenta.  This put her in a higher risk category.  At one point during the pregnancy they determined she was experiencing twin-to-twin transfer and was then referred to a specialist.  Because of this the doctors wanted to see her 3 times a week and she underwent regular ultrasounds and non-stress tests.  During her third trimester an ultrasound indicated she actually had two placentas; that there was a division in the placenta that had not previously been noticed; the twins may not be identical.  At that time it was also revealed that she had not actual experienced twin-to-twin transfer, it was only borderline.  With only 4 weeks remaining until her due date the doctor told her she needed to find another doctor because she was now no longer considered high risk!

She took childbirth classes at the hospital she was to deliver at.  She is also a childbirth instructor so these classes were quite unnecessary from a childbirth aspect, but with this unusual pregnancy she wanted to be informed about the hospital, their procedures, as well as the special considerations in delivering twins.

During her regular doctor visits they discussed the expectations of delivery.  This resulted in a difference of opinion from the doctors and expectant parents.  The doctors believed in a medicated birth with a likely outcome of an induced labor as well as a cesarean delivery.  The parents believed in an unmedicated birth, as natural as possible, and only in an emergency to save the mother and/or babies did they want a cesarean.  They created their birth plan and the doctors made their modifications.  They were able to “negotiate” delaying an induction until 38 weeks.

She went in to labor naturally and the first baby came quickly.  They never made it to the hospital.  Labor never stopped and what seemed like a very short time later the second baby was delivered; he was a breech delivery.  Both babies were well and of good size, especially for twins (7 lbs. 14 oz. and 6 lbs. 9 oz.) with the mother and father cooperating during delivery; no one else was present.  This was a Sunday and at this point they did not want to go to the hospital because there was no need.  So they contacted one of their midwifes who came over to make sure mother and babies were okay – everyone was fine.  It also turns out the twins are identical, sharing only one placenta – the latest ultrasounds were wrong!

On Monday morning they contacted the OB doctors and told them the babies were delivered.  The parents asked if they should come in to be seen by the doctors and were told by the doctor’s office that they should come in 2 weeks.  The parents questioned this and the doctors decided they should make an appointment for that Thursday.  Everything seemed fine.

However, the parents received a call from the referring midwife indicating the doctor had issued a 911 call and told her to see the mother and babies immediately.  This second midwife came over Monday and checked everyone out – everyone was fine.

They kept their appointment on Thursday with the doctors, and again everyone was fine – or so they thought.  They expected to return to the doctor for her 6-week visit.

Is this another monster program in the making?  After hearing so much about Cap and Trade on the news, I decided to take a look at the bill.  I was again amazed at the items in this bill.

This bill contains pages upon pages of regulations for light bulbs.  Energy efficiency is great, but do we really need another piece of legislature to dictate what type of light bulbs can be sold, and another government agency to make sure the regulations are followed.  Has the government even attempted to work with the manufacturing companies making these light bulbs to address energy efficient bulbs without legislation?  How about providing consumer information so the customer can make energy efficient choices?  Anyone concerned about the environment would welcome accurate information on the benefits of choosing an energy efficient bulb.  Government legislation isn’t necessary.  I was wondering why so many pages were dedicated just to light bulbs.  I also found it interesting that California and Nevada have exemptions from some of these regulations.  I guess energy efficiency isn’t necessary in those states.

The bill also creates a government owned, tax exempt, corporation – the Clean Energy Deployment Administration – wholly owned by the government.  The Administrator of this new corporation would be appointed by the President, and board members would include various secretaries of the government and 4 additional members appointed by the President.  Where in the constitution does it allow the government to create a government owned corporation?  I am baffled by the number of businesses the government wants to own and that Congress would actually approve these actions.  Does anyone see a problem here?  Why isn’t someone doing an investigation?

The bill actually admits it will put a great number of people out of work.  Because of this, the taxpayers will get the privilege of paying a large percentage of their salaries for the next three years.  In a time of high unemployment, why would you pass a bill that guarantees an increase in the number of unemployed people?  You can’t collect taxes to pay for any government programs if people aren’t working – they have no income to tax!  Does anyone understand economics!

Estimates are that this bill would increase the cost of energy to each household by $175 a month, quite a substantial amount for most Americans.  That is only the direct cost.  Everything will go up in price because as businesses see their operating costs rise, they will pass those expenses on to the consumers in the form of higher prices.  So in a recession, why would you pass legislation to further deepen a recession?  But that seems to be the theme of this administration.

If the government is truly concerned about the environment and greenhouse gas emissions then they would be encouraging everyone to do their part without concern of the potential loss of income to the electric companies or the loss of tax by the government.  This ploy of environmental concern is just another means to increase profits to utility companies and more tax money for the government to waste.

People could do so much more.  There are alternative means of producing energy for homes – like solar power or geothermal systems.  Most people have not incorporated these into their homes because the cost is too high.  Whenever there is an incentive program offered, the companies selling the products (liked solar) increase their prices so the consumer doesn’t see the savings; instead these companies reap the benefits.  Those tactics should be stopped and instead efforts should be made so homes can incorporate alternative energy sources.  If the environment is the concern, then the reduction of use from power companies should not be a negative deciding factor.  Homeowner’s associations should not be able to restrict energy saving devises like solar power either.

A gentleman in Australia invented a product that could be put on the electrical system of a home and actually double the output to the home.  What a concept!  He envisioned putting these units into homes to reduce the amount of electricity required to operate that home; and the cost was supposed to be affordable.  However, the patent was sold to China.  Big business took over and attempted to use the technology to get twice the output from the electrical companies.  The plan failed and the technology is lost.  Greed has again destroyed a great idea.  The environment wasn’t the concern, just the ability of big business being able to make the buck.

That is much of the problem.  As new ideas are developed, they are often to the benefit of the consumer with the decreased dependency on big power business.  Big business cannot have this decrease in demand because it would decrease their profits, so they squash any of these ideas.  People could make a huge positive impact on the environment, but big business wants control.

So, if the environment is the concern, instead of taxing the people yet again, create ways to make alternative power affordable for people to install.  The people would save on their electric bills and the electric companies would be more environmentally friendly because they wouldn’t have to produce all that extra power – isn’t that what the whole light bulb issue is?  If the concern is truly environmental then stop trying to make the big bucks over it!  Otherwise the alternative name “cap and tax” is more appropriate.