Back to Basics

Finally, California shows some sense. Lawmakers trashed an onerous, ill-timed, empty-gesture plastic bag ban pushed by radical greens this week:

California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.

The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.

…The bill, AB1998, called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.

Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.

…The Senate took final action at the very end of the legislative session, reflecting how difficult it had been to muster support. The bill received just 14 votes in the Senate, seven short of the majority it needed.

The inconvenient truth is that the eco-propaganda about plastic bag perils is so much hype. Don’t take it from me. Take it from environmental scientists themselves:

“The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence,” said Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science. “This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, the Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

My commentary on the lies about bisphenol A (BPA) that have led to several states banning it without a shred of scientific evidence generated a lot of feedback; enough to revisit the topic because it symbolizes the way Americans and others around the world are under assault from the environmental and consumer groups that exist to further their own agendas.

BPA is a chemical used in the epoxy liners of many canned foods, as well as some plastic food containers. BPA improves public health by greatly decreasing the risk of food borne illness in canned foods and making them easier to manufacture. At the heart of the campaign to ban BPA is the larger issue of plastic itself, a byproduct of petroleum. I suspect that a lot of people do not know that plastic starts life as crude oil.

Oil is so essential to modern life that most people are astonished to discover that, after a portion of a 42-gallon barrel of oil is turned into 19.4 gallons of gasoline, more than half of what remains becomes an element of more than 6,000 other products from floor wax to vitamin capsules, cortisone to insect repellent, perfumes to house paint.

I doubt that it has passed your notice that oil has been the number one enemy of environmental groups for decades. This is most evident in the effort by the White House to shut down new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico based on a single accident on a single rig. As this is written, Friends of the Earth is trying to stop the building of a pipeline to give the U.S. easier access to Canadian oil.

So, when you connect the use of oil and plastic, you get two utterly essential facets of modern life that Greens are working to thwart any way they can. The primarily instrument, other than the fashioning of legislation for sympathetic politicians, is a continuous tidal wave of propaganda rooted in junk science.

A reader pointed me to an interesting blog called JunkScienceMom.com. It is the work of a mother of three and she is a contributor to BigJournalism.com and FightNanny.com. Among her fans are Fox News’ John Stossell and the American Council on Science and Health which lauded her website as “well-sourced and cogent.”

In late June, she conducted an interview with Julie E. Goodman, principal scientist at Gradient, an environmental consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts where she also teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health. She is an expert in toxicology and epidemiology.

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.