Plastic Bag Bans Are Bad for the Environment

The past several years have seen a groundswell of regulations on plastics, particularly plastic bags and cups and food containers made from polystyrene or Styrofoam. Supporters of these bans mostly claim that such policies promote environmental protection, when in reality they carry considerable environmental tradeoffs and impose needless burdens on consumers and economic growth, says Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Plastic bags generate 39 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than regular paper bags and require only 6 percent of the water necessary to make paper bags. Simultaneously, they consume 71 percent less energy during production than paper bags and produce one-fifth the amount of solid waste. Similarly, reusable bags are only more environmentally friendly than plastic bags if they are used 103 times, yet on average they are used only 51 times before they are thrown away. A comparison of the environmental impacts of plastic cups with paper alternatives yielded similar results, with plastic causing 50 percent less solid waste by volume.

Much of the craze that has inspired frivolous and counterproductive environmental bans stems from news stories that emphasize the negative impacts of excessive pollution and littering. Specifically, numerous references are made by environmental blogs and activists to the infamous garbage "island" in the Pacific -- a giant trash heap that is "twice the size of Texas." However, researchers have debunked much of the hype regarding this "island" by showing that no such island exists. Regardless, concerns about littering should not provoke environmental bans -- they should provoke greater public support of antilittering movements, says Logomasini.

Read More...

Hundreds of plants and animals up for new protections

by Matthew Brown

The Obama administration is taking steps to extend new federal protections to a list of imperiled animals and plants that reads like a manifest for Noah's Ark - from the melodic golden-winged warbler and slow-moving gopher tortoise, to the slimy American eel and tiny Texas kangaroo rat.

Read More...

Nuclear Iran

Rep. Kelly: "Our policies make Houdini look like an amateur"

U.S. Government Bureaucracy

All You Need To Know About U.S. Government Bureaucracy:

Pythagorean theorem................................................24 words.

Lord's prayer..............................................................66 words.

Archimedes' Principle................................................67 words.

10 Commandments...................................................179 words.

Gettysburg address...................................................286 words.

Declaration of Independence....................................1,300 words.

US Constitution with all 27 Amendments..................7,818 words.

US Government regulations on sale of cabbage......26,911 words.

I guess cabbage must really be complicated....

Obama Chief of Staff Says he Can't Defend Obamanomics

by Ed Morrissey

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.

Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress....’”

Read More...

New EPA Rules Will Increase Cost of Energy

by IBD Editorials

Overregulation: The Environmental Protection Agency has two new rules it wants to impose on utilities that use coal. But the rules make sense only if you want less energy, higher prices and fewer jobs.

Remember then-candidate Barack Obama's comment in January 2008 that the price of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket" once his policies went into effect?

It's now coming to pass — just as OPEC has decided it doesn't want to pump more oil. Get the picture? We're being systematically starved of energy, and our economy is suffering. Just don't ask the White House to help.

Broadly, the new EPA rules seek to clean up the air. Everyone's for that, of course. But at what cost?

According to a study the economic consulting firm National Economic Research Associates conducted for the coal industry, the two new rules mentioned above will by themselves cost electric utilities $184 billion by 2030 and kill 1.4 million jobs.

So why do it? Coal, our nation's No. 1 energy source for making electricity, is "dirty." And granted, coal isn't the cleanest available energy. But clean-coal technologies make it cleaner than ever.

It's also the least expensive and most easily available energy we have. For a pittance, it provides fully half the power we need to heat and cool our homes and run our TVs and computers.

But if these EPA rules go into effect, the cost of energy will shoot up 11% to 23% in just a few years.

Read More...

Tennessee Bans Freedom of Speech

by Aaron M. Kelly
 

If you haven't heard about it, you probably don't read American newspapers: Tennessee's legislature has amended its laws to ban causing people to become "emotionally distressed" from images posted online.

The new law, which comes into effect on July 1, 2011, will make a criminal out of anyone who, "Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose."

The methods in the subdivision (a)(1) that is referred to include telephone, writing, or electronic communication, including text messaging, fax messages, e-mail, and Internet service.

In addition to other triggering clauses, such as making the communication with malicious intent, the communication or display of image can trigger the offence if done:

"In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed."

Interestingly, the "communicates with another person" provision already existed, so Tennesseans have been living with what seems to be a blatantly unconstitutional law for awhile now. What the new law does is to also make publishing pictures which disturb people an offence. To be clear, the law does not require that an accused even directly contact the offended individual. It describes the offended party as the "victim," but makes it an offence to communicate with another "person" in a way that might offend that "victim." Clearly, even communicating with third parties without a legitimate purpose can result in a conviction.

What is markedly absent from the law is what exactly constitutes a "legitimate purpose." This means that as long as the elements of the offence are made out, a case can be brought against someone for posting an image which disturbs someone else, and the accused will be forced to argue that they met whatever the vague standard of a "legitimate purpose" happens to be.

Here are some situations which, if the court does not find they have a "legitimate purpose," would lead to someone being convicted of a crime in the State of Tennessee:

Read More...

Indy 500 Winner Bobby Unser vs. the U.S. Government

One Nation Under Arrest

Nearly 20% of Obamacare waivers are in Nancy Pelosi’s district

by Matthew Boyle

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide....

Read More...

Left Admits Environmental Justice Can Be Harmful To Business

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

by Bruno Waterfield

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."

Read More...

USA Today: Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs is Freedom

by Henry Payne

In a leap of Orwellian logic, USA Today — America's second-largest newspaper — argues in its lead editorial Tuesday that banning the incandescent light bulb is a victory for free markets.

"The best way for government to boost energy efficiency isn't to micromanage by picking winners and losers, a job better suited to free-market innovation. It is to set a reasonable standard — miles per gallon or light per watt, for example — and let the market sort it out," spins the editorial in support of picking winners and losers. "That's what Congress did in 2007" in banning the bulb.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Banning is choice. Regulation is freedom.

One wonders if USA Today's editors would tolerate this doublethink if applied to their own industry. Were Congress to ban newspapers in order to force them onto the more "planet-friendly" Internet, would USA Today swallow this as free market economics?

Read More...

Should We Ban Walking While Wired?

The Nanny State targets hand-held gadgets

by Steve Chapman

You've had the experience of walking along and negotiating around someone who is walking slowly, weaving, or bumping into other pedestrians for an obvious reason: He or she is talking on a cell phone, listening to an iPod, or texting on a Blackberry.

And you've had the natural, inevitable response to this annoyance: demanding a law to prevent it.

Oh, you haven't responded that way? Well, Carl Kruger has. The state senator from Brooklyn, N.Y., wants to make it illegal to use an electronic device while crossing a big-city street on foot. He has an ally in Arkansas state Sen. Jimmy Jeffress, who wants to ban pedestrians from wearing headphones in both ears on or near a roadway.

These measures reflect a reflexive urge to regulate even the smallest elements of human behavior, from the flavorings in cigarettes to the type of fats in restaurant meals to the number of bullets a magazine may hold. Some people apparently sit around thinking, "What's the good of having all this government power if we're not going to use it?"

Read More...

Obama's Internet passport: More Government Control

by The Washington Times

Federalized security screening at airports has been such a success that President Obama wants to apply the same government "expertise" to the realm of online commerce and commentary. The White House cybersecurity adviser joined Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Jan. 7 to announce what amounts to a national ID card for the Internet.

Their plan is straightforward. Instead of logging onto Facebook or one's bank using separate passwords established with each individual company or website, the White House will take the lead in developing what it calls an "identity ecosystem" that will centralize personal information and credentials. This government-approved system would issue a smart card or similar device that would confirm an individual's identity when making online credit-card purchases, accessing electronic health care records, posting "anonymous" blog entries or even logging onto one's own home computer, according to administration documents.

Officials insist this would be a voluntary program and deliver significant benefits to the public. Mr. Locke explained last week that "robust identity solutions can substantially enhance the trustworthiness of online transactions. They can not only improve security, but, if done properly, can enhance privacy as well."

Put another way, Mr. Locke is saying, "Trust us, we're from the government, and we're here to help."

Read More...

Congress Should Rein in the EPA

by William F. Shughart II

Despite the Obama administration’s recent decision to delay new rules regarding smog and emissions from industrial boilers, EPA is preparing to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants and industrial users that consume oil, natural gas and coal beginning in January. The potential cost: cutting back on carbon emissions will force many smaller, coal-fired power-generating plants to shut down, almost certainly raise electricity rates around the country, undermine the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses and send more American jobs overseas.

It is proposing a reduction in the national ambient-air-quality standard for ground-level ozone, a precursor of smog, which would require industries and many small businesses to adopt new, costly emission controls. (Public opposition has prompted the EPA to delay the rule’s issue until July.) The potential fallout: according the Manufacturers Alliance, an organization that for 75 years has conducted economic research, estimates 7.3 million jobs lost beginning in 2020.

It just raised the amount of corn-based ethanol that must be blended with gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent for 2007 and newer vehicles. Projected cost: around $5 billion a year in federal subsidies.

It is reviewing federal legislation proposing to regulate so-called hydraulic fracturing in natural-gas production, a drilling technique that state agencies already oversee and which has been used in more than one million wells in the United States since 1950. The potential cost: in Appalachia’s Marcellus Shale zone alone, EPA regulation would destroy 280,000 potential jobs and reduce tax revenues by $6 billion over the next decade, according to a study by Natural Resource Economics.

Read More...

Disagreement with liberals equals hate

Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

by Declan McCullagh

President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months.

Read More...

Obamacare: Death Panels By Regulation

by Robert Pear

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

Read More...

Obama MPG Regulations Will Cost $6,400 Per Car

by Henry Payne

New mpg limits foisted on automakers by the Obama administration will add 20 percent to the sticker price of new cars, according to new study by the Center for Automotive Research.

The Michigan-based center said the 60 mpg average mpg goal by 2025 would add an average $6,400 per vehicle.

The willful, random mandates (why not 100 mpg? 150 mpg?) set by Washington’s green zealots would also gut manufacturing jobs as it “would prompt consumers to hold on to their cars for far longer, costing more than 220,000 auto manufacturing jobs as new vehicle sales fall,” the study added.

Read More...