Miss Kelly

Plastic Bags Are the Most Eco-Friendly!

Told ya so, told ya so!   Plastic bags have the least impact to the environment. From the U.K.'s Independent:

"Unpublished Government research suggests the plastic carrier may not be an eco villain after all – but, whisper it, an unsung hero. Hated by environmentalists and shunned by shoppers, the disposable plastic bag is piling up in a shame-filled corner of retail history. But a draft report by the Environment Agency, obtained by the Independent on Sunday, has found that ordinary high density polythene (HDPE) bags used by shops are actually greener than supposedly low impact choices."

Of course it's the greenest - a plastic bag weighs a tiny fraction of either a cloth or paper bag. The energy required/emissions from the manufacture and the transportation of plastic bags are, accordingly, also a fraction of the energy/emissions for cloth or paper.  Recycled paper bags are even worse than virgin paper bags.  Paper fibers are shorter and weaker in recycled pulp, and so more of the pulp is needed to create a bag with the  same strength as virgin paper.   But alas, way too many environmentalists refuse to look at the engineering and science behind these issues. 

"HDPE bags are, for each use, almost 200 times less damaging to the climate than cotton hold-alls favoured by environmentalists, and have less than one third of the Co2 emissions than paper bags which are given out by retailers such as Primark."

Huh, this report was commissioned in 2005, scheduled for release in 2007, and England's Environment Agency can't seem to publish the findings just yet......

 

The Green Police! They'll Be Here Before You Know It

Kudos to the Saints!  That was quite an entertaining Super Bowl game, and the best team did win! Love those interceptions that turn into a TD!!  I'm very happy for the Saints and for New Orleans.  They deserved it and they won it.

The Green Police ad was funnny on one level and unfunny on another.  Funny that Audi believes that this ad will be viewed positively with their consumers! 

Unfunny because there are many, many people out there who for would only be too happy to promulgate regulations just like you see in the commercial!  I work in the environmental consulting field and there are plenty of enviro-zealots who dream about mandatory recycling, garbage police and banning plastic bags altogether. They put the "mental" in environmental. And hasn't our own Congress banned incandescent bulbs?  Ahh, the antics of the Green Police may not be far off. 

If recycling were worth it (i.e., if there was markets for them), we wouldn't have to force people to do it. Cradle to grave, plastic bags are less harmful to the environment than paper bags. The technologies developed by the plastics industry will be leading the way when bio-plastics become viable alternatives to oil-based plastics.  How long will it take for people to be up in arms over the health hazards and environmental harm caused by the mercury in flourescent bulbs? 

Don't be suprised when the Green Police ad turns out to be prophetic, unless we smarten up and replace enviro-religion with science, basic economics and truth.

What a cute anteater! 

Now There's Some Cool Tote Bags

Hah, Archie McPhee has a great selection of tote bags to show your feelings about the eco-zealots. Several amusing sayings available.  Only $6.95, well worth it.  As the description says:

"Sick and tired of this whole 'green' movement? Take one of these bags into your local grocery store to let people know how you really feel. Each 16-1/2" x 13" x 5-3/4" faux canvas bag is sure to ruffle the feathers of do-gooders with hybrid cars." 

Save the Plastic Bags!

Save the Plastic Bags!

What an exellent website! It's about time.  Attempts by municipalities and "progressive" stores to ban plastic bags are misguided.  Well-intentioned, perhaps, but irrational. Replacing plastic bags with paper bags will only result in more pollution, not less, as paper bags require more energy to manufacture and more fuel to transport.  You can expect air pollution to worsen in cities, as more trucks emit more pollutants delivering heavier paper bags. 

Recycled paper bags are even worse than virgin paper bags, since the shorter fibers in recycled paper are weaker than virgin paper pulp, so manufacturers have to make them even thicker and heavier to be as strong.  Greener? Not so! 

Plastic bags don't decompose in a landfill?  Why does that matter?  Paper bags don't decompose either. Landfills are designed to entomb their contents, they're not compost piles.

Americans want choice, we don't want Super-Nannies telling us what to do, especially when the Super-Nannies are unschooled in science, economics, air pollution and transportation issues. This website gets it right: stores should offer paper and plastic, and give customers 5 cents back when they use their own reusable bag.  Incentives, not bans and fees.

Friday Miscellania - Church Goes E-Mail, Wacky MA Repubs, Conservatism vs Enviros

Catching up on a few things:

• The Archdiocese of Boston goes electronic! Finally! Cardinal O'Malley is reaching out via e-mail to the Church and to people who are interested in our (holy catholic and apostolic!) Church.  Sign up here for a weekly e-mail from Cardinal Sean and the Pilot.
• Jonah Goldberg over at The National Corner pens a good column on conservationists vs environmentalists.  I appreciate the distinction, being a staunch conservationist who debates almost daily at work with wacky environmentalists who see all plastic as intrinsically evil. 

"...my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts."

• Katie O'Malley has an excellent critique of the MA Republican Party at Human Events. 

"Why is it then, that the MA Republican Party has seemingly encouraged Jim Oganowski to enter the Republican primary race 7 months AFTER Beatty and against the desires of many of Jim’s own supporters?"

Ogonowki's backers include Kerry Healey, Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney.  But his backers don't include the rank and file Republicans in the state. Ogonowski is apparently having trouble getting enough signatures to be on the ballot.  Good!   

I supported Ogonowski when he ran against Niki Tsongas for Congress.  But Og running for Senator against Kerry is folly.  Sorry, Jim, you're not ready to be a Senator when you've never been elected to any office before.  Read the whole thing, it's harsh but good.

April 22 - Holy Day of Obligation for Neo-Pagans

Today is Earth Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Neo-Pagans. 

I don't celebrate Earth Day anymore, although I was there on the first Earth Day back in 1970 (or so), picking up litter on the side of a road.  My career is in environmental engineering and consulting, and I go to work every day (for 20 years now) to clean up hazardous waste sites.  I'm grateful for the environmental laws and regulations that we have in the U.S., they've resulted in massive cleanups of air and water.  They also created a profession which is my livelihood.  (BTW, the U.S. has the most comprehensive and stringent environmental regulations on the planet.  Countries all over the world look to the EPA regulations as models for their emerging environmental programs.  We Americans are not slackers in environmental protection, we are leaders.)

But Earth Day leaves me cold anymore..... 

What's the Biggest Source of Dioxin Emissions?

Occasionally, Miss Kelly covers environmental news.  OK, everyone knows that dioxins are big, scary, evil compounds, as evil as DDT and alar, maybe even worse. Just say the word "dioxin" at a public meeting, and people suck in their breath and become upset.  (Even though the combustion of any carbon-based material creates dioxin....including burning a log in your fireplace.)  We all know that big, scary, evil corporations are responsible for emitting dioxins and trashing our planet.  Except they're not the worst polluters anymore.  As announced in today's Federal Register:

"USEPA released its report on Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000 (EPA/600/P-03/002F, November 2006). It was announced in today's Federal Register and is available at the following website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286 ."

"The report looked at dioxin releases for the years 1987, 1995 and 2000. It concludes that dioxin releases (expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents) have decreased 90% or 10-fold between 1987 and 2000. Of interest is that in 1987 and 1995, the leading source of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment was municipal waste combustion; however, because of reductions in dioxin emissions from municipal waste combustors, it dropped to the 4th ranked source in 2000. Cement kilns burning hazardous waste dropped off the top ten list in 2000, due to voluntary and regulatory controls. Burning of domestic refuse in backyard burn barrels remained fairly constant over the years, but in 2000, it emerged as the largest source of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment."

It's not just big, evil mean money-grubbing global corporations that are polluting the planet.  Ordinary folks doing ordinary things - burning your trash in barrels or burning logs in your fireplace - are polluting the planet in a big way.   

Hysterical Reporting on EPA's TRI Program

Memeorandom linked to a story on proposed changes to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting program.  It's titled EPA Wants to Radically Gut Pollution Rules on the front page of the website, and EPA Quietly Attempts to Radically Change Pollution Rules  on the article itself.  Hmm, only a wee bit slanted....As is the norm these days in environmental programs, there are LOTS of inaccuracies.

The EPA has been collecting and reporting TRI data since 1996.  It's trying to make TRI reporting less burdensome for the 23,000 companies that have to submit annual reports on toxic releases.  ("Release" means many things, including emission, disposal, treatment and recycling.)  From the article:

"During the cleanup after Hurricane Katrina, local officials and the Environmental Protection Agency depended on one source to find hotspots of toxic chemicals: a database known as the Toxic Release Inventory....Until a few weeks ago, the inventory was to be slashed to comply with the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act. The EPA said they were gutting the 20-year-old database to save paper."

Patently false, the proposed changes are for reporting thresholds and frequency of reporting. The EPA is not going to "slash the inventory" or "gut the database."  It's widely recognized as a pretty useful database.  EPA is trying to make it less burdensome to comply with.

"Under the plan, companies would report biannually instead of annually and would only have to report toxic releases of more than 5,000 pounds. Currently, the EPA requires reporting of any releases greater than 500 pounds."

Yes, reporting is proposed every two years instead of every year.  Probably not a big deal (or a big savings) one way or the other. However, the article is incorrect in stating that the threshold of reporting toxic compounds is going down from 5,000 lbs to 500 lbs.  The proposed change is for which form to use in reporting use and releases of chemicals (simple Form A versus complicated Form R), not in whether they are reported at all.   

"The EPA...decided to change the database "out of the blue" in 2005."

The EPA held public meetings on these proposed changes between November 2002 and February 2004. The proposed changes were published in the Federal Register and there were public comment periods.  There's nothing secretive or "out of the blue" about it.

"The cut would also change, for the first time ever, the way the most toxic chemicals, known as Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins, are reported. These toxins -- including lead, mercury and dioxin -- can't naturally be disposed of by the body."

Again, an incorrect statement. According to EPA,  dioxin and dioxin compounds are specifically excluded from this proposal.   The reporting of dioxins as PBTs is not going to change.  And under the proposal, facilities may use the simpler Form A for PBTs providing there is no release to the environment (zero release) and they don't manage more than 500 lbs. of the chemical.  These people fear change, don't they? 

The article manages to get a lot of things wrong. Maybe there are reasons to be concerned with these proposed changes, but I can't trust anything this article says. One wonders why Memeorandom linked to something so inaccurate and slanted.   

African Nations Want DDT, EU Threatens Sanctions

Gateway Pundit covers the efforts of African nations including Uganda, Kenya and Namibia to use DDT to fight malaria.  The European Union is theatening trade sanctions against Uganda if they use DDT. 

Uganda will proceed with the use of the pesticide DDT to control malaria, despite threats by the European Union that it could lead to its agricultural exports being locked out.

"We have to kill malaria using DDT and the matter has been settled that DDT is not harmful to humans and if used for indoor-insecticide spraying. It's the most effective and cheapest way to fight malaria," Mr Muhwezi (Ugandan official) said.

The application of DDT now bears no resemblance to how DDT was used in the 40's and 50's in the U.S.  DDT is applied with a wand sprayer to indoor surfaces, not aerial spraying with crop dusters.   

"Malaria remains one of the globe's leading infectious killers. Estimates of annual deaths caused by malaria range between 700,000 and 2.7 million. More than 75 percent of these deaths occur in children in sub-Saharan Africa."

It is abominable that the EU would stand in the way of an effective remedy for malaria which would saves millions of lives.  Junk Science has more articles and data on this.

Not So Smart Diesel Spill Response

Squaring the Boston Globe points out the absurdity of a emergency spill response on the Southeast Expressway in Boston earlier this week.  The traffic delay (4-12/ hours!) caused by the cleanup no doubt resulted in enormous emissions of petroluem hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, all in order to prevent several gallons of diesel fuel from getting into the Boston Harbor.  Not so smart.....

Increase in Wetlands Acreage - The Sky is Still Falling

This story on wetlands broadcast on NPR last week reminds me why I don't take much stock in the Global Warming hoopla.  It probably is a real phenomena, but I don't believe in much of anything the environmentalists have say about it.  They've been forecasting nothing but environmental disasters since the early 1970's.  In their eyes, the sky is always falling.

Last week's press release from the US Department of the Interior:   

"Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton today released a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report that shows a net gain in America’s nonagricultural and agricultural wetlands for the first time since the Service began compiling data in 1954....... approximately 191,800 acres of wetlands were gained between 1998 and 2004, bringing the nation’s total wetlands acreage to 107.7 million acres, or 5 percent of the land area of the lower 48 states." 

Can the environmentalists be pleased about this, the very first time wetlands acreage has increased since that was measured over a half a century ago?  No, of course not!  That's because the environmentalists are unhappy that there was still a loss of the swampy, marshy wetlands (good wetlands), and the gain in wetlands acreage was largely due to the construction of stormwater retention ponds (bad wetlands). 

"Patrick Megonigal, a wetlands scientist at the Smithsonian's Environmental Research Center, said there is no question that the nation loses something when it trades a natural wetland for an artificial pond.... "Not all wetlands are created equal," Megonigal said. "There are many different types of wetlands, and we're losing in many cases highly functioning, high-quality wetlands and replacing them with low-quality wetlands."

This is true to a certain extent, and the DOI press release stated as much.  But "low-quality" wetlands are still a lot better than no wetlands.  And the DOI also credits wetlands restoration on conservation land as part of the net gain.  How can it be that neither of the environmentalists quoted in the NPR story said "We're glad that the trend of destruction of wetlands has reversed"? To the tree-huggers, there is never good news, it's all bad, and anything done under the Bush adminstration is doubly bad.  Environmentalists appear to be genetically incapable of acknowledging or being happy about the many significant improvements in environmental quality in the past 25 years.  It's never enough for them.