Tag Archives: environment

SEMI-VICTORY: Beach Town Backs Down on Balloon Ban

Kids in Wrightsville Beach are now free to possess balloons, but will be fined $250 if they accidentally release them.

Kids in Wrightsville Beach are now free to possess balloons, but will be fined $250 if they accidentally release them.

An attempt to the criminalize possession of balloons in a N.C. beach town has been shot down. However, Wrightsville Beach aldermen say anyone who fails to hold on to their balloon(s) will get slapped with a $250 fine.

On Nov. 25, the Nanny State Liberation Front was among the first to report that Wrightsville Beach aldermen, by a 3-2 vote, criminalized the “possession and/or release of inflated balloons on the local beachfront.”

The balloon-banning bureaucrats argue that sea turtles confuse deflated balloons for yummy jellyfish, resulting in suffocation and death.

If anyone can provide some local sea turtle casualty statistics to justify the $250 fine for intentionally or accidentally releasing balloons, sound-off below. We just haven’t read about any statistical evidence of the alleged atrocities — it’s all been emotional rhetoric coming from the aldermen, so that’s why we’re curious.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Stealth Carbon Taxes Already Robbing Citizens Blind

Art Horn from the EnergyTribune.com reveals:

Ready to pull the plug yet?

Ready to pull the plug yet?

Depending on what state you live in, you may be paying taxes on your energy bill to help stop global warming. That’s right, you may have been enlisted as a soldier in the war against climate change and you may not even know it! And as a soldier in this war, depending on your state’s policies you have no choice whether to fight or not … I wonder how many millions of people around the country pay their utility bills each month and have no idea what they are funding?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Feds’ New Emissions Standards Threaten Already Unstable Economy

Ultimately, the Enviro-Statists would love for farmers and truckers to return to their roots.

Ultimately, the Enviro-Statists would love for farmers and truckers to return to their roots.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released an extremely vague press release, but one thing was clear: Consumer prices will rise in 2014 due to rigid new emissions standards targeting America’s truckers and farmers.

Beginning in model year 2014, new heavy-duty trucks and tractors must be fitted with environmentally-friendly engines that achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. That means truck and tractor manufacturers will be forced to spend millions in research and design and pass the cost on to their customers who will — you guessed it — pass that cost on to American consumers, unless you believe what Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is saying:

“This is a win-win-win for the environment, businesses and the American consumer.”

Wishful thinking by LaHood, but nowhere in the press release does he spell out the real costs to America’s truckers and farmers who will soon have no choice other than to purchase these federally-mandated eco-friendly big rigs and tractors. LaHood, however, hypothesizes:

With the potential for significant fuel efficiency gains, ranging from seven to 20 percent, drivers and operators could expect to net significant savings over the long-term. For example, it is estimated an operator of a semi truck could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and save as much as $74,000 over the truck’s useful life. Vehicles with lower annual miles would typically experience longer payback periods, up to four or five years, but would still reap cost-savings.

Hey, Ray! Enough with the guessing games and speculation! Tell truckers and farmers how much they will actually pay for these new ‘green’ trucks and tractors. You were kind enough to note that they’d likely be going in to the red during at least the first year of ownership, meaning they won’t likely turn profits unless they jack-up their prices for transporting consumer goods and harvesting crops.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson also fails to look at the bigger picture that could unfold in 2014 and beyond if these new emissions standards make the cost of business for truckers and farmers too much to bear, and ultimately, puts them out of business:

“These new standards are another step in our work to develop a new generation of clean, fuel-efficient American vehicles that will improve our environment and strengthen our economy,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “In addition to cutting greenhouse gas pollution, greater fuel economy will shrink fuel costs for small businesses that depend on pick ups and heavy duty vehicles, shipping companies and cities and towns with fleets of these vehicles.  Those savings can be invested in new jobs at home, rather than heading overseas and increasing our dependence on foreign oil.”

Again, wishful thinking by another big government bureaucrat for a best case scenario in which truckers and farmers can afford to purchase expensive new trucks and tractors that may or may not ‘pay for themselves’ over the years to follow.

Soviet-style food shopping coming in 2014?

Soviet-style food shopping coming in 2014?

The underlying fact is that American consumers will ultimately pay the price for the new emissions technology LaHood and Jackson are pushing, and right now, in this economy, that’s not a very enlightening scenario. And, if consumers are not willing to or can not afford to foot the bill for increased costs of everyday necessities –including food, toilet paper and oil transported by truckers — well, things are going to get ugly pretty quick.

NOTE: “NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings: one in Chicago on November 15, 2010, and one in Boston on November 18, 2010. Sessions may end earlier than scheduled if everyone has had a chance to speak.” Those two dates are your only opportunities to make your voice heard, according to the EPA. Chances are you won’t be able to attend, so make sure your congressman and senators know what’s at stake for consumers, truckers and farmers.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

City Wants Residents to Drop Leaf Blowers and Pick Up Rakes

Enviro-statist dictators want citizens to ditch progress and power tools.

Enviro-statist dictators want citizens to ditch progress and power tools.

The last time we heard from the nanny state bureaucrats in Coral Gables, Fla., they were busy defending a pick-up truck ban in court, which they won. Now, the ritzy city vying for the title of San Francisco East is trying to ban leafblowers right when residents need them most.

“Some people look at leaf blowers as a necessity. I look at it as a convenience,” City Commissioner Ralph Cabrera told The Miami Herald. “When people say they won’t be able to keep their lawns tidy, I ask them, ‘How did the world stay tidy and clean before leaf blowers? It did.'”

Jose Perez, owner of a local landscaping company, said a leaf blower ban would force him to hire more workers to rake customers’ lawns and each job would take much longer to complete. As a result, he said he’d have to charge customers more for his company’s services.

“Honestly, it’s funny because I really think the government should be worrying about other things right now instead of leaf blowers,” Perez said.

Tired of enviro-statist dictators trying to reverse progress and send us back to the Pre-Industrial era so we can live like early American settlers? Join the Nanny State Liberation Front and strike back against big government bureaucrats who only embrace ‘progress’ and ‘change’ when it makes you subservient to them.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Enviro-Statists Get Antarctic Cruises Banned

No more cruises, but you can still fly a jumbo jet to Antarctica! Go figure.

No more cruises, but you can still fly a jumbo jet to Antarctica! Go figure.

If you’ve ever considered taking a cruise to Antarctica, now is the time to do it. Beginning Aug. 1, 2011, large cruise ships will be banned from Antarctic waters because the “heavy” fuel they carry poses risks to penguins, seals, polar bears, whales, glaciers, icebergs and the chilly seas.

The Miami Herald reports that Princess Cruises, Oceania and Regent will be making their final voyages to the region in 2010 while Holland America plans to modify its fuel to something more environmentally-friendly, should their ships sink. Celebrity Cruises says it will switch its fuel, as well, but only if legally required.

“The reasoning is that a spillage of this type of fuel is considered too much of a risk—and accidents do happen, as we witnessed in 2007, when Gap Adventures’ M/S Explorer was holed by ice and sank,” explains the South Atlantic News Agency.

Interestingly, a 2007 post-accident report from the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) explained that the M/S Explorer sinking posed “no adverse affects on the environment.”

Here we go again with another draconian ban that stops business dead in its tracks. Countless human beings have been killed in transportation accidents over the past century, yet not once have we seen a ban on airplanes, automobiles, motorcycles, boats or bicycles. Now, when an oil rig or cruise ship sinks, all business is drawn to a grinding halt as to never endanger wildlife ever again.

Chime-in below with your explanation for why and how enviro-statists are able to get away with this.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Over-Idling Motorists Targeted by City

Stop-and-go traffic could get a lot more annoying in Salt Lake City when the '2-minute rule' goes into effect.

Stop-and-go traffic could get a lot more annoying in Salt Lake City when the '2-minute rule' goes into effect.

Idle more than two minutes in Salt Lake City, Utah, and you could face a fine up to $410. City officials are pondering a law that will target parents waiting to pick-up their kids from school and other motorists standing idle in so-called “hot zones” where vehicle emissions are blamed for diminishing air quality.

An anti-idling ordinance is currently under review by city council members and could go in to effect as early as this winter, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Mayor Ralph Becker’s crackdown on over-idling would exclude idling police cars, hybrid vehicles, refrigerated trucks and vehicles that require engines remain idling for “safety or health” purposes. Vehicles idling in citizens’ driveways are also exempt, for now, but that’s likely to change when the ordinance is enacted.

Councilman Soren Simonsen boasted that he and his fellow big government bureaucrats aren’t concerned about telling citizens what they can and can not do on their private property, so targeting cars idling on private driveways doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, he says.

“We certainly regulate a lot of things on private property,” Simonsen said. “I don’t think it’s a legal question; it’s just how much of a chunk do we want to bite off.”

Agree or disagree with the proposed ordinance to monitor and crackdown on citizens’ idling time, including when it occurs on their private property such as driveways and garages?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

FOX News Panel Discusses ‘Nanny State Running Wild’

“Critics fear ‘Nanny State’ is killing jobs in America.”

They discuss – you decide. Share your ‘fair and balanced’ thoughts below.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Bright Lights + Big Government = Dimwits

Only a government light bulb could come with this many warnings.

Only a government light bulb could come with this many warnings.

Beginning in 2012, old-fashioned light bulbs will be phased-out and replaced with those super-expensive “energy-efficient” bulbs. Unfortunately, while the eco-statists in Congress were salivating over compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) that resemble soft-serve ice cream cones, they neglected to consider the harmful effects the soon-to-be-government mandated bulbs pose to the public and environment.

“Critics of CFLs argue that exposure to mercury vapor is dangerous if the bulbs are broken, and others complained about CFL bulbs causing migraines and epilepsy attacks, resulting in medical groups asking for exemptions for those with health problems,” report Kelsey Huber and Nicholas D. Loris for Human Events. “They also point out that CFLs do not work well in colder temperatures nor do they work with dimmer switches.”

These problems and a handful more were not foreseen by Congress when they were being wooed by CFL manufacturers and their lobbyists write Huber and Loris. “That’s why lawmakers shouldn’t be telling people what lights to use in their homes,” they say.

The reason why Congress is banning traditional incandescent light bulbs is “simple” say Huber and Loris citing economist Don Bourdreaux‘s take on the issue:

Any legislation forcing Americans to switch from using one type of bulb to another is inevitably the product of a horrid mix of interest-group politics with reckless symbolism designed to placate an electorate that increasingly believes that the sky is falling.

Based on Boudreaux’s observation, Huber and Loris summize that Congress moved ahead with the ban under the guise of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and that paved the way for CFL manufacturers and their lobbyists to take advantage of another ‘crisis’ so they could “force consumers to use their more expensive products.”

Gone will be jobs for those who once manufactured incandescent bulbs, as well as the companies that haven’t embraced the ‘change’ promised by CFL light bulbs. It is still within Congress’ power to reverse the upcoming ban on traditional light bulbs, and they’d be wise to consider that few consumers purchase the costly CFLs without rebates or other government incentives.

Huber and Loris conclude that it’s up to American citizens to make their voices heard now before they’re left out in the dark:

Demand for cheap incandescents is not going to change because of legislation, so the only option left to environmentalists is to remove the incandescent light bulb from the market altogether and make it impossible for consumers to light their houses inexpensively. CFLs may have a role in the marketplace, but we should let the consumer decide what that role should be.

This is one example of the absurdity of federal regulations and highlights how bureaucrats pointlessly try to change human behavior. The regulatory burden grew tremendously during President George W. Bush’s tenure and is only getting worse under President Obama’s. It is a trend that restricts freedom and choice in the marketplace and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. It is a trend that the government should reverse.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Obesity Alarmists Want Citizens to Surrender to the State

You've been warned!

You've been warned!

Conservative talk show host Mark Levin includes an enormous list of global warming alarmists’ propaganda efforts that have been promoted by the State-Run Media in his best-selling book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. Inspired by Levin’s efforts to expose the fear mongers as sensationalist frauds, the Nanny State Liberation Front has compiled its own list of radical claims made by pseudo-journalists who have charged themselves with saving us all from the so-called obesity ‘epidemic.’

Below, we list a slew of recent news articles from across the globe detailing the various illnesses, diseases, ailments and side-effects of obesity that seem to effect every human being with a pulse. Unless you adhere to the lifestyle behavior modifications as prescribed by nanny state bureaucrats and junk scientists that support their radical agendas to control every aspect of your life, you are doomed to a life of obesity-induced misery, as evidenced by the following reports:

Obesity linked to worse memory in older women
The Boston Globe; July 19, 2010

Junk food diet puts children at higher risk of allergies
Telegraph (UK); August 2, 2010

Obesity trend means more people are using canes and walkers
The Los Angeles Times; July 28, 2010

Pediatric hypertension: The pressure’s on [fat] kids, too
New York Daily News; August 12, 2010

Fat employees take more time off work
The Times of India; August 9, 2010

Depression linked to obesity
NDTV.com; August 9, 2010

Obesity may raise the risk of preterm birth
CTV.ca (Canada); July 21, 2010

Obesity is Contagious
HuffingtonPost.com; July 27, 2010

Obesity’ linked’ to womb cancer
The Press Association; July 21, 2010

Obesity Linked To Cancer
WorldBreakingNews.com; August 9, 2010

Is obesity contributing to high c-section rates?
Reuters; August 12, 2010

Obesity linked to lower risk of glaucoma in women (Some good news!)
Reuters; August 12, 2010

Childhood obesity may be behind mystery of ever-earlier puberty in girls
McClatchy Newspapers; August 10, 2010

Too Much Pregnancy Weight Gain Raises Child’s Obesity Risk
WebMD.com; August 4, 2010

Obesity linked to lower sperm count in young men
Montreal Gazette (Canada); August 11, 2010

Death Rate From Obesity Doubles
Ivanhoe Newswire; August 4, 2010

Barbecue blamed for obesity
WeightWorld.com (UK); August 11, 2010

Obesity as Young Adult May Boost Psoriatic Arthritis Risk
U.S. News & World Report; July 19, 2010

Colorectal Cancer and Obesity Linked
EmaxHealth.com; July 26, 2010

Obesity Linked to Poor School Performance
HuffingtonPost.com; July 27, 2010

Omega Imbalance and Obesity Linked
HealthRelatedInfos.com; July 17, 2010

Obesity linked to fat and flat feet
NDTV.com; August 6, 2010

Obesity Linked to Poor Memory in Older Women
WeightLossSurgeryChannel.com; July 23, 2010

Fibromyalgia, Obesity, and Depression Linked
EmaxHealth.com; July 21, 2010

Obesity linked with high triglyceride level
TopNews.in; July 29, 2010

Obese patients struggling with sleep disorders
ABC News (Australia); August 16, 2010

Obesity among US schoolchildren ‘a risk to national security’
Telegraph (UK); April 25, 2010

That’s all we have for now. We’ll be sure to continue adding to this list as we discover new scare tactics being devised by nanny state bureaucrats for dissemination by their lap dogs in the media.

Now that you have just read our list spotlighting obesity alarmists’ efforts to scare Americans in to modifying their lifestyles and behaviors, we find it critical to note that, in his book, Levin warns of “Statists” utilizing the media to manipulate citizens by creating crisis upon crisis to force them in to total submission to governmental authority, ultimately, surrendering themselves to a ‘greater’ power that they have been trained to believe knows what is best for themselves and their families:

With the assistance of pliant or sympathetic media, the Statist uses junk science, misrepresentations, and fear mongering to promote public health and environmental scares, because he realizes that in a true, widespread health emergency, the public expect the government to act aggressively to address the crisis, despite traditional limitations on governmental authority. The more dire the threat, the more liberty people are usually willing to surrender. This scenario is tailor-made for the Statist. The government’s authority becomes part of the societal frame of reference, only to be built upon during the next “crisis.”

Tired of big government bureaucrats trying to tell you that you’re too stupid to make critical decisions with regards to your own lifestyle and behaviors? Join the Nanny State Liberation Front and strike back before they deal the final blow to all of your freedom and liberties!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Gas-Powered Golf Carts Targeted by Nanny City

Citizens in Peachtree, Ga. are expressing outrage over the city council’s plan to ban gas-powered golf carts that many consider their primary mode of transportation. A vote on Thursday night will determine the fate of the golf carts and potentially pave the way for the city to ban gas-powered yard tools.

A recent survey of residents, 96 percent of which claimed to own a golf cart, acknowledged that gas-powered golf carts are “smelly and noisy,” but those who haven’t fallen victim to the ‘green plague’ said the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefits. When compared to their battery-opertated counterparts, gas-powered golf carts, residents said, are better for their personal travel and leisure needs, and for the environment.

Gas-powered golf carts are better at negotiating big hills and longer distances, some survey respondents said. Gas carts are also cheaper to maintain, and it’s easier to refill them with gas than wait for an electric cart to be charged, some said on the survey.

A few people responding to the survey even argued that gas golf carts pollute less compared to electric carts once lead battery replacement and electricity generation is factored in.

Sound familiar? This discussion will soon be a hot topic among American citizens clinging to their gas-powered automobiles and government officials propagandizing the benefits of electric cars.

Among citizen responses, one noted that a gas golf cart is their family’s primary mode of transportation, and an electric cart would not do because of the long amount of time it takes to recharge.

“Basically if I can’t go there by golf cart I don’t want to go,” the respondent said.

“If you live on the south end of PTC and want to go to the north end plus do a little driving around, the charge on many golf carts won’t last,” said another respondent.

Kiss your long-distance vacation trips goodbye! To date, there is not a single electric car capable of driving 500 miles without stopping to recharge for 8 to 16 hours, depending on the electricity source.

“I do not see why Peachtree City needs to ban these carts as there is no evidence that they are detrimental to the community,” one respondent said. “It will also render personal property worthless which is not the job of local government.”

“My dislike of gas carts does not overcome the freedom of other citizens to make their own choice,” said another survey respondent. “This smacks of the heavy hand of the nanny state.”

Banning golf carts is just the first smack the nanny state has planned for the freedom-loving folks in Peachtree. If the ban on gas-powered golf carts passes Thursday evening, citizens are already wondering if their gas-powered lawnmowers, leaf blowers and weed-wackers are next to be banned.

Once again, we turn to our ‘magic eight ball’ to predict the fate of another group of citizens held hostage by nanny state bureaucrats. And, after a few shakes and a jiggle, the answer is, “You may rely on it.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine