Tag Archives: environmentalists

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

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

Anti-Hunting Groups Want Sportsmen to Use Safer Bullets and Fish Hooks

Perhaps the EPA will call this concerned citizen as an expert witness to support the anti-hunting groups' case. One can only hope!

Perhaps the EPA will call this concerned citizen as an expert witness to support the anti-hunting groups' case. One can only hope!

Concerned by the health risks posed to fish and wildlife by sportsmen’s lead-based bullets and fish hooks, anti-hunting groups are pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make hunting and fishing safer for animals, both dead and alive. Sportsmen counter that the anti-hunting effort is sheer propaganda supported only by junk science.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) plan to submit a petition to the EPA declaring that that “’it is now incontrovertible fact’ that lead fragments in the bodies of animals shot with lead bullets or lead pellets are “a serious source of lead exposure to scavenging animals’ and a health risk to humans who eat hunters’ kills,” The New York Times (NYT) reports.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has known about the efforts of anti-hunting activist groups since the CBD announced last month in an email alert their plan to launch in August a national campaign to ban the use of traditional ammunition throughout the entire United States. The NSSF wrote in a July 14 blog notice that it “considers the protection of traditional ammunition, specifically the ability of hunters and sportsmen to continue choosing for themselves the best ammunition to shoot, a legislative, regulatory and legal priority.”

Additionally, the NSSF details in an online “Fact Sheet” the propaganda and junk science that is being used by anti-hunting groups to support their on ban lead and traditional ammunition.

“Recently, some have falsely claimed that the use of traditional ammunition poses a danger to (1) wildlife, in particular raptors such as bald eagles, that may feed on entrails or unrecovered game left in the field and (2) that there is a human health risk from consuming game harvested using traditional ammunition,” the NSSF fact sheet states. “There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact to wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically-based restriction on waterfowl hunting. And, there is absolutely no evidence that consuming game harvested using tradition ammunition poses a human health risk. In fact, there has never been a single instance of an elevated lead level in a human in the history of the United States due consuming harvested game.”

The NYT was quick to take the CBD’s word that “Scientists” have found “compelling evidence of harm to many species” caused by lead-based bullets without citing (or asking for) any specific studies to back-up their claims. Maybe that’s because, as the NSSF notes, the evidence just isn’t there or is based on junk science supplied by doctors aligned with the anti-hunting groups.

“For more than a century, hundreds of millions of Americans have safely consumed game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition,” the NSSF notes. “Yet, in 2008, when a dermatologist from North Dakota who is on the board of the Peregrine Fund – a group whose stated mission it is to ban the use of traditional ammunition for hunting – claimed to have collected from food pantries packages of venison that contained fragments from lead bullets, many people became concerned and some officials overreacted to the allegations made at the time that this proved that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition posed a human health risk.”

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

The Revolution Has Begun – Join Us on Facebook

Over 15,000 strong on Facebook and growing, the Nanny State Liberation Front is recruiting freedom-loving Americans who want to stop the nanny state dead in its tracks and repair the damages big government bureaucrats have inflicted upon our great nation and its citizens.

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

Electric ‘Obamawagen’ Will Zap Taxpayers

The Chevy Volt, just like Obama's unicorn will be fueled by rainbows and hope!

The Chevy Volt, just like Obama's unicorn will be fueled by rainbows and hope!

Government Motors (GM) started taking customers’ orders this week for the Chevy Volt, a $41,000 electric car that “emerged from the cake at GM’s 100th birthday in 2008, and was instantly dubbed the ‘Barack Obama of automobiles,'” reports Canada’s Financial Post.

New owners of the ‘Obamawagen’ will recieve $7,500 subsidy from the U.S. government for their eco-friendly purchase and those lucky tree huggers in California will get “another couple of thousand bucks” in subsidies from the state and its taxpayers.

“Hope? Massive. Substance? Not so much,” says the Financial Post about the Volt’s promise to change the automotive industry, just like Obama tried to do. “President Obama has said that he wants a million plug-ins on the road by 2015. No way, and a good thing too. When it comes to energy independence, the necessary subsidies would likely do far more damage to the economy than anything petrotyrannies might threaten. And they can still sell their oil to China anyway.”

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

‘Green’ Author Links Air Conditioning to Global Destruction and Obesity

Needless suffering: It's a 'green' thing

Needless suffering: It's a 'green' thing

The Washington Post on Sunday didn’t let a good crisis go to waste, allowing a ‘green’ author to manipulate the D.C. region’s recent heatwave and scold readers for seeking comfort from the 100-plus-degree heat inside their air conditioned homes. Stan Cox, a “plant breeder” from Kansas, claims that despite serious health risks posed by the scorching heat, they are far outweighed by the potential environmental detriment caused by air conditioners, as well as an increased risk of obesity.

“In a country that’s among the world’s highest greenhouse-gas emitters, air conditioning is one of the worst power-guzzlers,” opined Cox. “A.C.’s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end.”

According to Cox, suffering needlessly from heat stroke and heat exhaustion is the price we must all pay in order to be good stewards of the earth. He explained in a July 5 Salon.com article that “a lot of the health problems that we need A.C. to solve, it may have contributed to in the first place.”

Cox says that air conditioning is likely the root cause of asthma and probably complicates symptoms suffered by those with allergies, so he suggests that is even more reason why those suffering from respiratory illnesses should avoid using air conditioners in their homes and parents of small children would be wise to do the same.

“[W]e need to consider the hypotheses that say that the current epidemic of those conditions is partly caused by lack of outdoor exposure to soil and friendly organisms,” Cox said. “Maybe if children were out in the yard making mud pies instead of in a cool, sterile environment all day long, they might have a lot more defense against those problems.”

Further, Cox warned that air conditioning is contributing to the so-called obesity ‘epidemic.’

“[W]e get into a downward spiral with air conditioning, because science shows that our biological tolerance for the heat is eroded if we spend almost all of our time in climate-controlled bubbles,” Cox said. “And it’s suspected of being a factor in weight gain because we tend to eat more when we’re in cool conditions.”

We’re going to love to hear what Cox thinks about those electric cars that will soon hit the roads and suck electricity from the same carbon-belching, coal-burning power plants that keep air conditioners humming all summer long. At least air conditioner use is seasonal — electric cars will be tapping in to the power grid all year long to recharge their batteries for several hours at a shot.

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

Green Fringe Seeks to Outlaw Leaf Blowers, Bring Back Brooms

sweep

The Green Fringe: Taking us back to the Stone Age with every 'sweeping' law that counters modern progress and industrial achievements.

The City of Sonoma, Calif. is considering a ban on leaf blowers courtesy of a local green activist citing potential risks to public health and the environment, as well as noise concerns.

“Leaf blowers are associated with a wide range of impacts to human health and the environment, including but not limited to respiratory illness and distress, air pollution from unburned fuel, redistribution of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, dust particles and animal feces into the air we breathe,” Sonoma resident Lisa Summers said in a 22-page anti-leaf blower report recently submitted to the city council.

June King, owner of the local Landmark Landscape Company, responded to Summers’ call to ban leaf blowers as something the citizens of Sonoma clearly do not support.

Over the course of her nearly 30 years as a landscape company owner, King said, “[N]one of my clients have ever asked me not to use one.”

The City currently restricts use of leaf blowers and other “residential power equipment” before 8 a.m., later on weekends and holidays, and every day after 6 p.m. Noise limits are set at 90 decibels, reports The Press Democrat.

Summers, however, seeks a return to the pre-Industrial era when people used brooms to sweep leaves, grass clippings and whatever other forms of debris gathered on their property.

The city council is set to discuss Summers’ concerns on Wednesday evening and weigh them against those of landscapers and citizens who embrace modern machinery as a means of making their businesses more cost-efficient and lives easier.

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