Making fun of the misled, again.

High school students in Denver got a pair of Democratic legislators to back a bill that will impose a 6 cent fee on plastic bags at the grocery store (really, the language includes all very large stores), and ultimately require that the bags be phased out by 2012. Half the fee goes towards education on the eventual phase-out. The bill is a good one, though maybe not of the most pressing urgency.

The nay-sayers (conservatives) argue that the bill is bad because then we'll just use more paper bags, which require more resources to produce. Well, that is true about paper bags. It just completely overlooks the point--to get people to use reusable bags. Not paper bags, which also contribute to landfills and litter. High school kids aren't that retarded. Unless they're conservatives too, of course.

If you read the article, you might notice the comment that the bill implicates TABOR. Well, if the author knew the difference between a tax and a fee (knowledge absolutely essential to any discussion regarding TABOR), the article might read differently. TABOR specifically allows fees without a consent vote, and a fee is a flat "tax" (it cannot be based on income, for example) that goes to pay for a specific service. The 6 cents per bag is a flat fee (it doesn't depend on how much you spend on groceries, for example--that would make it a tax), and the bill designates precisely what the revenue is to be spent on--the service of educating the public about the bag phase-out. Looks like a fee to me.

All that aside, my favorite part of the op-ed piece is the comments submitted by readers. Naturally, they take the form of debate between those who support the bill, mostly liberals, and those opposed, mostly conservatives. My favorite comment is this one:

I refuse to recycle.
I flush the toilet multiple times.
I use plastic bags and throw them in the garbage.
I drive a car and only worry about emissions at inspection time.
I put used kitty litter in the trash.
I use paper towels.
I use old incandescent bulbs.
I intentionally try to put as much carbon back into the environment that I can.
I refuse to yeild the road I pay taxes to keep up to bicycles.
I run the washing machine with just a few items in it.

I take pride in being a contrarian disestablishmentarain who "fights the environmentalist whacko establishment" any time I can, in my own little way. Mankind, even if totally focused on doing so, CANNOT destroy the planet, nor its environment.

That last sentence is especially my favorite. I'll bet this guy is a big supporter of the Heartland Institute.

No "poo"

Since I totally lack the ability to come up with my own subject matter, here is another post that I have ripped off from another blogger. At least I know Miss Grace personally.

A little while back, Miss Grace posted a link (here's Grace's post) about going shampoo-free, and as soon as I read it I was convinced. I have to admit that I avoid regular dish soapi and laundry detergent (with phosphates and so on) like the plague, but failed to think about the horribleness that is shampoo. So, I almost immediately went "no-poo" (almost because I was out of baking soda and had to trek to the store for some). I am so pleased! My hair feels perfectly clean, and I love not using shampoo (not least of all because I use the expensive kind, and it's, well, expensive). Baking soda works remarkably well, and I can't wait to try all the fun other stuff I can add, like chamomile and lavender.

On a side note, Rex is going "poo-free" with me, and I put the baking soda mix in a green shampoo bottle. Remembering that it was in the green bottle, he washed his hair with a large amount of Clinique face wash (I know, I need to get off that too. Any suggestions?). He didn't like it as well as the baking soda.

Every day I get a little more "hippie," and every day I love it more. My food is more expensive, but most other stuff is cheaper (like baking soda, tupperware rather than ziplocs, walking not driving, ...). I recommend hippie-ness whole-heartedly. But please, I think we should all continue to bathe (using water in your home is not actually very wasteful, most of it is recycled, and soon we'll all be drinking our used water, and so, yeah, please bathe).

Beef, humanely

I went vegetarian for a while, mostly for ethical reasons related to how our meat is raised. I've gone back to meat, and will admit that though I try to eat only ethical meat, on my budget I "cheat" way too frequently. My own hypocrisy aside, here is a post from the Daily Coyote about cows and grass-fed (and finished) beef, which is the only kind any of us should ever eat. Grass-fed, which is as opposed to grain-fed, means the cows have been out to pasture eating grass their whole lives (it must also be grass-finished, a cow can be grass-fed and then sent to a feedlot for "finishing," which defeats the whole purpose). Grain fed cattle are those from the infamous CAFOs, which are concentrated animal feeding operations. If you've ever driven through the Davis area in California, you've been by a CAFO. Cows are packed tightly and wallow in their own waste, being stuffed grain (which is not nearly as good for them as grass). The result is a cow inhumanely treated, and on the consumer end it is not only unethical but has 500 times the saturated fat of a grass-fed steer. Writing this is a good reminder to me how important it is to eat ethical meat. I am lucky because in Boulder, I have access to great beef at relatively affordable prices, and it's local to boot. I can also get it in several restaurants, which is a place where people tend to cheat the most when trying to eat ethically. You might not be as lucky, but not only are CAFOs inhumane, they contribute a remarkable amount to climate change--the methane emitted by cattle is toxic for the environment, and more potent that carbon dioxide in it's global warming ability. Grass-fed cattle don't release any less methane, but if we try to eat ethically, we tend to eat less meat, which is better, anyway.
Thanks to the Daily Coyote for posting about this (again), it's an issue I think about a lot.

If I can't see it, it's not there.

EPA decided to classify GHGs as a pollutant, pursuant to Massachusetts v. EPA, the April 2007 case that required the EPA to determine whether or not they are. This is, of course, the only logical decision. If you don't think that GHGs are a pollutant (defined as "endangering the public health or welfare), then you are a moron and surely voted for Bush. Twice. Well, it would be a giant leap in the right direction for EPA to make this decision, except that the Bush Administration refused to open the email containing the decision. In refusing to do so, it has de facto refused to accept the ruling, and so it doesn't matter. This is really how it works? If I don't read the email, it didn't happen? So now EPA will go back and write another memo that doesn't come to a conclusion as to whether or not GHGs are pollutants for purposes of the Clean Air Act; it will just review some science and say the evidence is incomplete (along the lines of, we're not sure about climate change/global warming, the science is inconclusive). Stevens is gonna be so pissed.

Air Conditioning

Why is it that in the summer, when it's effing hot outside, businesses insist on setting the AC so low? Every time I leave the house, it's ninety degrees outside (maybe more). So, I make sure to wear pants and grab a sweater, because it's sure to be freezing wherever I go. I'm having lunch on another scorching summer day, and can barely feel my numb fingers it's so cold in this restaurant. I am wearing jeans and a wool sweater. I work for an environmental group that specializes in energy security, and our office is always FREEZING. Given the current state of our energy security (that is, seriously not secure), can someone tell me what the rationale for this is?