Green Science Online Blog

Lisa P. Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Earth Day, begun 40 years ago, has become one of many loud, incessant messages decrying our ill-treatment of Planet Earth.

Today in 2010, let’s look at America’s progress in the Environmental sector.  Even the most environmentally unfriendly SUV engine today puts out far cleaner emissions than any car built in 1970.  Yet this year once again, the EPA has insisted on another round of crackdowns and cleanups of  auto emissions, including that Most Evil of All Emissions–CO2.

Since CO2 is actually a necessary substance for any kind of green plant to grow, an outsider might wonder–is it really CO2 emissions the EPA is after, or is the car itself?

A survey of our country’s lakes, rivers and beaches will find that overall, the United States has one of the cleanest, most “environmentally sound” environments in the world.

Up until now, businesses have worked within a partnership that included local, state and yes, federal regulations, which has proved effective and the best in the world at balancing environmental with monetary benefits.

But with the addition of a “Carbon Tax” or any kind of cap or tax on carbon dioxide emissions, or on gasoline for that matter, free enterprise as we know it can not continue. In fact, if taken to its logical extreme, every human being on the Planet could be liable for the carbon dioxide emitted with each breath we exhale.

Could it be that preserving the physical environment is not the real purpose of the Greenies?  Could it be that their real aim is the heart of our country’s greatness, as laid out in the Constitution of the United States?  Is it our individual freedoms, even down to including the right to breathe, that the government wishes to control?

If that’s a ridiculous statement (which it is), then who is to say where

it stops? Right now, EPA has arbitrarily set CO2 emissions caps on only the “LARGEST” emitters, including coal-fired power plants, our country’s most essential source of electricity.

But the Agency reserves the right, based as they say on an erroneous 2007 Supreme Court decision, to regulate CO2 emissions just as they regulate demonstrably toxic emissions such as sulfur dioxide and NOx. Those toxins are now regulated to extremely minute quantities, and if CO2 were similarly regulated, every home in America would be subject to the regulations.

Obviously, the EPA is out of control here and it may need some help to cut itself back down to size.

Climate Science NOT Settled

Even though the mainstream media downplayed its importance, the release of thousands of digital documents from the Hadley Climate Research Unit in England last November showed that even those scientists most committed to the concept of human-caused global warming are not in lock-step agreement.

And it also gave lay-people a good glimpse of the “under-belly” of science–that scientists are just as human and just as prone to pride, petty arguments and a vengeful spirit as anyone else.

When digging for truth, it’s rarely easy to say that the science is “settled.”  There are so many pieces of the universe that are far from being competely understood by scientists, how earth’s climate works being one of them.

That fact that the planets and Sun revolve around the earth was “settled” for millenia, though there were “skeptics” all along.  Newtonian Mechanical theory explained a lot, but it turned out to be only a special case of the more universal theory of Quantum Mechanics, which itself  had to be revised several times during the last century.

Saying that “the science is settled” on the theory that human-caused global warming is dooming our planet is about as crazy as saying that the science is settled on the causes of and cures for cancer.

One of the most shocking facts from the exposed emails is the way these pillars of the scientific community decided that if they couldn’t control the peer review process at a scientific journal, they would conspire to shut it down.

And to say that the scientists who wrote those embarrassing emails should be respected for their “peer reviewed” research and their status as IPCC big-shots, while other scientists, who stayed away from the political game, are not “qualified,” is whitewash.  Or greenwash.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Click here for a Free Mini-Course:

Six Startling Facts You Need to Know Before Changing Another Light Bulb!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Will CFL Recycling Regulations Reduce Savings for Consumers?

This month, Maine became the first state to pass a law requiring compact fluorescent bulb manufacturers to pay for a mandatory CFL recycling program.

CFLs are highly efficient alternatives to standard incandescent light bulbs.   But all CFLs contain toxic mercury, which is released into the environment when the bulbs are crushed and broken in landfills.  The mercury can percolate down into the water table and out into streams and rivers, where it builds up in the tissues of fish.  When humans and other predators consume the fish, they risk mercury poisoning.

A recycling program would set up central collection sites where homeowners can drop off burned out and broken CFL bulbs.  The bulbs would be shipped in sealed containers to a recycling plant for processing.  Most of the mercury in the CFLs would be collected and reused.  The rest would go to hazardous waste disposal sites.

The program would be financed by CFL manufacturers.  Unfortunately, that cost would probably be passed on to consumers, which creates a problem.

Many consumers are turning to CFLs to help save money on utility bills.  But with a price increase caused by the new recycling regulations, will they see their savings evaporate?

And more importantly, are other energy efficient lightbulbs, such as LEDs and energy saver halogen bulbs, which don’t contain mercury, realistic alternatives to CFLs?

———————————————————————-

Sign up here for a free mini-course:

Six Startling Facts You Need to Know BEFORE Changing Another Light Bulb

———————————————————————-

For help in converting your entire home to energy efficient light bulbs, download my electronic book, The Energy Efficient Light Bulb Buyer’s Guide.

Choose the right energy efficient light bulb

The greenest energy source is the kind you never have to use.  Or, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, “A kilowatt saved is a kilowatt earned.”

Those who want to save money on electric bills (and those who want to reduce their carbon dioxide footprint)  need to convert their incandescent bulbs to energy efficient light bulbs.  But which type is best? CFLs? LEDs? Or is there another choice?

Now available from Green Science Online Publishing, The Energy Efficient Light Bulb Buyer’s Guide is ready for instant download.

Click here for more information on how to save money and energy with energy efficient light bulbs.

By now, all our readers have heard of the FOOD vs. FUEL controversy. Does the large-scale production of biofuels from corn and other crops help or hurt people and the environment? Have we created a world-wide food shortage and increased water pollution by trying to decrease our dependence on oil, as well as our carbon dioxide “footprint?”

There are no easy, quick answers to this question–no snappy sound bites. The solutions will only be found in rigorous, peer-reviewed research, private investment in development, and many years of time. Meanwhile, what should we citizens encourage our political representatives to do?

For one thing, don’t panic. And don’t try to overhaul our entire energy economy overnight by piling on crippling fuel taxes and legislating drastic quotas for renewable fuel percentages that nobody realistically expects to be able to meet.

And for another thing–let’s ratchet down the mud-slinging. Both sides have valuable input. Let’s hear respectfully from ALL the parties involved.