North Coast Online

Environment's Gotten Better -- Who Knew?

The UK's ever so much cleaner than it used to be.

Britain’s green and pleasant land has just got that bit pleasanter, researchers have concluded after measuring pollution levels.

Levels of a group of toxic chemicals polluting gardens and fields have fallen to their lowest point for more than 100 years, a nationwide survey has revealed.

Emissions of dioxins from factories and power plants have been stemmed so effectively by bans and caps that contamination levels in soil have fallen for the first time since the Industrial Revolution.

The most comprehensive survey of toxic chemicals polluting Britain’s towns and countryside has revealed that carcinogenic dioxin levels have fallen by 70   per cent since the late 1980s.

“Britain is definitely a pleasanter land than it was 30 years ago,” said Declan Barraclough, of the Environment Agency, who led the research that measured toxins at 200 locations across Britain.

The same has happened here, too, as anyone who remembers what driving down Route 5 when the Bethlehem Steel plant was still operating can attest.  I wonder sometimes if the current push to label CO2 a pollutant isn't partially the result of how successful we've been in controlling the real ones.  It's informative, I think, that the environmental movement never takes a time out to reflect on how far we've come.

You'd think they might want to pat themselves on the back occasionally for the huge strides America has taken to clean up its environment in the last 1/4 century.  But they never do.  I tend to interpret that as evidence that purifying the air or the soil isn't their primary objective.  Getting rid of the industry that caused the pollution is the real goal -- and they have to keep upping the ante to try and make that happen.

Is There A Doctor In The Car?

Hypermillers sound like your average, run-of-the-mill obsessive-compulsives to me.

Who Rejected Kyoto?

And here I thought that the rejection of the Kyoto Accords was settled science history, but Captain Ed cites an AP article that once again chastises the Bush administration for it.

President Bush rejected that accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfair excludes developing countries like China and India from its obligations. Pelosi, who strongly disagrees with that decision and many other of Bush's environmental policies, said Friday she said she wants to work with the administration rather than provoke it.

It's true that Bush has not embraced Kyoto but he wasn't the President when it was rejected.

Once again, the AP has failed to report the history of this treaty correctly. While Bush does not support the Kyoto approach, he had nothing to do with rejecting the pact. The Senate rejected it in 1997, almost four years before Bush took office. When Al Gore pushed Bill Clinton to sign the treaty, the Senate reacted by passing a resolution informing Clinton that Kyoto would not get ratified.

That resolution got sponsored by Chuck Hagel and Robert Byrd, and it passed by a roll call vote in which not a single Senator voted to support Clinton and Gore. The final vote was 95-0, and it included such Democratic luminaries as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barbara Boxer rejecting Kyoto. I have the resolution itself in the extended entry, and it makes clear that the Senate would not abide a pact which excluded the developing nations of China and India. Since it still does not include those countries, there is no reason to think that the Senate has changed its position, nor should it.

Clinton never lobbied to influence that vote and after the Senate's withering refusal, simply dropped the entire matter.  Either journalists at the AP are stupid and ignorant or they're wily and dishonest -- repeating a lie over and over might just convince enough people that it really happened the way they wish it had.

First, They Came For The Toilets

First, they mandated toilets that can't do the, um, job.  Now they've dictated washing machines that don't wash.  Even if you believe that mankind is ruining the earth (and I certainly don't), do you really advocate cheating people out of their hard-earned money for things that don't work?

Still A Go For Saving The Climate

Virginia Postrel has more on the fluorescent light bulb mercury kerfuffle. Yeah, they sound safe enough -- but I still don't think government should dictate them.

Surprise. DDT Works

DDT has been reintroduced in South Africa and initial figures indicate a 73% reduction in deaths from malaria.  Now, the 30 year long world-wide ban on allowing the use of DDT certainly doesn't justify a knee-jerk response against anthropogenic global warming -- but it does support skepticism about smug, environmental consensus.

Adding Insult To Injury

The Welland Canal strikes again.

A virus that has already killed tens of thousands of fish in the eastern Great Lakes is spreading, scientists said, and now threatens almost two dozen aquatic species over a wide swath of the lakes and nearby waterways.

The virus, a mutated pathogen not native to North America that causes hemorrhaging and organ failure, is not harmful to humans, even if they eat contaminated fish. But it is devastating to the ecosystem and so unfamiliar, experts said, that its full biological impact might not be clear for years. It is also having a significant impact on the lakes’ $4 billion fishing industry.

There is no known treatment for the virus. As a result, scientists are focusing on managing its spread to uncontaminated water — quite a challenge since the Great Lakes are linked and fall under the jurisdiction of several states and provinces in Canada.

“Updates over the winter suggest it has spread further than we thought, even last year,” said John Dettmers, a senior fisheries biologist for the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission in Ann Arbor, Mich.

“It’s really early,” Mr. Dettmers said. “As much as I’d like to say we know exactly what’s going on, we don’t. We’re all sitting here on the edge of our chairs waiting to see how bad it’s going to be this year.”

Besides killing Buffalo's economy, the Canal is now severely damaging our lake.  One bit of development we'd have been much better off without.

Rubbish, Literally

When regulations ostensibly designed to encourage recycling have the opposite effect, wouldn't you expect that the government might reconsider?  Nah.

A man who was fined for putting the wrong rubbish in a recycling bag has lost his appeal against conviction.

           

Michael Reeves, who denied putting paper in a bag meant for bottles and cans, said he was "devastated" by the decision.

The 29-year-old sports reporter must now pay an extra £350 costs in addition to the £100 fine and £100 costs imposed by Swansea magistrates last October.

Reeves, who was living in a flat at Carlton Terrace, Mount Pleasant, Swansea, at the time of the offence, said he would not be recycling his rubbish again.

He said he had tried recycling for a short while after moving to his current home in Tredworth, Gloucester, because all recyclables can go in the same box.

But he added: "After that decision I won't be doing it again. At the moment it's optional and I think that's the way it should be."

Swansea Crown Court heard evidence from Trevor Thomas, a member of the fly-tipping crew at the city council, who was called in to investigate the contents of a recycling bag outside Mr Reeves' flat on June 8.

Mr Thomas said: "It clearly states on the green recycling bags that cans and bottles go in together and paper must be put with nothing else with it."

He said that outside Mr Reeves' flat there was a bag containing half paper and half cans and there was a letter among the papers at the bottom bearing his name and address.

He said Carlton Terrace was a well-known hotspot for the dumping of all kinds of rubbish.

Even George Orwell would have found that story too unbelievable for publication.

Pigeon Birth-Control

How long before the environmental activists attack the GOP for this assault against nature.

It's That Easy

From Everybody's Column

It is gratifying that the topic of global warming has reached the politicians. The overwhelming complexity of the problem makes us feel that, as individuals, we can do nothing. Of course, we can tell our congressmen and other legislators that this is a problem that cannot be addressed too soon. This is probably the most important action we can take. But it is not completely satisfying.

There is something else one can do, that is, to buy fewer consumer goods. Every new product we purchase has used fossil fuels in its production as well as in its transportation to market. Some use fossil fuels in the product itself — just consider all those plastic bottles and plastic bags we use every day.

Making even small changes in our consumer habits will make us feel that we are helping. Awareness that a carbon fingerprint is involved when we purchase goods will result in fewer purchases. Setting an example for one’s family and friends may result in their taking a different attitude toward their purchases. This grass-roots efforts will complement and support the needed government action.

Beth Ruszczyk

Buffalo

No mention made of the people put out of work by our newfound eco-friendliness.  Though, I suppose they could all start selling carbon credits. Hello, is this Mr. Gore?  Yes, my name is Beth and I'm calling to tell you about. . .