Dear Friends,
Here are a couple items I thought you would want to follow.
Blessings,
Barrett
--------------------------------------------
EPA Moves to Regulate CO2
The EPA has announced it is moving forward with plans to regulate CO2 emissions. This threat has been held over our heads to put pressure on Congress to pass a CO2 control bill. Now that it looks like that isn’t going to happen any time soon, the EPA is starting to move forward with its Supreme Court-granted authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) through the Clean Air Act.
They announced their first move last week. They are requiring the auto industry to implement changes that will reduce GHG emissions in future cars and light trucks. They state:
“The standards proposed would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements.”
And yes, this is going to cost everyone some money. The EPA claims that their rules will add about $1,100 to the cost of a 2016 year vehicle. They say this is negligible compared to their estimate that a consumer will save $3,000 a year in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicle. Somewhere in one of their files one could probably find how they arrived at their calculation, but you can be sure they based it in part on their expectation that gasoline is going to be more expensive and that using less of it will result in savings for the driver. If we just drilled for our own oil, this would never be the case, but of course such thinking is not even part of the process in these circles.
Furthermore, this average cost/benefit calculation is an average. Those who drive less will not experience the same benefit, but their cars are still going to cost $1,100 more. So, who gets hit the worst? The poor, who will have to pay more for their cars, but who will drive less, and senior citizens, who no longer must commute to work and tend to use their cars less. In other words, the very people with the least disposable income will bear more of the cost and experience less of the benefit.
Also, you can be sure that the EPA didn’t calculate other costs that will result. For example, we already know that municipalities are feeling the effects of lower gasoline prices and less gas consumption. Their tax revenue on gas sales is down so badly that they are looking for alternative ways to raise money off of car drivers. One of the more popular ideas is to start taxing people for the miles they drive. Such a proposal will hit people who use their cars the most, which will reduce the benefit they are supposed to be getting through the EPA’s calculation, but they will still be paying $1,100 more for their cars. It will also add costs to the poor and senior citizens. While they are likely to drive fewer miles, they will still have to pay for the miles they will drive, adding more costs against the supposed savings.
Afghanistan Becomes Political
This week, President Obama decided to hold off on any decision to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Why? Liberal members on the Hill are questioning the wisdom of sending more troops.
Our commanders aren’t questioning it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has called for more troops. General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reportedly asking for 30,000 to 40,000 more troops.
Of course, there are a lot of factors to consider. Afghanistan has a history of bringing nations to their knees, but the crowd now fighting the call to send more troops to Afghanistan also fought the surge in Iraq. They can hardly be considered objective counselors in this issue.
Meanwhile, the insurgency is growing every day, and American and NATO troops are dying at higher rates. General David Petraeus recently called for patience in dealing with Afghanistan, which included a call for increased security, which I interpret, in part, to mean, more troops. He said,
“In Afghanistan, security is the principal concern, although there are numerous other challenges as well, with governmental legitimacy prominent among them. Clearly, the security trend in Afghanistan has been a downward spiral, with levels of violence at record highs in recent weeks.”
General Petraeus has proven he knows what he is doing. As far as I am concerned, his voice outweighs all the negative attitudes on Capitol Hill. We will soon find out if Afghanistan is going to be a political issue, or if President Obama will follow President Bush’s strategy of letting the experts fight our wars, and win them.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Preventive Care Savings Myth, Nuclear-Armed Iran, Global Warming Round Two, Mounting Financial Fear
Friends,
Here are some items I came across this week that I thought you would want to know about.
Blessings,
Barrett
The Preventive Care Savings Myth
President Obama has been talking lately about the need to force health insurance companies to provide free preventive health services. He claims that this strategy will save lives and money. Everyone is agreed that it will save lives, and that is certainly a worthwhile goal, but it will not save money. If preventive care saved money, every insurance company would be offering it. One thing you can be sure of, the insurance companies are in business to make money. They have crunched the numbers and they know that it is cheaper to treat the small percentage of people who develop diseases than to try to protect their entire customer base from potentially contracting them. I have no sympathy for insurance companies. They will always make their money. But for that very same reason, I know I can count on them to do whatever they can to control their costs. If preventive care saved them money, they would make it available. Since they don’t, it can only mean one thing—forcing insurance companies to offer preventive care FREE OF CHARGE will increase the costs of health insurance. Charles Krauthammer makes that very point, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/14/the_preventive_care_myth_97889.html. Here’s a paragraph from his article:
Get Ready for a Nuclear-Armed Iran
Despite the tough talk, the Administration has already accepted the fact of a nuclear-armed Iran and developed its response—a nuclear umbrella for Israel. In other words, if Iran nukes Israel, the U.S. supposedly would nuke Iran. Hillary Clinton promoted this option in April 2008 while she was a presidential candidate. This article in the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/13/iran-nuclear-arms-israel-obama, sums up things very well. Here is the author’s concluding statement:
The Next Round of Global Warming Legislation
Now that the UN has declared the world has only 4 months to avert a worldwide climate disaster, the pressure will mount to resume the legislative push for U.S. restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This isn’t a dead deal. Remember that the EPA has been given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and a mandate from the White House to do it if Congress fails to act.
If you want a glance at the future that lies ahead if our country turns down this road, I recommend a new book entitled Green Hell by Steve Milloy. He describes in excruciating detail the intrusive nature of a government that believes it has a mandate to reduce the amount of CO2 every person and company emits. For me, the picture comes into sharp focus with the simple little incandescent light bulb. In their inquisitorial environmental fervor the liberals in Congress have mandated an efficiency standard for them by 2012 that likely cannot be met. They want everyone to use compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) instead. Milloy has a section in his book about these little wonders. If you break one in your home, look out. They contain mercury vapor. This stuff is so dangerous that these bulbs cannot even be manufactured in the U.S.
Milloy includes the cleanup instructions provided by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection if someone is unfortunate enough to break one of these things. It has fourteen steps! If you don’t believe him—I was curious myself—here’s the link to the U.S. government’s Energy Star web page that describes what you need to do if you break a CFL in your house, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf:
How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:
• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:
• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.
5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials
• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
If the simple little light bulb has been turned into such a problem, imagine what will happen when the radical environmentalists get their hands on the rest of our lives.
Fears Mount Over Our Financial Future
Stories are becoming more numerous about the coming financial meltdown being precipitated by our country’s uncontrolled spending. Here are two stories worth taking the time to read. Mort Zuckerman’s article, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/09/2009-08-09_drowning_in_debt_obamas_spending_and_borrowing_leaves_us_gasping_for_air.html, “Drowning in Debt” includes these scary facts:
In his article “Public Spending’s Day of Reckoning” Desmond Lachman, http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/public-spending-finances-economy-debt-opinions-contributors-desmond-lachman.html?partner=email, writes,
In the current political environment, which response do you think we are likely to adopt?
Here are some items I came across this week that I thought you would want to know about.
Blessings,
Barrett
The Preventive Care Savings Myth
President Obama has been talking lately about the need to force health insurance companies to provide free preventive health services. He claims that this strategy will save lives and money. Everyone is agreed that it will save lives, and that is certainly a worthwhile goal, but it will not save money. If preventive care saved money, every insurance company would be offering it. One thing you can be sure of, the insurance companies are in business to make money. They have crunched the numbers and they know that it is cheaper to treat the small percentage of people who develop diseases than to try to protect their entire customer base from potentially contracting them. I have no sympathy for insurance companies. They will always make their money. But for that very same reason, I know I can count on them to do whatever they can to control their costs. If preventive care saved them money, they would make it available. Since they don’t, it can only mean one thing—forcing insurance companies to offer preventive care FREE OF CHARGE will increase the costs of health insurance. Charles Krauthammer makes that very point, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/14/the_preventive_care_myth_97889.html. Here’s a paragraph from his article:
“A study in the journal Circulation found that
for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if
all the recommended prevention activities were
applied with 100 percent success," the prevention
would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings,
increasing the country's total medical bill by 162
percent. Elmendorf additionally cites a definitive
assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine
that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive
care and found that more than 80 percent of
preventive measures added to medical costs.”
Get Ready for a Nuclear-Armed Iran
Despite the tough talk, the Administration has already accepted the fact of a nuclear-armed Iran and developed its response—a nuclear umbrella for Israel. In other words, if Iran nukes Israel, the U.S. supposedly would nuke Iran. Hillary Clinton promoted this option in April 2008 while she was a presidential candidate. This article in the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/13/iran-nuclear-arms-israel-obama, sums up things very well. Here is the author’s concluding statement:
“No one should want a nuclear-armed Iran andThis is precisely where our Administration is on this issue. The international community will be revisiting the Iran problem in September when the G20 group of industrialized and developing countries meets in Pittsburgh. Don’t expect any more from that meeting except some more meaningless saber-rattling. Iran already knows Obama’s bottom line, and it will hold out until he gets there.
new sanctions should certainly be tried. But
if we calculate correctly that the prospect of
an Iranian bomb ultimately comes down to a
question of Iranian willpower, then a mature
debate needs to be had about how we manage that
risk. Instead of threatening military action
that will only increase Iran's desire for nuclear
weapons while undermining opportunities for
democratic change, western powers should focus on
developing a robust deterrence framework that
provides security guarantees to vulnerable countries
and reminds Iran's leaders of what they stand to lose
by abusing their nuclear potential. Proliferation is
always a risk, but we can live with a nuclear Iran if
we have to.”
The Next Round of Global Warming Legislation
Now that the UN has declared the world has only 4 months to avert a worldwide climate disaster, the pressure will mount to resume the legislative push for U.S. restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This isn’t a dead deal. Remember that the EPA has been given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and a mandate from the White House to do it if Congress fails to act.
If you want a glance at the future that lies ahead if our country turns down this road, I recommend a new book entitled Green Hell by Steve Milloy. He describes in excruciating detail the intrusive nature of a government that believes it has a mandate to reduce the amount of CO2 every person and company emits. For me, the picture comes into sharp focus with the simple little incandescent light bulb. In their inquisitorial environmental fervor the liberals in Congress have mandated an efficiency standard for them by 2012 that likely cannot be met. They want everyone to use compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) instead. Milloy has a section in his book about these little wonders. If you break one in your home, look out. They contain mercury vapor. This stuff is so dangerous that these bulbs cannot even be manufactured in the U.S.
Milloy includes the cleanup instructions provided by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection if someone is unfortunate enough to break one of these things. It has fourteen steps! If you don’t believe him—I was curious myself—here’s the link to the U.S. government’s Energy Star web page that describes what you need to do if you break a CFL in your house, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf:
How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:
• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:
• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.
5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials
• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
If the simple little light bulb has been turned into such a problem, imagine what will happen when the radical environmentalists get their hands on the rest of our lives.
Fears Mount Over Our Financial Future
Stories are becoming more numerous about the coming financial meltdown being precipitated by our country’s uncontrolled spending. Here are two stories worth taking the time to read. Mort Zuckerman’s article, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/09/2009-08-09_drowning_in_debt_obamas_spending_and_borrowing_leaves_us_gasping_for_air.html, “Drowning in Debt” includes these scary facts:
“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons
that the deficit will run for a decade and will still
exceed $1.2 trillion in 2019. By that time, the United
States will have virtually doubled its national debt,
to over $17 trillion. Then, after 2019, we get another
turn of the screw as the peak waves of baby boomers
move into their retirement years and costs soar for
the major entitlements, Social Security and Medicare.
At 41% of GDP in 2008, the accumulated federal debt
will rise to 82% by 2019. One out of every six dollars
spent then by the feds will go to interest, compared
with 1 in 12 dollars last year. These out-year budgets
will require an increase in everyone's income taxes,
raising federal income taxes an average of $11,000
for families, a hike of 55% per household - a political
impossibility. The Government Accountability Office
estimates that by 2040, interest payments will absorb
30% of all revenues and entitlements will consume the
rest, leaving nothing for defense, education or veterans'
pensions.”
In his article “Public Spending’s Day of Reckoning” Desmond Lachman, http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/public-spending-finances-economy-debt-opinions-contributors-desmond-lachman.html?partner=email, writes,
“In principle, there are only three
possible end-games for an unsustainable
fiscal position. The first and optimal end-game
is for the government to adopt bold expenditure-
reducing and revenue-enhancing measures that
might return the public finances to a sustainable
path…The second end-game, to which the U.S.
effectively resorted in 1931 when it devalued the
dollar against gold, is for the government to
default directly on its debt obligations…This
leaves the third option for the government:
resorting to the monetary printing press to
inflate away its debt obligations.”
In the current political environment, which response do you think we are likely to adopt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
