Toxic waste good for planet, study says

The Globe reports on two reports citing the danger of mercury contamination when compact fluorescent lightbulbs break.

“We found some very high levels (of mercury), even after we tried a number of clean-up techniques," said Mark Hyland, Maine director of the Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management. During several of the experiments, for example, he said mercury in the air was more than 100 times levels considered safe even after a floor was cleaned.

Clean-up instructions include: “consider discarding throw rugs or the area of carpet where the breakage occurred.”

Of course, the studies conclude that the “energy-saving benefits [of CFLs] far outweigh the risk posed by mercury release.”

The battle against global warming is just too important. Unless of course, we’re entering a period of global cooling, which many scientists are being to suggest.

Energy Hogs

My daughter came home from 5th grade today and showed me the internet site her teacher had the class work on. It was a series of computer games dedicated to finding “energy hogs” in each of five rooms in our houses: drafty windows, an uninsulated attic, conventional lightbulbs, old refrigerators and excessive showering.

The organization that produced the website, the Alliance to Save Energy, appears to offer sensible advice about energy conservation, without resorting to global warming alarmism, but the Energy Hog site aimed at children raises a number of questions.

Essential curriculum?
First, we can ask whether energy conservation should be part of the fifth grade science curriculum. As we know from curriculum battles, any lesson included excludes another. Public school teachers complain that their curriculum has been so weighed down by the requirement to teach to standardized tests that they have no room for creativity—to teach students how to think rather than memorize facts. Given the intense competition for inclusion on the schedule, should lessons about caulking leaky windows and insulating attics make the cut? Fifty years ago such topics would be part of the voc-tech curriculum. Children don’t own houses and if they’re planning on going into the house building trade, they have plenty of time after fifth grade to learn about building codes.

Obviously, the point of teaching children about energy conservation is to reach their unenlightened parents who aren’t such captive listeners. The website is filled with suggestions like, “Ask your parents about switching to newer compact fluorescent bulbs.” “Ask your parents how old your fridge is and if it's time to buy a new one.” “Remind your parents that one large fridge is better than two smaller old ones.” The site asks: “Do you have a second old refrigerator sitting in the garage or somewhere else at home? If so, urge your parents to get rid of it.” The language here is polite, inviting a respectful dialogue between parents and children. The energy hog game, however, revolves around finding ugly disgusting energy hogs. Thus if the parent responds to his fifth-grader’s question that no, he doesn’t want to replace the refrigerator just yet, is it surprising that the child will insist righteously that it is his duty to fight energy hogs? And is it surprising if the child sees not just the appliance as an energy hog but his parent as well? Excessive showering after all isn’t the shower’s fault, so the person malingering in the shower is the real energy hog; in fact, my daughter’s eighth grade friend complained that every time she took a shower her little brother stood outside the bathroom door with a watch, screaming that she was wasting energy when she went over the allotted time.

Targeting children is doubly effective; it reaches the parents with an emotional plea that they might ignore from another adult. And it indoctrinates the children so they become good environmentalists when they grow up. The 1960s leftists left the streets and moved onto the university campuses—what some called the Long March through the university, with an explicit aim of converting the next generation. One might argue that teaching children about energy conservation is not indoctrination, but simply a lesson in being good citizens. There’s a big difference between caulking windows and the Hitler Youth or Khmer Rouge child soldiers. Still, there is something unpleasant about the intolerant righteousness encouraged by energy-hog-think. Furthermore, it is ironic that teaching social morality in a civics class has long been derided by progressive educators.


Energy Hog Solutions

Secondly, one should ask about the solutions proposed in the energy hog game which are presented without the slightest bit of nuance (why is it that liberals always accuse conservatives of seeing the world in black and white when their worldview is inhabited by far more Manichean rights and wrongs?)

1. Caulking windows: this suggestion is sensible, although I question how many houses in Boston have leaky windows. It is also important to recognize the dangers of indoor air pollution, which causes far more deaths than outdoor air pollution. The most egregious indoor pollution comes from houses with unvented fires—an issue in Nepal but not in suburban Boston—but modern building materials also emit formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds which are suspected of being carcinogenic. When a house is sealed tightly with caulking and insulation, it needs to have a fresh air ventilating system installed. In this case the demands of “green” building are in conflict with those of “healthy” building; running a fan to circulate fresh air uses energy.

2. Insulation: again, a sensible suggestion. However, insulation poses many health issues. For instance, fiberglass, the most common insulation, contains formaldehyde and if not sealed behind a vapor barrier and left exposed to the living areas will emit particles of fiberglass that float in the air. These are breathed in and lodge in the lungs much like asbestos. Although studies indicate that they do not cause anything like asbestiosis, the full effects are unknown.

3. Installing compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs): on the whole, CFLs may be a good idea, but they are far from a panacea. The bulbs contain mercury, creating a new source of hazardous waste that must be disposed of, and health hazards if broken. Neither of these dangers is mentioned on the energy hog site. CFLs are larger and heavier, requiring more energy to ship, and use more resources to manufacture. The heat produced by conventional bulbs is less of a liability in winter. Conventional lightbulbs are manufactured in the United States under EPA guidelines, while all CFLs are made in China under much laxer environmental standards, with energy generated by unregulated coal plants. CFL makers claim they last for 7 years, but the long-life conventional bulbs I have bought never live up to their claims, so I am skeptical. Likewise the claim that a 13 watt CFL is equal to a 60 watt incandescent bulb seems suspicious. Rooms lit with CFLs always seem dreary. Leaving on lights in an empty house is wasting energy (apart from their value of deterring criminals from breaking in.). A single 13 watt compact fluorescent bulb might provide sufficient light to accomplish the tasks we need to do in a room, but well-designed multiple light sources adds pleasure to our lives. It is not wasting energy; it is using energy.


4. Replacing an old refrigerator: a new Energy Star refrigerator uses around $45 of electricity per year, compared to an energy hog which uses “up to” $125/year. Thus buying a new refrigerator can save up to $80/year; an $800 refrigerator will pay for itself in 10 years. Replacing your refrigerator however will add an old carcass to the landfill, and manufacturing a new refrigerator uses energy and resources. At some point it makes sense to replace an inefficient refrigerator, but the decision is more complex than indicated by the energy hog game and presented to 10-year olds without nuance. Efficient refrigerators have been around for a decade or so, so the current old refrigerator might already be fairly efficient. Is it really appropriate to have a 10-year old taking part in a family decision to buy a new appliance? What if the family budget does not have room for an $800 purchase? What if the parents decide to spend the $800 on a vacation on Cape Cod? Is it appropriate for our science curriculum to use shame about wasting energy to influence family spending decisions?

5. Excessive showers: parents yelling at teenagers for taking long showers is a staple of family life. The parents’ concern is most often based on the cost of the electric bill and a sense that excessive use of water is wasteful—especially if the house draws water from a well, or the area is experiencing drought. But to identify a hot shower as wasteful is troubling. I never take a hot shower for granted. Heating sanitary water, piping it to a shower stall and removing the wastewater through a drain is one of the accomplishments of civilization that makes our lives immeasurably better than that of our ancestors. The Romans enjoyed the similar luxury of baths, unknown to the Vandal hordes. If Osama bin Laden is alive, his cave lacks plumbing and he thinks the West is decadent for desiring such luxuries. The site says: “Energy Hogs love to eat up hot water. Most of the water wasted in a home is wasted in the bathroom.” Running a hot shower with no one in it is wasting water. Enjoying a hot shower in an area with plentiful water is not a waste of energy. It is using energy.

Global Warming

Finally, the Energy Hog game does not specifically mention global warming, but the specter of Al Gore’s 20-foot rise in sea levels lurks in the background. If urging your parents to insulate their attic will save the planet, what educational topic could possibly be more important? Isn’t it better to have the shower Nazi prevent his sister from enjoying a ten minute hot shower in order to prevent death and starvation of poor innocent Bangladeshis?

I am one of that reviled species of Global Warming Deniers, so I don’t believe that energy conservation will save the planet. As a frugal Yankee, I will probably yell at my teenagers if they stay too long in the shower, but I don’t think that by doing so I am saving the planet. The environmentalist hates SUV drivers or people who leave all their lights on because they are energy hogs who take more than their share of the planet’s resources. I however think Peter Huber had it right when he says that energy comes from a Bottomless Well. I don’t drive an SUV and I turn my lights off when I leave the room, but I think the market price of energy should determine how we use it. If you can afford to fill up an SUV, and you want to drive an SUV, then your 10-year son shouldn’t be instructed by his teachers to urge you to buy a hybrid. If you can afford to pay the electric bill for incandescent recessed lighting on your kitchen counters, you should enjoy what our technological society has created. Let Osama sit in his cold dark cave.

Uni-Bama

He's a Unifier, he's Obama--he's the Uni-Bama!

Penguin catastrophe!

A Globe story “Antarctic penguins face climate catastrophe” cites a “recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” The study abstract “suggests a 9% decline in adult survival for a 0.26°C warming.” Given the IPCC prediction of a global temperature rise of 0.6 °C over the next 100 years, this means the penguin population of 2 million will decline to 1.82 million in the next 40 to 50 years (according to the Globe, after “rebounding from near extinction in the last century”—an extraordinary event that might have been examined by the reporter, given that the globe was also warming during this period). This prediction assumes that Antarctica will follow global temperature patterns—which in fact it has not in recent decades; apart from the warming in the Antarctic Peninsula—2% of the land mass of Antarctica—the continent has been cooling over the last 35 years. Does this warrant a projection of “catastrophe” and population “collapse”?

National Security Ghost Stories

Every week James Carroll climbs further out on the branch of lunacy. You expect he can’t go any further without complete collapse, but somehow he keeps pushing the moonbat envelope. This week’s essay, “The Ghost Story” argues that national security is a ghost story told by the military industrial complex; that maintaining an army “makes the planet more dangerous”; the idea that World War II was “good” and that the U.S. military build-up won the Cold War are fairy tales that “protect the militarized economy.” That planet he’s talking about is not the one I live on.

The Sunlight of Legal Justice

The Wall Street Journal called the assassination of Hezbollah killer Imad Mughniyeh an “unambiguous victory.” Alan Dershowitz said, “The case for targeting him is compelling - legally, morally, religiously, and militarily.” The Boston Globe however felt the need to inject some ambiguity into their editorial “Death of a terrorist” (2/14/08). It’s true they deserve praise for not having titled their piece, “Death of an Insurgent” or “Death of a “Freedom Fighter.” The Globe's parent New York Times couldn't quite go out on a limb, and settled for: "Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist." It is also appropriate that much of the editorial details what they call the “obscene career” of Mughniyeh. The editorial board however can’t help expressing regret about violations of due process in his assassination. It begins:

THE CAR-BOMB assassination in Damascus of terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyeh will mean different things to different parties. But for anyone who cherishes the sunlight of legal justice, Mughniyeh's obscene career and violent end should be emblems of a lawless netherworld where terrorists kill civilians and security services hunt the killers.

The formulation is a bit obtuse, but it appears that by the “sunlight of legal justice” they mean that they wish Mughniyeh had been arrested and put on trial. The editorial concludes:

But in the shadow world [as opposed to the sunlit world] of terrorists and counterterrorists there are no rules of evidence, no presumption of innocence, and no legal justice. This is why the fight against terrorism must include a foreign policy that fosters the rule of law around the world.

Once again, the left insists on viewing Islamic terrorists as criminals who should be brought to justice and afforded the constitutional guarantees of American citizens who have violated jaywalking or embezzling laws. As Dershowitz points out, “By any reasonable definition of that term, [Mughniyeh] is a combatant who has declared war on the United States, Israel, France and other countries whose citizens he has killed.”

The Globe might have been more credible if they had argued that without due process, we might assassinate an innocent man, but there seemed to be no doubt that an obscene murderer’s life had been ended. The problem is that Mughniyeh was being given haven by a sovereign country (or somewhat sovereign if you discount Iran’s influence) that refused to extradite him. It’s not a simple matter of sending a police car over to bring him into the sunlight of legal justice. We would have to send a kidnapping team into Syria. It would have been a risky mission, which might have involved loss of life on our side, or theirs. Is this a morally superior course of action? And wouldn’t the verdict for mass murder be death anyway?

Finally, that final line: “This is why the fight against terrorism must include a foreign policy that fosters the rule of law around the world.” I’m all for the rule of law, and I thought that’s what the Bush Doctrine was trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t we foster the rule of law by toppling Saddam Hussein and the Taliban and establishing democratic governments? But then the Globe is more concerned with rule of law being applied to terrorists than to the 58 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Boston Globe: Conservative soapbox

I thought about writing a letter to the editor about a letter to the editor about two other letters to the editor, but it seemed the epistolary dialogue had gone on long enough.

A Globe reader in Dedham is concerned that the Globe published two letters from conservatives: “Right-wing media have done enough damage to discourse in this country; the Globe should not serve as an additional soapbox for disinformation” (2/14/08). This statement seems to be an example of psychological projection, defined as “a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable thoughts.” The reality is that the media is dominated by liberals, so liberals accuse the media of right-wing bias. The reality is that the Globe is a liberal soapbox, so liberals accuse it of being a conservative soapbox.

The letter also reveals how liberals argue with conservatives. Rather than participating in a debate, liberals believe that the presence of a debating partner has “damaged” the discourse; rather than arguing their point of view they dismiss conservative opinions as “disinformation.”

What Middle Ground?

Commentary for Rural Route Today

I’ve been a friend of the editor of Rural Route Today for several decades, but we’ve never really discussed politics. When I mentioned that I had moved rightward, away from my liberal Democrat past, Robin was intrigued. She felt she was more in the center; she thought it was important to find some middle ground in this country or we’d be in big trouble. She was surprised that I could have anything in common with a bunch of right-wingers. I prefer “neo-conservative intellectuals” but never mind. (Although “neo-conservative” has become a vaguely anti-Semitic term of general opprobrium, I mean the word in its original Irving Kristol/Norman Podhoretz sense: a conservative who started life as a liberal.)

Robin’s concern with finding a middle ground has been reflected in the Presidential election; Obama, McCain and Huckabee have all campaigned to “reach across the aisle,” to unite the country with a new “bipartisan” leadership. In his rebuttal to the State of the Union address last month, Obama promised that—unlike Bush--when he was President the entire Congress would rise to applaud his speeches.

The call for consensus is an effective political tactic. How do you respond--I’m an extremist and I don’t believe in finding a consensus? But is it more than a tactic? Is there really a middle ground on the essential issues of the day? Is it meaningful to talk about “getting beyond partisan politics as usual” and “getting past all this blue state/red state” animosity?

Analysts describe three policy categories: social, economic and foreign. On social policy, opposing gun control, abortion and gay marriage would put you in the conservative camp; liberals support all three. On foreign policy, conservatives favor strong defense and a military response to terrorism; liberals call for defense cuts and dialogue with our friends and enemies. On economic policy, conservatives argue for lower taxes and small government; liberals believe that since government is the solution to problems, cutting taxes means cutting necessary government programs.

More specifically, Democrats believe that tax cuts favor the rich, that we need to raise taxes on the wealthy to give the less fortunate members of society a helping hand; Republicans believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy and benefit everyone.

One side believes that immigrants deserve a shot at a better life; the other side believes that people who enter the country illegally have broken the law and should not be provided taxpayer-funded services.

One side believes that global warming warrants the creation of a global legislative mechanism to control greenhouse gas emissions; the other believes that global warming is neither catastrophic nor man-made and that market forces should guide the creation of new energy sources. One side sees Armageddon and the other side sees a pretext to expand global governance.

One side believes that health care is a right that should be guaranteed by the government; the other fears the consequences of putting a multi-billion dollar industry under the control of the kind of bureaucrats who run the Department of Motor Vehicles.

One side believes that affirmative action is the only fair means to compensate the victims of our nation’s history of racism and slavery; the other believes that affirmative action itself prolongs racism by focusing on skin color.

One side believes that abortion is murder, the other believes a woman has the right to make choices about her own body.

One side thinks that if we promote energy conservation we need not defile our coastlines and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge with drilling rigs; the other thinks that the risk of environmental damage is small compared with the benefits of developing domestic resources.

These examples present two clear and conflicting ideologies. I would not argue that there are only two possible choices on these issues, that compromise is always impossible. Our health care system is already a hybrid of government and private enterprise, and I certainly hope that we can find common ground to deal with immigration issues. My point is that there is nothing inherently superior about the middle ground between two strongly felt opinions—nor about a candidate who sides with liberals on some issues and conservatives on others. Getting a 100% conservative rating on economic issues and a 100% liberal rating on social policy doesn’t put you in the center of the political spectrum in any meaningful way.

The way I see it, in a democracy we argue our point of view and elect candidates who agree with us. The side that wins gets to implement its policies. Since no party ever gains complete control of government, it is necessary to compromise, but compromise is not necessarily a virtue; a secondary definition of the word is, “the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.” Legislative compromise is not the same as “putting our ideological differences behind us.” What’s wrong with ideological differences? How can we put them aside without compromising firmly held beliefs?

Certainly we can agree to avoid rude political speech like MoveOn.org’s ad calling General David Petreus a traitor (“David Betray-us”). And the corresponding rude behavior on the far right… well, nothing comes to mind at the moment, although I’m sure that VPR listeners who don’t know where to find Rush Limbaugh on the dial would be happy to point out how hate-filled talk radio is.

Conservatives talk about a stool that is unstable without three conservative policy legs—John McCain being the unstable stool that some like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have tried to kick over. When Mitt Romney was in the race they had a valid point: conservatives should vote for the most conservative candidate. Since McCain is more conservative than either Obama or Hillary, it seems obvious that it is time for conservatives to support McCain.

Interestingly, calls for moderation seems to come mostly from the liberal side of the aisle. This isn’t because Democrats are by nature more moderate than those hate-filled talk radio conservatives; it’s just that liberals have defined the language. When Republicans adopt liberal positions, Democrats praise them as “moderate”; when Democrats take conservative positions, they are called “conservative Democrats” (conservative being a pejorative)—or a “traitorous anti-Christ” in the case of Joe Lieberman (also meant as a pejorative).

Obama’s call for centrism before the State of the Union came at the end of a list of specific policy initiatives, of which I agree with precisely none. He called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, nationalized health care, and higher taxes on the rich. He called the Surge a failure. Not exactly centrist positions. I don’t fault Obama—he is after all running for political office, and the strategy of positioning your candidacy above the fray is time-honored. But the only way he could unite the American electorate would be if everyone who disagrees with his liberal ideas gives up the debate and goes along with him. This is not about finding middle ground; it’s about ending the debate.

Personally, I enjoy the debate. I have no intention of compromising my extremist positions, but I don’t want to shut liberals up. Monday morning without James Carroll’s moonbat columns in the Boston Globe just wouldn’t be as much fun.

Deadly SUVs (cont.)

The Globe reports "A sport utility vehicle driven by an 86-year-old man jumped the sidewalk and ran over an 8-year-old girl." Is the SUV relevant, or just an opportunity to inject some anti-SUV propaganda?

The Dick Durbin Pol Pot Connection, 2

Dick Durbin’s comparison of the U.S. at Guantanamo and Pol Pot has been out of the news for a while, so he’ll be gratified by today’s Globe editorial which mentions him and then goes on to make the colossally idiotic statement regarding our waterboarding three known terrorist leaders: “The Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, Pol Pot - this is the roster that Bush wants the United States to join.” See, they all condoned waterboarding, so do we, so that puts us on the same “roster.” There might be some pathetic logic if the Globe had made the case that these were the only four regimes in history to use waterboarding. This is doubtful, but even so, what about the many far more odious torture techniques used by any number of countries? The French in Algeria, perhaps? Why not write about the U.S. wanting to join the same roster as…France? And what about handcuffs? Pol Pot used handcuffs. American police use handcuffs. Is this Pol Pot handcuff roster really one our men in blue want to join? And wait, if I recall correctly, the Nazis used jail cells with locked doors. So does the Cambridge Police Department. Bunch of Nazis!

World's Best Dog Walks No More

Daisy Lapides-Wilson
Sept 29, 1994—February 1, 2008

We are sorry to have to report the death last Friday of our beloved dog Daisy (a.k.a., the Animule, the Mule, Thumper, Sweetie, Daze). As any of you who met her will testify, she was the world’s best dog. This is not her owners’ subjective bias but simply a fact.

Daisy’s mother was an English setter, her father unknown. We suspect that the rogue was part Great Dane and part Holstein. She had pointing instincts from her mother, and could stalk a squirrel as long as her owner was patient enough to watch.

Even the world’s best dog was not without her faults. The rumble of distant thunder would reduce her to a mass of jelly quivering in the nearest enclosed space. She was too big to fit under our bed, so she usually made do with the shower. It was quite a surprise to find her in the bathtub one dark and stormy night when I turned on the light at 2 AM.

This understandable fear of thunder progressed with age to a somewhat less rational fear of rain. After all, when it rained it might thunder. It finally moved into full blown paranoia, where a cloudy day might be suspected of bringing rain and then thunder. In her final weeks I had just crossed the highway near our house when a lightening struck close to us with a particularly loud crack of thunder. Although Daisy has walked off leash around the busiest streets, she decided at that point that she was going home and she headed off with the intention of crossing Fresh Pond Parkway without me. Death by traffic was insignificant next to terror from the skies.

Daisy had little use for most other dogs, and could nip puppies who didn’t listen to her warnings. Her entire focus was on humans. She made an exception for large handsome male dogs—mainly Dobermans and large German shepherds. Even at age 13 with a large tumor weighing her down, she would frolic unabashedly in the presence of dogs who turned her on—and the expression is an accurate description of the way her entire demeanor switched. When she was younger she would run in giddy circles, legs akimbo, squeaking, ramming her chest against the object of her infatuation, while her paramour looked patiently at this silly dame making a fool of herself.

Daisy was abused as a young dog and she had self-esteem issues, which left her psychologically needy. We hated to leave her alone for even an evening, and we no doubt surprised many people by asking if it was all right to bring our dog along to dinner. It’s not that she was a well-behaved dog; it’s that she was more like another human guest, better behaved than many people’s children. She enjoyed large crowds—especially elegant parties where a piece or two of brisket might be directed her way. She would always work the room like a politician, introducing herself politely with a wagging tail, her head bowed in submission.

Daisy could walk through an elaborate set-up of 300 Playmobil pieces, seemingly oblivious of the obstacles, not looking at her feet, without knocking over a single piece. It was always a feat of incredible dexterity, motivated by utmost considerate of others’ feelings.

Someone said that she has an old soul, and although I don’t believe in reincarnation, it seemed apt. A second person made the similar comment—suspecting that she had been a queen in a former life. I was thinking more along the lines of my grandmother Mabel Wilson. They shared a similar compassion, wisdom (in Daisy’s case, assuming the absence of male Dobermans) and a rebellious streak that appeared not in youth but at the end of a life threatened by cancer.

Daisy’s nickname Thumper came from the enthusiastic tail thumping that greeted us after any absence longer than 45 seconds. She was a born percussionist and often at dinner would thump her tail back and forth between two chairs. She enjoyed the fire extinguisher by the back door for its higher bell tones.

An elderly British woman once pronounced of Daisy, “She ought to be a breed.” Alas yes, she ought to have been. The science of cloning is still too new to have given us another Daisy. We mourn her loss like the third daughter that she was.

Happy squirrel hunting, you old mule.

Starting With Our Own

James Carroll invokes Obama and JFK’s American University speech to argue for nuclear disarmament: “The abolition of all nuclear weapons, starting with our own, must be at the top of the new president's agenda.”

I can’t speak for Obama, but those words, “starting with our own” are a distortion of Kennedy’s passionate yet pragmatic plea for peace: “Our primary long range interest in Geneva…is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.” Kennedy concludes: “We do not want a war. We shall be prepared if others wish it.”

This is a far cry from the reckless unilateral disarmament that Carroll advocates.

At American University, Kennedy did not shy from blunt criticism of the Soviet Union: “The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today.” Fortunately, he says, both the Soviets and the Americans share a “mutual abhorrence of war.” As Sting phrased it, “The Russians love their children too.” Today however we are faced with an enemy that straps explosives to one-year old babies.