First story comes from the Sacramento Bee. California Department of Transportation is planning on expanding U.S. Highway 50, which runs from Sacramento to Ocean City, Maryland, to combat traffic concerns by adding carpool and HOV lanes, you know, to encourage carpooling, buses and other hybrid vehicles. Carpooling, you would think, would be a good thing since it encourages people to share rides and not simply clog the highways with single person cars. However, a lawsuit was filed against the Caltrans because they failed to take into account additional emissions from the expansion of the highway. The gist of the complaint is that by adding new carpool lanes, people would be encouraged to drive more, and discouraged from taking public transportation. However, the telling quote in this article gets to the true purpose of this lawsuit:
"Do we want to build (big road) projects like we did in the 1950s, or do we really change our region?"
It appears that this lawsuit is basically an attempt to force the state and the cities impacted by this lawsuit to move beyond automobiles and highways, and that they intend to use AB32 as a blunt force to impose that view. Additionally, the court asks Caltrans to look into the increased use of buses or light rail- wouldn't buses need to use the highway to get people to work quicker than using side streets, and wouldn't it be easier if there were a dedicated lane or two for them?
So, in the meantime, people will still be sitting in traffic as their cars burn gasoline at a higher rate, instead of carpooling and moving down the highway at a more efficient rate.
Our second story today comes from an article from the Visalia Times-Delta. This one deals with the dangerous emissions that come from composting. Yep. Composting.
The San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District says that emissions from composting contributes up to 2% of all volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere, and wants to see a 15% reduction in emissions from composting. The restrictions would be placed on companies that compost 50,000 tons annually and would require those companies to install technology that would limit the amount of compounds released through composting. These companies in the Central Valley do the unenviable task of taking animal crap and other compostable waste (include compostable waste from the cities of Visalia and Tulare as part of their various environmental policies to limit garbage going to landfills). Then offering the compost as fertilizer to other companies. These companies project that the costs to install technology to capture these emissions would drive them out of business and result in, more garbage going to landfills (which of course gives off methane, amongst other things).
So, what we have here is dueling environmental goals- on the one hand, composting is good because it doesn't fill up landfills, helps replenish soils and does it naturally. On the other, organic waste naturally gives off some amount of emissions though the natural breakdown of the material. So, which one is it? Recycling, limiting landfill use and a natural fertilizer or trying to regulate a naturally occurring cycle that would be expensive and potentially result in less recycling, more landfill use and more use of "dirty" fertilizer?
What do these two items tell us. First, the green movement is taking over and coming to all sorts of non-sensical conclusions. And I haven't talked about environmentals opposed to renewable energy. Second, in order to satisfy the zealotry with which they demand, people cannot make their own decisions; the government must step in and force people to comply. At which point, you end up with situations where "we must limit the amount of emissions and volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere" meets "we must limit the amount of garbage we produce and compost." Where "no more coal" meets "no solar in the desert" or "no wind on the mountain, think of the __insert bird or endangered animal of your choice___" or "no wind 10 miles offshore my estate on Nantucket." Which leads us to the third point- there is no inconsistency in these views if you consider their ultimate goal, which is fundamentally, humans are bad for the environment. Simply by being here we are destroying the planet and any attempt to mitigate those are not good enough- composting, sorry, still giving off emissions. Renewables? Sorry, killing too many birds. New transmission lines? Sorry, cutting down too many trees. Rail? Upsetting too much of the ecological balance of nature (I made that one up because I'm sure that once rail starts becoming a viable option, they will pop up and throw up all sorts of environmental roadblocks to stop it). They would rather us all just live in communes, growing just enough food to feed yourself, not travel (but be accepting of other cultures, of course), live only off of rain water, and live an existence devoid of challenges, wonderment, curiosity, and just about any type of pleasure.
The City of San Francisco is a good example- municipal transportation systems are a mess (and underfunded), violent crime is on the rise (police, underfunded), the city, instead, spends its time on trying to force people to recycle and compost (!!!!), force menu's at fast food restaurants be labelled with calorie and other dietary information, and allow homeless to stay on the streets because that is a personal choice. Yes, being homeless is ok as a personal choice, but choosing to eat a cheeseburger at McDonalds is denigrated and looked down upon. Again, pick one.
Yes, if all I do is complain, then why do I live here. Well, I like my 10 minute commute to work. So, there's your cost-benefit analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment