Romney’s VP Choice Paul Ryan: No Friend of the Environment

Romney must have recognized that what he was doing was not working and he needed to shake the race up. He’s rolled the dice.”
—Scott Reed, who managed Republican nominee Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996.

Mitt Romney has made his choice for his vice-presidential running mate. Paul Ryan is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and not the person most would have predicted for Romney’s choice. A more reasonable choice might have been Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey who despite being a staunch Republican believes in the benefits of wind energy. Swing voters might like that.

Picking Ryan means that Romney is planning to focus hard on the Republican base, maintaining support from the Tea Partiers. He plans to slash spending, reduce government, replace Medicare with a voucher system and slash state funding for Medicaid, and hopefully reduce the deficit (although drastic cuts did nothing to help the United Kingdom and their deficit, so he might have a tough time explaining how he’ll avoid the same fate with his plan). Continue reading

Toronto Bans Plastic Bags

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard P. Feynman

Last week, the City of Toronto proved itself worthy of its old nickname “Toronto the Good.” That description was first coined by the city’s 25th mayor, William Holmes Howland. While running his election campaign—he was mayor from 1886 to 1887—he praised the citizens of Toronto for their strong Victorian morals they had at the time, no doubt in the hopes of gaining some votes. Whatever the city’s moral state might be today, it again proved itself to be Toronto the Good when it became Canada’s first major city to ban single-use plastic bags, scheduled to take effect January 1, 2013.

It’s funny how it came about, because the city was planning to enforce a five-cent surcharge on all plastic bags, and the current mayor Rob Ford wanted no part of it. In his efforts to do away with the planned surcharge, city councillors deliberated and ended up agreeing with Mayor Ford, removing the planned surcharge. But then they did something nobody expected and went even further, placing a ban on plastic bags altogether.

Removing plastic bags is not new elsewhere in the world. For example, Rwanda—a country not normally thought of for being particularly progressive— eliminated them back in 2006. Bangladesh did away with them after major floods the nation was experiencing were attributed to plastic bags plugging up the country’s sewers. Other countries that have either restricted or banned plastic bags include Italy and Ireland. Cities that have made the move to ban plastic bags include New Delhi, San Francisco (the first major city in the US to do so), Oakland, Seattle and Los Angeles, as well as regions in the U.K. and Australia.

The modern version of the plastic grocery bag was invented by a Swedish engineer, Sten Gustaf Thulin. They’re made out of polyethylene which is derived from petroleum. Polyethylene—first synthesized in 1898 in Germany—is the world’s most common plastic and it’s estimated that 80 million tonnes of the stuff is manufactured each year, primarily for packaging. Thulin’s design using a process known as blown film extrusion was developed nearly a half-century ago, and was patented in 1965 by Celloplast, the Swedish company Thulin worked for. It wasn’t until 1977 that Celloplast’s monopoly came to an end when Mobil (now part of Exxon Mobil) was able to overturn the US patent. It took very little time after that for plastic bags to become the standard for transporting our groceries, rather than continuing to use the older paper bags that had been used previously.

Some people argue that the amount of oil used to make a plastic bag is barely a drop and rather insignificant compared with the oil we use for other purposes. But it’s not the amount of oil per bag that is concerning, it’s the sheer volume of bags manufactured that’s the problem. In 2008 it was estimated that the US was going through 380 billion plastic bags a year, consuming 1.6 billion gallons of oil for their manufacture.

The very thing that made plastic bags so useful in the marketplace—that they are lightweight and not easily degradable—has led to a number of environmental concerns. On land plastic bags tend to be the number one source of litter. According to Environment Canada, each Canadian uses about 350 plastic bags a year. For generally only a few minutes at a time. And then we throw them away where they linger for hundreds of years in landfill sites.

Sometimes plastic bags make their way into the ocean where currents can carry them thousands of miles. A natural destination for many of them to end up in the Pacific Ocean is known as The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a region twice the size of Texas and about 30 metres deep. This is where so much of our world’s plastic garbage winds up.

The amount of harm these bags do in the ocean is substantial. In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency in the US reported that 61 percent of marine turtles were killed by plastic bags, supported by a similar Australian study in 2007 that came to the same conclusion in their part of the world.

Recycling would help if we did it, but the recycling rate for plastic bags tends to be around one percent, not enough to help the problem very much. Burning them isn’t the answer either because a lot of toxins and carcinogens are released as a result. There is a degradable version of polyethylene but that still doesn’t degrade as well as it should, and it can’t be mixed with the non-degradable plastic bags in plastic recycling systems. Bioplastics which are vegetable-based are another option, but not very commonly used.

It would seem the best solution at present is to ban plastic bags outright. So I look forward to Toronto’s ban coming into effect next January. And despite the fact that this isn’t what Mayor Ford was after when he tried to put a stop to the surcharge, he ended up doing some good when his city councillors voted in favour of the ban.

I only hope other municipalities will soon follow Toronto’s lead.

Astroturf—And You Thought it was Just Fake Grass

A fellow from Texas can tell the difference between grass roots and AstroTurf.
—former Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen

When most people hear the word astroturf, they think about synthetic grass used in ballparks all over North America. But did you know it has another meaning?

“Astroturfing” is a form of propaganda that’s sole purpose is to mislead. Specifically, its aim is to misrepresent that a larger number of people are supportive of a cause than is truly the case. It’s a play on words: a grass roots movement reflects action that is gathering steam but astroturfing is a fake version of it, just as AstroTurf is fake grass.

The term was first coined by Lloyd Bentsen in an interview with the Washington Post in 1985 (quoted above), in response to a number of cards and letters he had received opposing some insurance provisions. He argued it was generated mail and not really reflective of a true groundswell of opposition.

There are a variety of ways to use “astroturfers.” One is to have real activists pose as regular people. This can be done by having them attend rallies or disseminate propaganda. Examples include submitted Letters to the Editor or posted YouTube videos that are meant to imply they come from everyday folks newly adding their support to a cause, but they’re actually from lobbyists and activists already connected to that cause.

Another way that astroturfing is achieved is through attracting everyday folks who turn up at events and pose as supporters. And how do you do that exactly? Well, you give them incentive. Money usually works. For example, in 2009 the American Petroleum Institute encouraged its members—companies like ExxonMobil, Shell and British Petroleum—to send employees to rallies aimed at fighting a climate change bill. (If you got paid by your boss to go to a rally instead of doing your job, you might be inclined to go.)

A more recent example just occurred this past week. At Environmental Protection Agency hearings in Chicago and Washington, D.C., a number of people showed up wearing T-shirts supporting the fossil fuel industry. The purpose of the hearings was to discuss new carbon standards for new power plants, what would amount amount to a reduction of about 62 million tons of carbon dioxide annually if enforced. A number of folks were present clearly in support of coal and oil based on their attire.

Nice way to show your support for the fossil fuel industry. Only problem? They weren’t supporters at all. They were simply students looking to make a quick buck. And how did this make them any money? Because they were paid $50 to show up and wear the T-shirts. The Environmental Law and Policy Center found a Craigslist posting by a coal group offering exactly that. The ad has since been removed and it hasn’t been confirmed which group put up the ad, but it’s pretty clear it was from someone or some group in support of fossil fuel industries and against any environmental changes that might hurt profits in any way. (But hey, to a student $50 is $50.)

Astroturfing is yet another example of what I can’t stand with strategies used by some people who oppose any move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources of energy. So frequently their tactic is to spread misinformation. In the case of astroturfing, rather than misleading people about facts pertaining to climate change (e.g. “volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than people do”), the misinformation is to misrepresent the number of people who actually support their opposition. It would be nice if they could simply use the truth in their efforts so that people could be more properly educated and better decide for themselves how they feel.

Perhaps since the facts aren’t in their favour when it comes to global warming, maybe they feel they don’t have much alternative.