I won’t write about the vices of smoking (we all know what they are) or the fact that the amount of money people spend smoking could end poverty (I’m exaggerating). I wrote a couple months ago how bad smoking is for the environment. Smoking isn’t just bad when people light up, but rather, it’s environmentally detrimental throughout the entire production supply chain.
In what was an extremely controversial move, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law last week banning the sale of tobacco products in most pharmacies within city limits. San Francisco, the first city in the U.S. to pass such a ban, hopes this will spur other cities to action. Marin County has already taken notice and is thinking about a similar ban.
San Francisco spokespeople mentioned the law was to promote the idea of health in a pharmacy. They mentioned pharmacies should be places where people go to get healthy. Rite Aid and Walgreens spokespeople expressed concern about limiting customer choice in their stores, and noted people buying cigarettes in their stores could use also pharmacists as a resource to stop smoking. They also mentioned the law lacked basic fairness.
As much as I dislike smoking and as bad as smoking is for the environment, I’m a little torn. I would love for everyone to stop smoking, but I’m not sure bans like this are productive or fair, especially when they seem to single out certain types of retailers. What stops San Francisco from banning potato chips and other products?
We’ve written about plastic bag bans before such as Seattle’s proposed ban as well as the evils of plastic bags. It now appears the L.A. City Council is also jumping on the plastic “ban wagon”.
Last week, L.A. City Council voted to ban disposable plastic bags by 2010. However, L.A. put a new twist to this ban. The ban would only take effect if California failed to implement a 25 cent bag fee on shoppers who request them. In essence, L.A. is really hoping to effect wider change, not just a ban within its own city limits.
As you can imagine, this is a controversial subject. The plastic bag industry, represented by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, filed a lawsuit against L.A. County’s plan to reduce plastic bag usage 30 percent by 2010. They argue factories will be closed and jobs will be lost. I don’t disagree with their arguments completely, but there must be a way to use plastic bag fees to help these workers get new training or find new jobs. Sticking to our old ways because it’s comfortable isn’t a great reason to me.
I won’t reiterate the all the various evils of plastic bags, but I think we’re starting to see more support for bans. In fact, I think all disposable bags should have a fee, including paper bags. I don’t see a reason why we aren’t all carrying and utilizing reusable shopping bags. I’m sure a fees and bans will get us there much more quickly.
The Olympics start in a mere 11 days.
As you’ve likely heard, China has embarked on several measures to improve air quality, such as limiting the use of cars and the closing of dozens of factories.
Apparently, these efforts have had little impact. The Air Pollution Index, or API, (the API measures particulate matter) in Beijing has hovered over 101. To qualify for a “blue sky day,” which is supposedly safely for athletes, the API must be below 101.
As a result, the Chinese are implementing an “Emergency Green Plan”, banning 90% of the 3.3M private cars from the roads, and temporarily closing even more factories.
What do you think? Is it going to work? Or is it too late?
Since the 9/11 attacks, conservatives have been fond of branding liberals for being un-American. Well, it’s official. The real traitors are those who continue to deny that global warming is real.
Their resistance is not just preventing us from slowing down the melting of our planet, but is also endangering our national security. A few proof points:
- In April, a Pentagon funded report published back in April of 2007 found that global warming is a “serious threat to America’s national security”.
- In June of this year, Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, testified to congress that global warming had the “potential to seriously affect US national security interests.”
- John McCain, in a new ad states, “I believe global warming is real – it’s not just a greenhouse gas issue, it’s a national security issue.”
So if you love America, pull your heads out of sand and join us! If not, you are betraying the country, and the world. Harsh? Yes. But also true.
Two months ago, I wrote how high gas prices may actually be good in that we are beginning to change our often wasteful habits. As a nation, gas consumption is noticeably decreasing. We’re carpooling more, we consolidate errands, we avoid unnecessary trips, and we’re buying smaller cars. I can’t remember the last time larger, more powerful vehicles were out of vogue!
I just read a Time magazine article that discusses things we can like about $4 gas. It’s a great article which not only discusses the sacrifices we have to make, but also looks at the silver lining in terms of the positive adjustments we’ve made to accommodate high gas prices.
So, what can we possible like about $4 gas you ask? According to Amanda:
- As shipping costs increase, more jobs are coming back to the U.S.
- With increasing transportation costs, urban sprawl has dramatically decreased
- JB wrote about this – 4 day workweeks are reality in some companies and governments
- Decreased pollution
- We are more frugal – we check tire pressure more often and are buying smaller cars
- People are driving slower to save gas, which has resulted in fewer traffic deaths
- Insurance rates for some are decreasing as they drive less and qualify for lower mileage rates
- There is less traffic as people drive less, carpool more, and increase their use of public transportation
- With skyrocketing gas bills, police are walking and bicycling more, which means more police spending time in communities
- As people eat out less, obesity decreases
You may not agree with all these points, but Amanda does offer a fairly compelling perspective. We all hate to see people making sacrifices, especially when putting gas in the tank means being unable to put food on the table. However, as Amanda writes, “The suffering will go on. But the story, like any good tragedy, is not without redemption. “
