The SchwartzReport - December 01, 2010

[Guest guest]

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

China's Ban Kept 100 Billion Plastic Bags Out of the Trash

BRIAN MERCHANT - Treehugger.com

It's so simple. So why aren't we doing it? The answer is we seem to have lost the capacity to think in terms of what would make a happy functional society. Instead, we only consider short-term profit, which benefits only a tiny percentage of the population. Thanks to Kelley.

It's so simple -- so gloriously simple. In 2008, China instituted a law that made it illegal for stores to give out plastic bags for free. Instead, shop owners were required to charge for the bags, and allowed to keep any profit they made for themselves. The results? After two years, the poorly-enforced law has nonetheless dropped plastic bag consumption by a whopping 50% -- keeping an estimated 100 billion plastic bags out of the landfills.It's a beautiful demonstration of how a simple piece of policy can achieve big results -- while keeping everyone (except perhaps the plastic bag manufacturers) happy. Small business owners make a small additional profit, consumers learn to reuse bags, and the environment, of course, emerges the biggest winner of all.GOOD.com points to a Chinese student's research on the ban, and how it impacted consumer behavior. Here are its findings:Consumers in Beijing and Guiyang used an average of 21 new plastic bags weekly before the bag-fee ordinance was passed in June, 2008, and rarely used the same bag twice. But after the law was imposed, consumption dropped 49 percent and nearly half of the bags were re-used. While that represents a significant reduction, researchers say there is much room for improvement, especially when it comes to enforcement. Months after the law was enacted, the researchers say, nearly 60 percent of all plastic bags were still given away free.So the law is impressively effective even with piss-poor enforcement. I'll turn toGOOD's Price for the takeaway: "After its first year, The Guardian reported the ban had saved the country 40 billion plastic bags. By now the cumulative number of bags saved is probably more like 100 billion, and if the law were enforced well, it'd be a lot higher." Yes indeed -- with those kinds of results, seems it's high time we started pushing a little harder for similar policy models (we already have some cities that charge a tax for plastic bags) here in the states.

Post Comment »

Senate Passes Food Safety Bill

LYNDSEY LAYTON - The Washington Post

This is good news and, for those who were concerned this bill would outlaw gardening -- I downloaded and read the bill in its entirety and never understood that fear -- it has been explicitly addressed. As the reports says, "Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who is a farmer, added an amendment approved by the Senate that would exempt small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers at markets and farm stands."

In what would be the biggest overhaul of the nation's food safety laws in seven decades, the Senate on Tuesday approved a raft of regulations that would require food manufacturers and farmers to use scientific techniques to prevent contaminated food - a shift aimed at stopping the waves of foodborne illnesses that have shaken consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply.The vote of 73 to 25 cleared the way for the legislation to be signed into law in the coming weeks, delivering a revamped safety system that would confer vast new authority on the Food and Drug Administration, accelerate the government's response to outbreaks and set the first safety standards for imported food. The changes come after tainted foods as varied as spinach and peanuts recently sickened thousands nationwide and caused at least a dozen deaths."For too long, we've allowed trips to the grocery store to be a gamble for American families," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a lead sponsor of the bill. The measure "will give our citizens some long-overdue peace of mind in the supermarket aisles."The legislation drew support across party lines, making it one of the few recent measures to bridge differences in an otherwise sharply divided body.Leaders in the House, which approved a more stringent version more than a year ago, have indicated that they will accept the Senate bill, bypassing the conference process and speeding the legislation to President Obama. The president, who has voiced concern in the past about the peanut butter sandwiches his younger daughter consumes, applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to move quickly.Proponents of the measure said they are concerned that the new Congress will not authorize enough money for it but expressed relief that the Senate approved the bill before it adjourns."It's an unusual and shining example of how bipartisanship can work in Congress," said Olson, director of the Pew Health Group food programs, which led a coalition of consumer groups backing the bill. "It is a major step forward protecting the food that everyone eats every day."For the average consumer, the new regulations would mean more information about recalled products - the legislation requires grocery stores to prominently display recall notices or use loyalty cards and coupons to notify consumers.It is unclear whether the rules would lead to higher food prices. But most important, advocates say, they would result in greater consumer confidence and fewer cases of illness.For Jeff Almer - whose mother, Shirley, died in 2008 after eating peanut butter contaminated with salmonella bacteria - the Senate vote came as a salve to a family still grieving."I think about her every day," said Almer, a Minnesota resident who has traveled to Washington six times to lobby for the legislation. "It's very satisfying to see something of this magnitude has made its way through."One in four Americans become ill from tainted food each year, and 5,000 die, according to government figures. Businesses spend billions of dollars as a result of lost sales, recalls and legal expenses triggered by the problem.§The legislation will affect all whole and processed foods except meat, poultry and some egg products, which are regulated under separate laws by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Unlike the current system, which relies on government inspectors catching contamination, the new measure would require manufacturers and farmers to come up with strategies to prevent contamination and then continually test to make sure they are working.It also would give the FDA the authority to recall food; now, it must rely on food companies to voluntarily pull products off the shelves. And it would give the FDA access to internal records at farms and food-production facilities.The bill would require importers to verify that products grown and processed overseas meet U.S. safety standards. Public health experts say this is urgently needed, given the increase in imported foods. The FDA has been inspecting only about 1 percent of imported food products.The measure also would require the FDA to regularly inspect farms and food-processing plants and to frequently visit "high-risk" facilities. Currently, the agency inspects food-processing sites about once a decade and rarely visits farms.The measure's most vocal opponent, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), argued that it would create layers of bureaucracy without making food safer."The problem with food safety is the agencies don't do what they're supposed to be doing now," he said. "They don't need more regulations. They need less."The bill is expected to cost $1.4 billion over the next four years, including the expense of hiring 17,800 new FDA inspectors.The House version of the measure would require farms and companies to pay fees, which would help defray costs. But the Senate version does not include fees.With the incoming Republican House majority intent on cutting the cost of government, an expanded FDA could be on a collision course with the new austerity.Absent funding, the legislation is nothing more than a "paper tiger," said Acheson, a former assistant commissioner for food protection at the FDA. "Enforcement needs resources, in terms of personnel. You need all those pieces. Otherwise, it's simply a piece of paper."Despite backing from a diverse coalition of major business and consumer groups, the bill was buffeted by politics in recent weeks. It drew fire from some tea party activists, who consider it government overreach.Debate over the measure revealed a rift between the local-food movement and major agriculture businesses. Small farmers concerned about the cost of new regulation initially opposed the bill and argued that because most cases of national food-borne illness are caused by large companies, small producers should not be required to meet the same standards.Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who is a farmer, added an amendment approved by the Senate that would exempt small farmers and those who sell directly to consumers at markets and farm stands.The amendment angered large agriculture groups, which say no one should be exempted from producing safe food. The Produce Marketing Association and the United Fresh Produce Association withdrew their support, and Guenther, senior vice president of public policy at United Fresh, said the exemptions amount to "egregious loopholes."

Post Comment »

Pentagon Study Finds Few Drawbacks to Dropping 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

DAVID S. CLOUD - Los Angeles Times

As an enlisted Army medic I served with gay men. My master sergeant was gay, and a very serious guy. Nearly a decade later as Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations, I had gay sailors work for me, and they were the best yoemen the Navy had. You didn't make it to the CNO's office if you were second tier. This resistance to ending DADT is prejudice pure and simpl! e; just plain naked homophobia, exploited for political purposes.

WASHINGTON -- Armed with a long-awaited Pentagon study that found little negative impact from gays serving openly in the military,President Obamaand top Pentagon officials called Tuesday for the quickrepealof the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which has ruled the military for 17 years.But even with the findings of Tuesday's report, there was no indication that the Obama administration would be able to overcome fierce Republican objections in the few weeks left in this year's postelection congressional session.Obama called on the Senate to act quickly so he could sign the repeal by the end of the year to "ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally."At a news conference, Defense Secretary M. Gates and Adm. G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said failure to act soon would increase the chances of the ban being overturned in the courts, which they called the worst possible scenario.In October, a federal judge in Riverside ordered an immediate and permanent halt to the policy for all military personnel. The order has been on hold while the case is being appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.The study released Tuesday concludes that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" might cause some disruption at first but would not create widespread or long-lasting problems if the military provided proper training and took other steps to smooth the integration of homosexuals."We are convinced the U.S. military can make this change, even during this time of war," the Defense Department report concludes, noting that 70% of the tens of thousands of military personnel and family members surveyed predicted there would be "positive, mixed or no effect" from allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.Republicans, led by Sen. McCain of Arizona, have mostly opposed overturning the law, saying Obama's call for an end to the ban is politically driven and could harm military readiness while the country is at war.Opposition in Congress is likely to focus on divisions among the military's senior civilian and uniformed personnel about whether to overturn the law, especially during wartime. The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings Thursday and Friday at which top Pentagon leaders are scheduled to testify.Most Democrats support the repeal and one Republican, Sen. of Maine, has voted in favor of it in committee proceedings. Even McCain said in an interview in 2006 that he would seriously consider dropping the ban if the military leadership advocated the change.Lawmakers who favor the ban are likely to seize on data in the study - completed by more than 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses - showing that military personnel in combat units, especially those in the Marines and Army, have greater concerns about serving with homosexuals than do military personnel overall.At least 40% of combat troops raised some concerns. Among Marines, the smallest of the services and the most conservative, the figure approached 60%.But the study's authors, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh and Army Gen. F. Ham, told reporters that such worries were exaggerated and based on stereotypes about homosexuals.They noted that most of those who had direct contact with a service member believed to be gay or lesbian encountered few problems. Almost all of them said their units were able to work together and only 8% said the units functioned poorly as a result.Under the 1993 law, the Pentagon is required to remove service members found to be gay or admitting to being so. More than 14,000 service members have been discharged for those reasons.Gates acknowledged that the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are more worried than he is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could harm combat readiness at a time when there are nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and tens of thousands in Iraq.He said the military needed time to prepare for such a far-reaching change, even though he said he didn't envision adjustments to housing or other personnel policies. He said a court ruling would give the Pentagon little time to prepare, and he issued an implicit warning to those in Congress who oppose repeal."Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts," Gates told reporters.Gates said that even if Congress repealed the law, the military would not immediately lift the restrictions on gays serving in the armed services. Gates said the Pentagon would need time to prepare and train its personnel, especially those in combat units.Under the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate, the repeal would not take effect until Obama and senior Pentagon leaders certified that it could be done without harming military readiness. Gates declined to say how long he thought it would take to reach that point.In general, the Pentagon would not have to rewrite its regulations on housing, benefits or fraternization, the report says, though it calls for some changes.The report recommends against creating separate bathrooms and living facilities for homosexual service members, arguing that to do so would create a "logistical nightmare" and would stigmatize gays.

Post Comment »

CNN's Calmly Destroys Birther Logic

DAVE EDWARDS - The Raw Story

Twenty seven per cent of the American public still believes President Obama was not born in America. It's not just that this is factually and demonstrably wrong; it is the hysterical quality of the assertion. And its implicit racism. It borders on the delusional, as this interview makes so very clear. Twenty seven per cent. That's almost 84 million people.

CNN's came prepared Monday to an interview with a Republican Texas state representative who questions President Barack Obama's citizenship.Rep. Leo Berman has introduced a bill that would require any candidate for president or vice president of the United States to provide his or her birth certificate to the Texas secretary of state."This bill is necessary because we have a president whom the American people don't know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place," Leo Berman, who has represented the 6th District of Texas since 1999, told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal."I don't know anything about President Obama," Berman told Monday."There's a certificate of live birth, which is what the state of Hawaii sends out," explained. "Why isn't that good enough?""Well, because it's not an original birth certificate. It doesn't show the parents' place of birth. And, also, we know for certain that President Obama's father was born in Kenya. Since he was born in Kenya, in -- that was a British protectorate. President Obama was born in 1961. And with his father being a British citizen, at least, President Obama, we think, holds dual citizenship," Berman replied."Well, actually, technically that's not correct," said. "He may have been born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of his father being under the British -- a British subject, being from Kenya, but he automatically lost that in -- at the age of 23."According to the British Nationality Act of 1948, a person loses his or her citizenship if it isn't claimed by the age of 23."And the Hawaii state health director has acknowledged that, back in 2008, she has -- and I quote -- 'personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama's original birth certificate -- certificate on record, in accordance with state policies and procedures,'" continued."The governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, was quoted as saying: 'I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact,'" he explained."Well, my question to you, then, , is, why -- did you see it? I would like to see it," Berman said."You can go and see it. The nonpartisan fact-checking organization FactCheck.org, they -- they looked at it. It has a raised seal. They say it's legit," noted.In August 2008, FactCheck.org confirmed that it had examined and verified Obama's birth certificate.Then wanted to know if Berman had applied the same test to Republican presidents."[H]ave you seen W. Bush's transcripts from college?" asked."I could see anything I want from W. Bush," Berman replied."Actually, sir, you couldn't... President Bush refused to release that information from Andover and from his time at Yale," said.Ignoring that question, Berman repeated a debunked internet rumor that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 during a ban on US citizens traveling there. "Where are the president's passports and his travel records which got him to Pakistan in the early '90s, when no U.S. citizen could get to Pakistan at all?""I respect you," interrupted. "And I respect, certainly, your service to this country, but where do you get your information? Because that -- that -- what you have just said is factually incorrect.""Sir, he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, and -- when he was a student. And -- and, actually, Americans could travel to Pakistan then," added."In fact, I -- we have an article from The New York Times from 1981 from the travel section about the joys of traveling in Pakistan. You needed a -- American citizens, I think they needed a 30-day visa, but American citizens could go and travel in Pakistan. That's just an Internet rumor that you're spreading," he said."Sir, just, of the points you -- of the points you have raised, the factual points to -- I mean, you're basing legislation on stuff that's basically just rumors and stuff that's been proven to be false," noted. has been praised for his calm and competent handling of Berman."Watching, it's clear just how often exchanges like this don't happen on cable television, which given it's 24 hour cycle would suggest a luxury of time," wrote Mediaite's Mark Joyella "And beyond that, 's preparations–so clearly his own and not fed by earpiece–prove he's somebody who sets himself apart from talking point parrots who populate most other shows on cable.""This is a journalist doing his job, and doing it very, very well," he concluded.For their part, birthers have resurged in the past few weeks. Berman filed his bill requiring presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate.Former Republican Congressman LeBoutillier released a fictional book that he says uses "real things" like Obama's grandmother once claimed she was present for his Kenyan birth.Last week, Lou Dobbs, who has defended birthers in the past, announced he would be hosting a show on Fox Business News.On Monday, the Supreme Court Justices rejected a lawsuit that claimed Obama was not a US citizen because his father was a citizen of the British crown.

Post Comment »

The SchwartzReport is a daily publication provided free of charge by schwartzreport.netPortions Copyright 2001 - 2010 by Nemoseen Media