Politics 1, New York 0

I was an ambitious plan, worthy of the greatest city in the world. Reduce traffic, increase mass transit, increase the use of solar power in city buildings, plant more trees, the list goes on. It was the most ambitious undertaking in decades, but PlaNYC has been beaten by short-sighted politicians who can't put the good of their city before their own egos.

(Read the stories in the NY Times and NY Sun)

The Assembly's failure to even vote means the city loses the federal funding, the MTA does not have the money to improve the mass transit system, and the plan as a whole loses a major source of income.

So the next time you're stuck in Manhattan traffic and choking on the exhaust fumes of those around you, thank the New York Democrats.

Congestion Pricing Moves Closer

The U.S. Department of Transportation overwhelming endorsed the plan for congestion pricing in New York City. Not only did Mary E. Peters, the transportation secretary, praise Mayor Bloomberg's plan, but the federal government put its money where its mouth is, ponying up $354 million to help fund the plan.

She said of the plan, "Unlike building new roads, this plan can be implemented quickly and will have almost an immediate impact on traffic. That's something our current approach has failed to deliver. It seems the only thing growing faster than transportation spending -- which has doubled since 1991 -- is traffic congestion along our cities and highways. Mayor Bloomberg is that rare politician willing to take on taboo topics like congestion pricing, because he knows that commuters need solutions that work, not promises that do not."

The department of transportation all but said congestion pricing must be part of the plan if NYC is to receive the money. Ms. Peters made it clear that she believed congestion pricing was an essential element of that plan, saying "it would be difficult for them to meet those performance objectives" if the commission arrives at a plan that is "substantially different" from the mayor's.

The question that remains is will dinosaurs like Sheldon Silver and Walter McCaffrey get out of the way of progress, or will they be run over by it.

Hurricanes Will Be Bad This Year...Or Not

Last year, NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) predicted an above average year for hurricanes. It didn't happen. Earlier this year, they made the same prediction for this year. It hasn't happened yet. Today, NOAA announced that it will be an above average season but not as bad as they thought it was going to be. These guys can't predict what the weather is going to be like from June to October, but we're expected to believe that they can predict what climate change will do to the weather 100 years from now.

A new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature found that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called ÒaerosolsÓ) that make up Òbrown cloudsÓ may actually contribute to warmer temperatures Ñ precisely the opposite effect claimed by global warming alarmists. So does this mean global climate change will be worse than expected or better? The fact is no one knows because the underlying data is so bad.

The fact is nobody knows what is going to happen, so let's take steps that have nothing to do with global warming.

1) We know that increased pollution in the air causes asthma and allergies and has other negative effects on health. Clean up emissions so they don't affect our health.

2) Terrorist groups get funding from OPEC nations in the Middle East. You want to stop the terrorists, stop their funding. You want to stop funding them, reduce our need for foreign oil.

3) There are people starving all over the world. Biotechnology can create plants that will be drought resistant. Let them do so.

My point is climate change is a mystery. If we take care of the related issues that we know about, climate change will take care of itself.

The Myth Of Local Food

Now that most "green" people are coming to realize that most of what they thought they knew about organic food is a myth, many of them are shifting gears to promote local food. The theory is that by supporting local farms, you're saving the environment from the fuel and carbon emissions that is used in shipping.

Except is doesn't actually work that way. Studies have shown that the most energy intensive part of the food buying process is your trip to the market, not the food's. The fact is, some food needs to be shipped. When was the last time to were in New England and bought a locally-grown orange or banana. So shipping is inevitable, and it's more efficient to ship a lot of items rather than just a few.

There's one other fact that these people forget. Not everything is better locally. I live in Connecticut. I don't want most of food from here. I want my apples from New York or Washington. I want my onions from Georgia (Vidalia to be exact). Even the local farmer buys his carrots from California.

The fact is not all food is not created equal. It depends on the soil and the climate. Besides, I dare anybody to get a local lobster in Iowa. Some things just shouldn't be local.

Live Earth Concert Kills Environment

Did anyone walk through the parking lots of the Live Earth concerts this weekend? Did anyone calculate the sheer amount of gas that was used to get musicians, their equipment, and the fans to each venue?

The energy used to create this event could have powered a small country. Despite the hype that clean energy would be used, where did this energy come from. The organizers of the Tokyo show freely admit that they got power from an already existing solar power station. They also admit that by using this power, the homes and businesses that usually get their power from the station had to use dirtier forms of energy.

The claim is that the organizers are raising awareness. Awareness was already as high as it would ever get. To try to raise more awareness, organizers sacrificed the environment they were trying to raise awareness of.

The Hypocrisy of Green

Green has become a buzzword lately and like any fad, it has its johnny-come-latelies jumping on the bandwagon. Former president Bill Clinton is one of these. His foundation has spearheaded a program which will allow skyscrapers to go green and cut their energy use by 20%-50%. This is an excellent idea, but one can't help wonder where he's been for the last 14 years?

During the Clinton presidency, he did nothing of consequence for the environment. Since living office, he's done nothing at all. Suddenly, now that Hillary is running for president, he comes out of hibernation to grab headlines by going green. Is this nothing more than a campaign publicity stunt? Probably.

Aside from publicity grabs, the environment is being degraded by environmentalists who refuse to look at the whole problem. There is a huge movement to ban incandescent light bulbs. Why? Compact florescent bulbs use less energy and convert energy to light more efficiently. However, these bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is toxic. If one of these bulbs break in your home, it's not a simple clean-up. You must have hazardous materials removed from your home. On top of that, these bulbs will eventually find their way into landfills, with all the mercury. Banning incandescent bulbs is just another way of people jumping on the bandwagon and not paying attention to the consequences.

Of course, there are other groups that impact the environment and pay no attention to what they're doing. Why do Americans drive big cars? In many cases, we're forced to by a group I refer to as "safety-nazis." These safety-nazis have convinced politicians that children need to be in car seats much longer than they have to be. They always back-up their position by saying "studies show," but after considerable research the only studies I could find were put out by car-seat manufacturers. Of course, they're going to show that their products are necessary. How does this translate to bigger cars? Thanks to the new draconian laws requiring older children to be in car-seats, many families with two children have to have them both in car-seats, even if the kids are as much as eight years apart. Have you tried fitting two of these things into a small, fuel-efficient car. You can't do it unless they're installed in such a way that they are completely useless. The fact is you can keep your kids safe by being a good driver and following the rules of the road. The car-seat manufacturers don't want you know that. They'd rather you buy their products and get a gas guzzler to fit.

The Greener Apple

Much ado is being made about Steve Jobs' message about Apple's environmental policies, but I found the coverage on the Greenpeace site even more interesting. The first thing I noticed is that apparently, Greenpeace can't read.

Steve Jobs used the phrase "So today we're changing our policy." According to the mangled quote on Greenpeace's website, this means Apple is changing it's polluting ways and Greenpeace is more than happy to take credit for forcing this change in policy.

Read the statement.

It doesn't say that Apple is changing it's environmental policy. It says it is changing its policy about not talking about future plans. Steve Jobs then goes on to talk about what Apple has already done. Apple has been green for years, its just that the idiots at Greenpeace weren't aware of it.

Of course, Greenpeace isn't about the environment. They don't care about the environment, they care about power. "Basically, they are using sensation, misinformation and scare tactics." Who said this? Patrick Moore, founder and past president of Greenpeace. Patrick Moore is someone who actually cares about ecology, which is why he left Greenpeace.

"The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that actually had more to do anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business and very little to do with science and ecology," he stated on Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

Greenpeace targeted Apple because it's a high profile, trendy company. Not because there was any real environmental issue there.