قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / The cruelty is the point of environmental regulation

The cruelty is the point of environmental regulation



A man can relinquish impunity in the streets of San Francisco. Should he choose to shoot heroin while using the city's big outdoor john, the government will only step in to offer him a clean needle. Excremental and pharmacological waste throws the sidewalks into the once Golden City. Environmental activists pay nothing. They have more important regulations to enforce – such as banning water bottles at the airport.

Yesterday, San Francisco Airport officially banned the sale of plastic water bottles in the name of environmental protection. The new rule does not achieve this goal. The airport will continue to sell plastic bottles of soft drinks, juices and sports drinks. But environmental regulations have never primarily sought to protect the environment. The rules mainly seek disadvantages. When it comes to environmental regulation, the cruelty is the point.

Flights dehydrate people. An adult man may lose up to half a gallon of water during a ten-hour flight, and travelers have not been allowed to carry their own water past safety since 2006. So while the new ban on plastic water bottles is unable to reduce plastic consumption of any meaningful amount, it will succeed in raising awareness of environmental issues. A secular remedy, remember your rule of secular sin: pollution. Each thirsty layover strikes as another whip in the discipline. Mea culpa! mea culpa! mea maxima culpa!

Many of the environmental regulations not only fail to protect the natural environment, they actually increase the damage. In 201

6, the state of California banned disposable plastic products for daily use. A study three years later by University of Sydney economist Rebecca Taylor showed that after the ban, plastic consumption actually increased. Buyers who had previously recycled plastic grocery bags for household waste bought thicker, more environmentally harmful plastic bags in their absence.

What about environmentalists' decision to replace plastic grocery bags with paper? A 2011 UK environmental agency study found paper that was significantly more harmful to the planet than plastic. The mass and energy required to produce paper means that you need to reuse a paper bag three times to bring the environmental impact down to the level of disposable plastic.

Many merchants offer reusable cotton bags as a green alternative to both paper and plastic. But a 2018 study from the Ministry of Environment and Food found that the bags were the most environmentally harmful of all. An organic cotton shopping bag will have to be reused 20,000 times to bring the environmental impact per use down to the level of a regular old plastic bag.

How did environmental activists react to the study's findings? Did they admit their mistake and rush to restore the popular plastic bags? No. Like all other cultists, the Green Apostles persisted in falsifying their false religion, with their sin of pollution, atonement of reclamation, "climate change" magedon, and even the sale of indulgences in carbon tax credit.

Zealots fail to save Mother Earth or anyone else. At least they will make you suffer for your sins.


Source link