According to the Food and Drug Administration, the bowl of Cheeros I had for breakfast this morning is now considered drugs.   Because of Gereral Mills claim that Cheerios soluable fiber combined with a low fat diet can help reduce cholesterol by 4% in 6weeks, the FDA says that Cheerios are a drug.

I would like to thank the FDA for taking the time to regulate this dangerous claim.  I feel so much safer now.

Personally, I would like to see them spend their time and money reducing salmonella outbreaks, so we know our produce and meats are safer.

I heard this report on “fracting” on NPR earlier this week.  Fracting is the process of pumping millions of gallons of water or chemicals into the ground to help extract natural gas from the earth.  The pressure causes the ground to fracture, releasing natural gases.  

Apparently, a couple of years ago the Feds gave an exemption for fracting so the EPA does not have jurisdiction over this.  It is up to states to police this, but  many states don’t possess the skills, money or desire to regulate this industry.  

One guy in Texas was talking about how after fracting was done near his home that the water pressure changed and it blew several of his water pipes out.  The water began to stink and gave his daughter a terrible rash.  His horses refused to drink from the water trough, now covered with an oily film. Texas officials had little interest in investigating this and the oil and gas companies have no obligation to even disclose what they are pumping into the ground.  

Environmental groups are lobbying Congress to bring this back under the domain of the EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

President Obama’s proposed fuel efficiency standards would increase average mileage to 35 miles per gallon.  I hope whatever is approved will reduce all harmful gas emissions and also will take care to remove the oldest and worst polluting cars from the road. 

An article I read in Friday’s Wall Street Journal said that the dirtiest 10% of the cars account for more than 50% of pollution and that the dirtiest 1/3 account for 80% of harmful gases.

Already, people are arguing that the mileage standards will force us to have lighter cars and that these will lead to more highway deaths.  I do not think that they give proper credit to the creativity of America’s automotive designers and engineers.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294901851445311.html

In an effort to curb global warming the House Energy and Commerce Committee green lighted a proposed bill to put carbon caps in place and reduce United States emissions roughly 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.   The measure, often called the Waxman Markey Bill, still faces challenges in the Senate before it will become law.

The Waxman Markey Bill proposes a cap and trade system in which the government will set emission limits and then issue permits allowing companies to pollute up to those limits.  Companies would then be able to trade those permits with each other.  85% of the permits would be free and the rest would be auctioned off at a minimum bid of $10 per ton of emissions.

The bill would also require America’s electric utilities to by 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, to reduce reliance on coal generated electricity.

China, which has been building coal fired electricity plants at an alarming pace, released a surprising document saying that it wants developed nations to reduce their carbon emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2020.   China is also asking oil rich countries to donate up to 1% of their gross domestic product to poor countries to help them deal with climate change issues.    Europe, in return has pledged reductions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2020.    India at this point has refused to commit to any carbon caps.

Source Material from Wall Street Journal Articles:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124295302384145601.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124290515793142949.html

Consumer behavior is pretty easy to figure out , relative to pain avoidance.  As evidenced by sky high gas prices last summer, when prices increased, demand for that product decreased.  Economists use a concept called price elasticity to describe the relationship between changes in price and changes in demand.  

Non-essential items, like Vermont Teddy Bears, may be fairly price elastic as they are non-essential and there are many alternative items one could buy.  And those alternatives will become more and more appealing as the price of Vermont Teddy Bears rise.  On the other hand, things considered to be essentials (food staples are a common example) are less elastic.  People will complain, but they still need to eat.

Before last summer OPEC and many economists learned some valuable lessons about the price elasticity of gasoline in America.  They discovered that when gas rose over $4.00 a gallon that Americans started selling their SUV’s, buying more fuel efficient cars,  using public transportation or even riding a bike, walking or sharing a ride.

The whole notion of Carbon Cap and Trade relies upon these same market dynamics.  The idea is that by putting a price on carbon emissions we will be able to use free market dynamics to reward efficiency and add costs to provide a disincentive for inefficiency or using products that harm the environment.

While much of the talk is at the industry level, it is really consumers and businesses that will be making the economic choices that will help improve our environment.   While that sounds good on the surface it also means that additional costs will be passed on to consumers for things like electricity, gas, cars, food, homes and other products.

In fact, the average household may pay an extra $1,600 annually, according to a Congressional Budget Committee study.  Consumers, naturally, will do their best to avoid those extra costs by changing their consumption habits.  

There are programs being proposed to lessen or eliminate the impact on low income Americans, those earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level.   While there is much reason to believe that the economic principals driving cap and trade are sound and will achieve environmental goals, it is also clear that this may be a tough row to hoe for many families already stressed by the turbulent economy.   I respect the intent, but have concerns about the hard choices (i.e. food vs clothing) that lower and lower middle class Americans may face if that Congressional report is accurate.   Of course, numbers can be twisted to meet the goals of supporters or detractors of any bills, so I will reserve judgement until I see more data.   

Last night we watched a National Geographic special about Orca’s.  It was a fascinating special, but one thing that really caught my attention the segment on farmed salmon.   While I would have thought that farmed salmon would have been a positive for the environment, that could not be farther from the truth.

To raise 1 pound of farmed salmon they need to feed the salmon 4 pounds of fish.   That is hardly sustainable and is devastating the food sources for wild salmon and other fish.  One pod of Pacific Orca’s principally feeds on wild salmon and barring a dramatic turn around experts expect the pod will be unable to survive.   Studies show that the introduction of salmon farms reduce wild salmon stock by 50% or more.  The problem is even worse for Atlantic salmon as their escaped farmed salmon interbreed with the wild salmon dooming their offspring.

If you think farmed salmon are just bad for wild salmon and orcas, take a look at their impact on people.  Although PCB’s (Polychlorinated biphenyls )were banned in the 1970’s because they have a long half life the PCB’s are found in significant levels in the farmed salmons.   PCB’s are not found in nature and the farmed salmon absorb PCBs from contaminated sediments and from their food.  According to a study by the Environmental Working Group , the levels of PCB’s were 16 times higher in farmed salmon than wild salmon.

Because of the negative health effects of PCB’s on humans the Environmental Working Group advised eating only wild salmon.   It is also advisable to grill or broil salmon to cook off the fat where the PCB’s are stored.  Most canned salmon is wild salmon.

So, it turns out that the cheap farmed salmon is not cheap at all.  It is destroying the wild salmon population, threatening the survival of the fish used food stock used to feed the farmed salmon, threatening some orca populations, making it hard for commercial salmon fishermen to survive since there are fewer wild salmon to catch and they get less money for the ones they do catch, and the farmed salmon are less healthy for people to eat.

While farmed salmon seemed like a good idea, the evidence is in and clear that salmon farms must be banned and soon.  Use thsi simple online form to contact your store to demand they quit selling farmed salmon today.