Tag: environment
Don't Buy Coca-Cola's Plastic Trash Promise

Don't Buy Coca-Cola's Plastic Trash Promise

Former New Mexico Gov. Bruce King was renowned for his frequent malapropisms and contorted logic.

For example, he once refused to back a bill pushed by loan-shark lobbyists — but he pledged that it if the legislature passed the thing, he would sign it. Well, the bill did pass ... but Bruce vetoed it! The lobbyists swarmed him, crying that he had given his promise. Yes, the governor conceded, but "we all know that a promise is not a commitment."

Apparently, Coca-Cola executives have been studying Gov. King's verbal backflip, for the multibillion-dollar corporate behemoth suddenly announced this month that it was adopting his "a-promise-is-not-a-commitment" ploy. The beverage barons are using King's dictum to squirm out of the widely ballyhooed promise they made just a few years ago to curtail the corporation's contamination of our planet with plastic waste.

Coke has been the world's No. 1 plastic polluter six years in a row, so its previous pledge to cut its plastic trash in half by 2030 would've had a major impact. But, oops, the honchos now say that was never a commitment — just a "voluntary environmental goal." That goal, they explain, has "evolved," so now they're focused on imposing "efficient resource allocation to deliver lasting positive impact."

You don't need a BS detector to translate that corporate gobbledygook. Coke's "resource allocation" will defund its environmental efforts to further enrich its wealthiest shareholders, delivering a "lasting positive impact" for those few. And for the many who will continue absorbing the deadly petropolymers that Coca-Cola carelessly discharges into our air, water, soil, food and bodies — well, tough luck.

Don't be fooled by voluntary anti-pollution requirements. I promise you, they are hoaxes.

Let's all sing the holiday classic: "All I want for Christmas ... Is Something Not Made of Plastic."

Easier sung than done. Plastic is now ubiquitous in toys, electronics, tools, air, water ... and us. And don't forget the plastic Baby Jesus in Christmas tableaus.

What is plastic, anyway? It's a toxic synthetic material mostly manufactured from petroleum by such giants as ExxonMobil, the globe's top purveyor. So much is produced by these profiteers that plastic trash is now a planetary disaster.

But not to worry, for Big Oil's lobbyists assure us gabillions of plastic bags, bottles and such are being recycled, keeping them out of our landfills, water, bodies, etc. Swell! Except ... they're lying.

After all, Exxon is the same for-profit contaminator that lied for years that fossil fuels were not causing climate change, even though top executives knew they were. Their ethic of deceit continues today — Big Oil knows that 94% of U.S. plastics are not recycled. Indeed, they can't be.

Faced with growing public alarm about the ever-growing glut of plastic pollution, the industry has doubled down on deceit by offering a snappy new PR slogan: "Advanced Recycling." They say it's a magical process dubbed "pyrolysis." Only ... it doesn't work, it's inordinately expensive, and it increases climate change emissions. Still, Exxon exclaims its AR will soon be processing half a million tons of plastic waste! But that's not even a drop in the plastic bucket, for more than 400 million tons of plastic waste is discarded each year — and the oil industry is planning to double plastic production by 2040.

The only real way to stop runaway plastic pollution of us and our planet is to use less plastic. To learn more and help, go to Beyond Plastics: BeyondPlastics.org.

Populist author, public speaker and radio commentator Jim Hightower writes The Hightower Lowdown, a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America’s ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at HightowerLowdown.org.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Former President Donald Trump

Trump Vows To Suspend 'All Environmental Approvals' For Any Billion-Dollar Investor

President-elect Donald Trump pledged to fast-track permits and tamp down regulations, including environmental, for any entity that wants to invest $1 billion or more in America, while offering no specifics or parameters, including how the federal government could arbitrarily overrule state and local laws.

“Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals. GET READY TO ROCK!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social website.

During the campaign, Trump told oil and gas executives and lobbyists at a closed-door Mar-a-Lago fundraiser that if they invested $1 billion in his campaign, he would scale back or remove environmental regulations.

“Attendees included executives from ExxonMobil, EQT Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil industry,” The New York Times had reported in May. “The event was organized by the oil billionaire Harold Hamm, who has for years helped to shape Republican energy policies.”

Trump has announced his nominee for Secretary of the Interior will be North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.

“Under the National Environmental Policy Act,” Forbes reports, “the federal government is required to conduct environmental reviews before approving energy production plans, infrastructure builds and other projects. How Trump will help investors get around regulations isn’t clear, but Trump has vowed to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, projects that are often stymied or killed in the regulatory process.”

Critics blasted Trump’s statement.

314Action, which says it is “the only organization in the nation focused on recruiting, training, and electing Democrats with a background in science to public office,” wrote: “To tackle the climate crisis, Congress needs to pass and enforce bold, evidence-based legislation. However, Donald Trump doesn’t believe that billionaires should have to follow the law. In his world, they can pay-to-play and bypass crucial environmental protections. That’s why we’ll always fight to #ElectScientists who will fight back against his anti-science agenda and hold these bad actors accountable.”

“A government of oligarchs that will exist to solely serve the interests of oligarchs while distracting working people with culture wars. Foreign corporations & persons can loot & pollute the US and bypass regs that protect the health of Americans as long as they got lots of cash,” observed MeidasTouch editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski.

Journalist David Leavitt asked, “How many animals will go extinct because of this? How much quicker will this hasten the destruction of our planet?”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Why We Need Not Obsess Over Declining Birth Rates

Why We Need Not Obsess Over Declining Birth Rates

Americans have this big obsession over population numbers. One reason is that reports related to population come with numbers. Numbers give politicians and journalists something concrete to either agonize or crow over.

The problem with this approach is that the numbers don't necessarily reflect the living reality of people being counted. Americans felt OK with their country in 1960, when the population totaled 179 million. But with birthrates falling and population growth flattening, there's allegedly a crisis even though the number of Americans today, 336 million, is almost double that of 1960.

The Boston Globe frets that cities like Omaha, Nebraska, and Bakersfield, California, are producing far more babies per capita than Boston and Seattle. The reason is that highly educated workers are more likely to delay starting a family until their 30s. About 53 percent of Bostonians aged 25 and older have at least a college degree, compared with just under 40 percent of Omahans in the same age group.

Needless to say, Boston and Omaha are both wonderful cities, each in its own way.

This counting also fails to consider land area. Older coastal cities have tight city limits whereas the newer ones in the interior tend to have large land areas. Omaha has about 500,000 people living in an area of about 145 square miles, while Boston's 675,000 residents squeeze into 90 square miles. Thus, one can more easily live in a suburban-type setting — where many families prefer to raise kids — in a place like Omaha than in Boston. Boston has huge far-flung suburbs outside the city limits that don't make it into this kind of count.

There are problems attached to fewer babies. Many argue that falling birth rates combined with rising life expectancy will lead to economic crisis as fewer young people are available to support growing numbers of retirees.

Another word for problem, however, is challenge. One reason for higher life expectancies is that Americans are healthier at older ages. It's undeniable that for many, 65 isn't what it used to be.

Picturesque rural areas like Sevier County, Tennessee, are now growing rapidly as older Americans, who once hiked there on vacation, now want to hike there in retirement, The Wall Street Journal reports. Long-time locals may resent the heavier traffic, but robust younger retirees need relatively little health care, and they tend not to have kids in school. Thus, they go light on use of public services.

Furthermore, retirement is not what it used to be. The older workforce — defined as Americans 65 and up — has nearly quadrupled since the mid-1980s, according to The Pew Research Center. Those 75 and older are the fastest-growing age group in the workforce. Their participation has more than quadrupled in size since 1964.

Of course, these numbers also reflect there being more older people. And many have not saved enough for a long retirement and must continue working. But many healthy "retirees" simply want to stay engaged.

Today's older Americans tend to have higher educational levels than their parents. Their jobs are less likely to require heavy physical labor, which can wear out a body. That brings us to "phased retirement," a trend whereby a worker stays with the same employer but puts in fewer hours.

There's the related phenomenon of "bridge jobs" — jobs in the same industries that involve a different kind of work or fewer hours. An example would be a manager moving into a sales position.

In the last century, the global population nearly quadrupled from 1.6 billion to 6 billion. Continuing that trend would have led to environmental catastrophe. Today's flatlining birth rates should be far preferable.

They come with challenges, yes. But it can all be worked out,

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Elon Musk

How Elon Musk Changed Clean Water Into A Dirty Whine

There is nothing quite as pitiful as whiny billionaires. And the whiniest of all is the richest — Elon Musk. This self-entitled bully runs over anyone in his way, then whines when they protest.

Elon's latest high-pitched screech was prompted by public demands that his profiteering schemes obey clean-water and safety regulations. He owns a corporation named (believe it or not) the Boring Company — an underground tunnelling venture based in Bastrop, Texas, digging out tons of soil, chemicals and contaminated groundwater. But where to put all the waste? I'll just dump the stuff in the nearby Colorado River, said Lord Musk. Lots of stuff — 140,000 gallons of wastewater per day!

But that river is our main water source, said local people — you'll need to comply with water treatment and disposal rules. Outrageous, whined Elon, maniacally squealing that "Construction is becoming practically illegal" in America. So, he proceeded to dump his waste without a permit.

Then he encountered Chap Ambrose, a Boring neighbor and former Musk admirer. Chap began asking questions and getting nothing but evasions, lies and disrespect. Musk was messing with Texas, so Ambrose rallied local opposition through a website he named "Keep Bastrop Boring," promoting it on a local billboard. With a drone, he videoed Musk's expanding industrial mess, broadcasting the videos throughout the area. He filed actions with county, state and national regulatory authorities, and got his state senator to hold a hearing, attended by hundreds of residents in this rural county.

Musk can bamboozle powerful officials, but not feisty people like Chap, who recently ridiculed the pouty billionaire. "I'm sorry, neighbor," Ambrose told him. "Development remains legal in Bastrop, but what is illegal is polluting Texas water... You're making this way harder than it has to be."

The fight goes on — and I'm betting on Chap.

The Secretive Presidential Primary That Excludes You

Are you excited by — or do you dread — the upcoming presidential election season? Either way, buckle up, for it's only 12 weeks till the Iowa caucuses, and then (zoom!) there's nonstop voting across America for the rest of 2024. Democracy at work!

Well... unless you don't notice the Plutocratic Primary, where — shhhh! — presidential voting is already taking place. However, this balloting is only open to a teensy number of very exclusive voters: billionaires.

These privileged ones don't have to go to public campaign events; candidates come to them for closed-door tete-a-tetes, making undisclosed promises in exchange for millions of dollars in campaign funds. This secretive primary lets moneyed elites initiate or eliminate policies that candidates obediently support. Moreover, by granting or withholding large donations, billionaires can determine which candidates are considered "viable," letting the superrich have a heavy hand in "choosing the choices" that we commoners will have next year.

The New York Times reports that this flexing of the money muscle was recently exercised at a closed meeting of GOP sugar daddies in Utah. Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie and other presidential wannabes were on display, pleading with the donors to choose them as the party's alternative to former President Donald Trump — and to shoo the other Republican contenders out of the race.

Haley bluntly appealed to the rich clique's plutocratic ego: "I think it's up to the donors to decide which candidates should get off the stage." Christie went a step further toward plutocratic rule, asking the elite attendees to decide who would be "the best president."

No one in the room bothered asking the obvious question: Best for whom? Everyone knew he meant best for the rich. No need for messy elections; let the billionaires choose!

To find out more about Jim Hightower and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Reprinted with permission from Ceators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World