Uninformed Environmentalism

I'm not sure why this is just hitting the presses, but Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced a bill in March that is designed to ban incandescent light bulbs for sale almost anywhere in this country. (bill text)

Now, I am all for the use of CFL lamps, so long as all color temperatures are offered. (On a recent trip to Home Depot looking for a T8 "tube", I found a dazzling selection of exactly one color, 3000K, a more reddish light than I prefer. Color selection for CFLs is slightly better, but not great.) But this technology needs to continue to evolve on its own. It certainly does not need government to force it upon us if it is the godsend it is described to be.

But my main concern with Ms. Harman's bill is the sheer ignorance that she and her staff have about replacement technology for incandescent lamps. Her initial restriction that all light bulbs must have an efficacy of more than 60 lumens per watt pretty much shuts the door on most LED lamps currently available as well. Since LEDs have a much smaller wattage than even CFL lamps, they would be even better for the environment, but since they don't have the lumens per watt that Ms. Harman desires, they're out. (The restriction rises to 90 lumens per watt in 2016 and 120 lumens per watt in 2020.) Simply google "LED light bulb" and see for yourself just how small the wattages could become, if this lamps are allowed to continue to be sold.

Ms. Harman's bill is simply not good legislation...especially for true environmentalists.

Overenvironmentalism and Hypocrisy

Drudge's evening headlines tonight give a soapbox to several environmentalists and their current crusades. Let's take a closer look at a couple of them:

Children are bad for the planet. This hypothesis is put forward by Professor John Guillebaud, co-chairman of Optimum Population Trust; Professor Guillebaud says, among other things, couples should have no more than two children. That's fine, until one spends about 90 seconds googling the professor and finding this bio page, which says about him and his wife, "they have two sons and one daughter." So, I guess having three children was okay for you, then...right, Professor?

And here's Paul Watson, regarded by many as a co-founder of Greenpeace. He considers mankind a virus on the earth, and he wants the population of mankind to drop below one billion people. A quick check yields nothing to indicate that Mr. Watson isn't alive at this point; apparently the process of getting rid of 5.5 billion meant people other than him, or maybe he really isn't embracing this idea as much as he would like you to think.

Fact-Checking KEYE

This morning on the KEYE Morning News, Elizabeth Dannheim spoke about one of the Columbine victims, and at the end of the story, she said that Columbine was the deadliest school shooting in history until Virginia Tech. Apparently she, or someone at KEYE, completely forgot about a little incident at UT in 1966.

I suppose I should just be happy that Ms. Dannheim is reading the news, rather than having one of the 3-minute chat sessions with Fred Cantu and Susan Vessell that has for some reason become a mainstay on the KEYE Morning News recently.

Short attention span opinion page, with comments

For those who don't have the time or the interest in reading the American-Statesman's Opinion page (current page available here), here are the highlights and lowlights from today's interesting array of informed (and not-so-well-informed, probably including mine) opinions:

Oh, look! Ben Sargent attacks Republicans. To be fair, the voter ID bill seems unnecessary (most of the time, I can't even find my voter registration card), but Mr. Sargent seems to think the evils of the world are all the fault of the GOP.

George McGovern weighs in on Dick Cheney and absurdly claims that he would have balanced the budget. Yeah, that's what the Democratic Party was known for doing in those days. Whatever. Mr. McGovern also believes the president and vice-president will be forced from office before the end of 2008 for "repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law." First of all, let's see some concrete examples of what he has in mind. Second, maybe I missed this, but since when was the U.S. governed by international law?

Maureen Dowd berates Michelle Obama for "emasculating" her (Ms. Obama's) husband. Doesn't she realize that 1) only Republicans are to be emasculated; and 2) only Ms. Dowd is licensed to perform such emasculation? The nerve! (No link available at statesman.com, probably because Ms. Dowd is employed by the New York Times.)

Jonah Goldberg marvels at the over-reliance on polls in politics. Apparently the compass of public opinion has turned once again toward getting rid of the Electoral College. Great idea, if you want presidential candidates never to visit any place with less than a million people again. (For some, with this incredibly long election season, that might not be so bad...)

And, of course, from the Letters section, there has to be someone discounting the tragedy of Virginia Tech because Iraq is "worse". Way to politicize someone's death.

Dallas Stars thoughts

I give Dave Tippett, oh, about another 36 hours in his present position.

This makes my whole month

Carvel has come to Austin. I haven't eaten Carvel ice cream in 13 years. I'm happy.

The RIAA oversteps its bounds...again

I guess I'm at least three days late with this, but that doesn't mean the RIAA's strong-arming of the Copyright Royalty Board into setting up most/all webcasters for certain doom doesn't still require a lot of attention from the webcast-listening public. Visit http://www.savenetradio.org/ to stay informed on this matter. This site has links for an online petition (for all the good those do...hopefully this one will be different) or to write your congressperson.

So, I sent a note to the Honorable Mr. Doggett this morning. Previously, Mr. Doggett (or his staff) has been good about responding to constituent concerns, so we'll see what comes of this.

Northcross nonsense

First, I'll thank Hope Morrison for being a good sport and responding to my previous Northcross entry. Second, I don't live in the part of town most likely to be affected by a Northcross Wal-Mart...I just think Wal-Mart has, for some reason, been singled out by Responsible Growth for Northcross for persecution. Third, I still have issues with some of Ms. Morrison's comments.

For example, Ms. Morrison commented in this blog that "'Four times the traffic' is based on actual traffic counts at Wal-Marts in Austin taken by city staff once everyone acknowledged that the traffic impact analysis submitted by Lincoln was quite likely underestimating traffic." Several questions spring to mind, such as the following:

• Were these traffic counts taken at Wal-Mart locations that replaced non-retail uses, such as the Slaughter/I-35 or Ben White/I-35 locations? If so, I'd tend to believe that traffic patterns would be disrupted by the use. That said, it seems as if RG4N is trying to ascribe all the blame for increased traffic to the Wal-Mart. The Slaughter location is surrounded by the Southpark Meadows center, so the blame ought to be shared. The Ben White location is pretty much responsible for a couple of restaurants' having located there, so it could have been responsible for the change in traffic patterns, except that TxDOT completely botched the Ben White/I-35 interchange, causing other traffic issues on the westbound access road in that area. But that's for another post.
• If the answer to the first question is "no", were these traffic counts taken at Wal-Mart locations that replaced heavy traffic retail uses, such as, say, a mall? I doubt it.
• And really, how much additional traffic would there be at Anderson/Burnet if Northcross were a fully functional mall? I can't imagine Wal-Mart generating four times the traffic of, for example, Barton Creek Square.

So I remain unconvinced regarding the "four times" argument.

Next quote from Ms. Morrison: "The statement about the city approval process having flaws alludes to our allegations that the city didn't follow the law in reviewing and approving the site plan." That doesn't mean the site plan submitted by Lincoln is illegal, as has been stated onRG4N's site; that just means the City of Austin did not give this site plan the attention it may have deserved, should Ms. Morrison's assertion of the site plan requiring a conditional use process be accurate. Given the amount of politicking in the City's development review processes, this, to me, is a non-issue.

Those were Ms. Morrison's main points. In the meantime, RG4N has made a few other statements. For example, "Responsible Growth for Northcross calls upon the City of Austin to explain why it is paying $224,000 in taxpayers' dollars to an outside law firm to fight its citizens." I happen to agree with this. In essence, what the city council appears to be saying by doing this is that they don't have the spines to take a stand on this themselves, and they want something to which they can point...probably when Wal-Mart builds.

RG4N's most recent statement (posted 23 Feb) sheds light on what the real issue is, in stating a fundamental flaw about Lincoln Property/Wal-Mart's new proposed plan: "it still includes a Supercenter..." The issue for RG4N has apparently been not whether there will be more traffic, or whether people will be there at odd hours of the night; the issue seems to be Wal-Mart itself.
Would RG4N be so up in arms if the proposed big box were a Super Target? How about an HEB Plus? I wonder.

Prince Charles: Expert on Everything

Apparently when you're the Prince of Wales, you have to think up new and exciting ways to be relevant. Per this article:

"Prince Charles today said banning McDonald's fast food was the key to a healthy lifestyle."

No word yet on whether he also pointed out that not fooling around with your friend's wife was one of the keys to a healthy marriage.

Irresponsible Propaganda for Northcross

Hope Morrison: the sky is falling at Northcross! It doesn't take long in reading this diatribe to find inaccuracies (and that's a nice way of putting it) in Ms. Morrison's assertions regarding the proposed Wal-Mart at Northcross Mall.

First up: regarding the Anderson/Burnet intersection, "Now imagine four times as much traffic there." Not even close, Ms. Morrison. You might want to read this Traffic Impact Analysis, which points out that Anderson/Burnet currently rates a "D", which, just like in schools, is still considered passing, though it probably shouldn't be. With the new Wal-Mart, it still rates a "D". Big deal, you say? Well, per these Questions and Answers, it can be seen (question #29) that Anderson/Burnet averages a 49.1-second delay during AM rush. What would this Wal-Mart do to that time? I mean, with four times the traffic, it should be horrible, right? Wrong. Try 54 seconds. Would you even notice an extra 4.9 seconds? Be honest, just as Ms. Morrison is not. (Be sure to click those links, as Responsible Growth for Northcross apparently hopes you don't.)

How about this one: "When Wal-Mart enters an area, small and local businesses are forced to close..." I guess when our latest Supercenter went in, I missed the news reports of the Wal-Mart goons going around forcibly closing other businesses. Obviously, Ms. Morrison simply misspelled "compete" as "close". That's the only logical reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement...

...but wait, what's this? "Responsible Growth for Northcross...supported by many residents and businesses [emphasis obviously mine] in the Northcross area, opposes the plan..." Well, duh! Many businesses are apparently opposing Wal-Mart's entry into the area because it would directly compete against them. And apparently these businesses lack the wherewithal or the knowledge to stay afloat, and begrudge a company that has both.

I like this one: "Lincoln Property's site plan has been approved, but we think the review process has significant flaws." I suppose there's some truth in there: anyone who has ever had to get a site plan approved by the City of Austin knows the process is, well, annoying. But just because RG4N thinks something is wrong with the site plan (their website calls the approved site plan illegal; it's not), that doesn't make it reality.

Face it: Wal-Mart and Lincoln Property have their ducks in a row. They have spoken with neighborhood groups in good faith. RG4N's time to mobilize for Northcross was six years ago, when the ice rink closed and the future of the whole mall looked bleak.