Impregnating plastics with carbon dioxide
This is a wonderful example of the value of real science versus the fake science, or more correctly, excuse for science, that the Obama administration. The idea of impregnating plastic with CO2 and have the benefits of it being antibacterial is truly wonderful. Perhaps if Environmentalists would spend a little time researching and trying to find alternate ways to deal with what they consider problems, instead of just banning them, they might have a little more respect from those of us on the right.
The problem with most environmentalist is that they are one track thinkers. By that I mean, the only thing they are willing to see is what they want to see. Take the people that are so interested in saving the smelt in the Fresno area of California. It's great that they want to save and endangered species, but they start off with the premise shutting off the irrigation canals will accomplish that.
They didn't take into account the destruction to the rest of the environment that the loss of water would cause. They also didn't take into account, or maybe they didn't care, the impact that the loss of water would have on the residents of the area.
Even if the water is returned to the area, it may never again be as productive as it was before. The economical cost to California was enormous, but the economic loss to the thousands of residents of the area was so much worse. People didn't just lose their livelihoods, they lost homes and land that had been in some families for generations, and some even lost their lives.
Someday, those who caused that mess will have to answer for, but for now it is our responsibility to keep bringing this to peoples attention. We can't let people who decide the fate of hundreds if thousands rule in favor of the limited sight of one track minds.
If they are not able to look toward the future and see the consequences of their actions on the people they represent, then we need to find other people who can do the job. When these people are representing us, they need to make sure that the decisions they make reflect the interests of the people and not the interests of a smelt that may or may not, truly be endangered. And even if it is endangered, we need to have people who will consider whether saving it is worth the cost to the people of this country.
If we have to make choices in whether the life of a smelt, polar bear,spotted owl, or some type of plant is more important than our own we must always choose our own. Otherwise, we will become the endangered species, and quite frankly, I can't see any of those stepping in to save us, can you?