Email Debate: Paper or Plastic?

When Stephen saw a study on his favorite blog purporting to show that the production of plastic bags generated fewer carbon emissions than their reusable counterparts, and that it would take up to 131 reuses of said reusable bag to make for the increased carbon emissions it took to produce it, his eyes lit up.  Had he finally found the noble sword to drive into the stone that his longtime scourge called a heart?  Sure, we may be talking about environmentalists, who care about things like clean water and sea turtles.  But after many years of doing battle with Matt - Mr. Eco-Action - on issues related to environmental protection, Steve sensed he may have found the knockout punch he so craved.  A lively debate ensued:


Stephen: Matt, in light of this study, will you join in me in saying the environmentalist crowd has gotten this one wrong? 

Matt: The article you linked is simplistic at best, and the dumbest thing I've ever read at worst.  First, their measure of "better for the environment" is extremely narrow - the study measures carbon emissions but says nothing about waste.  The carbon emissions finding is insightful, for sure, and should make people think twice before they reflexively assume a "reusable" bag has no impact.  But the article says nothing about plastic bags ending up in landfills or waterways.  Does that not impact the environment?  The DC bag tax, which I assume you don't support, wasn't created as a high-minded local solution to global warming... they did it to keep plastic bags from ending up in the Anacostia River.  Alternatively, have you ever heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? 

Despite the scorn with which you and the author to this article refer to the "environmentalist crowd," you've taken a simplistic study and used it to justify a wasteful status quo and then beat your chest about it.  The biggest problem with plastic bags isn't that they exist, it's that they are overused and then wasted.  The best thing anyone can do for the environment is use less, and in a country that values thrift when it comes to our economic decisions, I've never understood why some people look down on the idea that we shouldn't waste our other resources.

Read Stephen's response after the jump...

Friday Links: Heresy, Innovation, and Disappointing GDP

Ice Cube knows it, you do too.  What?


That's right, it's Friday.  So get your open containers ready because Conflict Revolution Daily Links are about to go DOWN.  Let's take a look at what's in the news today:

1) The United States economy grew at a disappointing rate of 2.2% on the first quarter of 2012, lower than the median rate of 2.5% forecasted by economists and lower than the 3.0% growth between October and December of 2011.  Some silver lining?  Consumer confidence hit the highest level in a year, indicating improving demand, while household purchases ticked up by 2.9%, exceeding even the most optimistic estimates.  Also, Germany and Japan's economies are shrinking, and Britain is officially in a double-dip recession... so at least we're not them. ["Economy in US Grew Less Than Forecast in First Quarter," Bloomberg, 4/27/12]

2) Stephen Siena, CR's other esteemed writer, has long argued that modern, Western secularism is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian thought and stressed that this really makes the US a Christian nation. So is Western secularism just another in the long line of Christian heresies? ["Bad Religion," Slate, 4/19/12]

3) CNN's John Avlon gives a well-reasoned perspective on tax reform, but how anyone sees the Republicans and Democrats as being equally intransigent is completely beyond me.  Call me when 95 percent of congressional Dems sign a pledge to NEVER cut spending. ["Why tax reform talk a dead end," CNN, 4/17/12]

4) Former Bush speechwriter David Frum on what Barack Obama can learn from Lyndon Johnson ["Read this book, Obama!," The Daily Beast, 4/15/12"]

5) Finally, from an excellent blog on urban living, why cities with lower carbon emissions are more innovative ["What Makes Some Cities Greener Than Others," The Atlantic Cities, 4/22/12]

The British economy is in recession, but so is the time left in your work week.  Kick back but don't switch back... the Conflict Revolution will not be televised, but it is available on the internet.

Over and out.

Morning Update: Another Reason to Love Penguins

Penguins are loved around the world for their novelty, charm, and all around awkward-looking mystique.  If you were still out on the outside looking in when it came to doting over the venerable aquatic creature, however, we at Conflict Revolution have dug up another fun fact about the lovable Sphenisciformes Spheniscidae:

They might like fish, but they don't like Newts.  

Now, apparently the former Speaker of the House loves animals, but hasn't he learned anything in his 60+ years about getting too close to them at the zoo? 

And furthermore, I know they live at opposite ends of the earth, but they are also at opposite ends of the food chain: wouldn't you expect a polar bear to be able to take on a penguin?  Just saying.  

Don't even try to deny the similarity

Other links for Thursday 4/26:

1) In further penguin-related reportage, three Australian guys had a night to remember - then saw what they woke up next to ["Penguin Stolen From Sea World Australia By Drunk Thieves," Huffington Post, 4/23/12]

2) That penguin wasn't the only thing biting fingers during the month of April - this is downright disturbing ["Man bites off bartender's pinky finger after having sex in bar," Newark Star-Ledger, 4/2/12]

3) On a more serious note, another piece about the response to the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Did the media see racism and dollar signs? ["Who is 'Racist'," Real Clear Politics, 4/24/12]

4) Also, guess who's received the most negative media coverage so far this campaign season?  I'll give you a hint: it's not a Republican ["Romney's Media Edge Over Obama," The Daily Beast, 4/25/12]

5) Finally, before you buy that plastic water bottle, check out this app for Android smartphones ["WeTap App Finds Drinking Fountains in Any City," GOOD Magazine, 4/25/12]

It's pretty crappy outside, but it's Thursday, so that's got to count for something, right?  Go get some work done... or not. 

Before you go on your lunch break...

Please be advised of this issue of great international social and economic import:

Starbucks to phase out GROUND BEETLE JUICE from its products. YEAH.

And you thought bug-eating in the "third world" was gross. Take a long, hard look at your strawberry frappucino... and stay thirsty, my friends.

Daily Link Digest: 4/13/12

1) Grantland's Brian Phillips takes a critical look at how the world of Mad Men is represented during the Masters golf tournament (Grantland)

2) David Brooks interprets the country's political divide through the lens of a fundamentally changing economic landscape (The New York Times)

3) The Obama Campaign shows a bit of hypocrisy on fair pay - women working at the White House earned 18 percent less than men in 2011 (Washington Free Beacon)

4) A liberal writer argues that the president must better articulate how economic fairness will lead to economic growth (The Daily Beast)

5) Author Jim Robbins on the importance of trees (New York Times)

We would also like to welcome Philip Hsu of Social Media Consulting, LLC to Conflict Revolution. Phil will be helping to handle our social media outreach in addition to contributing occasional written content. Look out for his name at the bottom of our posts and be sure to contribute your thoughts on what he has to say. Welcome again, Phil!

It's Friday the 13th and it's 2012... so stay out of trouble today, readers. Stay tuned for an email debate between Steve and I later in the day and, as always, be sure to share your thoughts on today's links in our comments section.

Should the Keystone XL Pipeline Be Constructed?

Two weeks ago, President Obama was forced to rule on the Keystone XL pipeline. He had hoped to push the proposal off until 2013 when election year politics would not play a part. However, pressed to make a decision, the President argued he did not have enough time to the project's environmental impacts fully - and therefore rejected the project. Since the pipeline hits home on an issue Matt and I both feel strongly about -- the US' energy future -- and it came up in our previous debate on Solyndra (which you can catch up on here), we decided to tackle this issue in a complete post.

Opening Statement by Stephen (1/30/12):

Rejecting Keystone XL shows us so much about the liberal agenda. It is anti-jobs, anti-consumer, and pro-environmental crusades (but not even good at that). Honestly, the debate seems so one sided, I'm really looking forward to seeing what reasons there are for not constructing this. Here's why we should have:

1 – The pipeline would have employed 13,000 Americans to construct it, 7,000 manufacturing jobs, and 118,000 spin-off jobs. This is in addition to all the businesses that would prosper along the route. At a time when unemployment is at 8.5%, why wouldn't we like this? Even Obama's own jobs council advised that the US must embrace an “all-inapproach” to the energy sector, and further went on to promote safe development of pipelines. #jobcreationfail

More after the jump...

Solyndra's Collapse Means ______.

The collapse of California-based solar panel maker Solyndra, LLC is old news by now, but the political ramifications of its bankruptcy are not. With many conservatives using Solyndra's $535 million federal loan guarantee as evidence to argue that the federal government stop funding renewable energy, and the mainstream media investigating what this means for the future of solar and other emerging energy technologies, right now is an excellent time for conservatives and liberals alike to air beliefs about energy, innovation, new technology, and the role of government in supporting all three. After Stephen began last week's debate with a stirring call to eliminate federal higher education subsidies, it's Matt's turn to lead off.

Posted by Matt, 12/19/11:

The easy answer to this week's question is that Solyndra's collapse means absolutely nothing. Actually I should clarify that - it should mean absolutely nothing.

Alas, therein lies the problem. Combine a rabidly conservative congressional majority desperate for any excuse to discredit the clean energy industry with an electorate that remains particularly sensitive to any perceived government waste, and you have a toxic political brew that threatens to seriously undermine the future growth of the renewable sector, one of the few industries currently adding jobs in a down economy.

The conservative take on Solyndra, and argument against renewable energy in general, is two-fold: number one, they argue, the government shouldn't be "picking winners and losers" through federal subsidies, loan guarantees, tax incentives, or any other sort of investment. The other argument, of course, is that it's a waste of money - and here's where Republicans have seized upon the $535 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees given to Solyndra to summon the righteous outrage of the anti-spending conservative grassroots.

More Solyndra after the jump...