[ad_1]
A man can do his needs with impunity in the streets of San Francisco. If he chooses to shoot heroin while he uses the city's outdoor client, the government will only intervene to offer him a clean needle. Excremental and pharmacological wastes strew the pavements of the once golden city. Environmental activists pay no attention. They have more important regulations to apply – such as banning bottles of water at the airport.
Yesterday, the San Francisco Airport officially banned the sale of plastic water bottles in the name of environmental protection. The new rule will not achieve this goal. The airport will continue to sell plastic bottles of soda, juice and sports drinks. But environmental regulations have never sought above all to protect the environment. The rules are mainly aimed at disturbing. When it comes to environmental regulation, the problem is cruelty.
Air travel dehydrates people. An adult man could lose up to half a liter of water during a ten-hour flight, and travelers are no longer allowed to carry their water through safety since 2006. Therefore , the new ban on plastic water bottles will not reduce its consumption, it will manage to raise awareness of environmental issues. A secular penance, the rule recalls your age-old sin: pollution. Each thirsty stop hits as a whiplash of discipline. Mea culpa! mea culpa! mea maxima culpa!
Many environmental rules not only do not protect the natural environment, they aggravate the damage. In 2016, the State of California banned single-use plastic grocery bags. A study done three years later by Rebecca Taylor, an economist at the University of Sydney, showed that after the ban, plastic consumption had increased. Buyers who had previously reused plastic grocery bags for garbage purchased thicker plastic bags and more harmful to the environment in their absence.
How about the environmentalists' decision to replace plastic grocery bags with paper? A 2011 study by the UK Environment Agency found that paper was much more harmful to the planet than plastic. The pulp and energy required for paper production mean that one must reuse a paper bag three times to reduce its environmental impact to the same level as the single-use plastic.
Many grocers offer reusable cotton bags as an environmentally friendly alternative to paper and plastic. However, a study conducted in 2018 by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food revealed that these bags were the most harmful to the environment. An organic cotton shopping bag should be reused 20,000 times to be comparable to an old plastic bag.
How did environmental activists react to the findings of the studies? Did they admit their mistake and hurried to restore the popular plastic bags? Like all followers, the Green Apostles persisted in peddling their false religion, with its sin of pollution, its atonement, its recycling, its tragic climate change and even the sale of indulgences in the form of carbon tax credits. .
Fanatics fail to save Mother Earth or anyone else. At least they will make you suffer for your sins.
[ad_2]
Source link