Restitutor Orbis

Environmentalism impacts our lives in many ways - sometimes unexpected. We many of us recycle - some more than others, with it being understood that different communities can hinder or advance efforts at recycling. It can be particularly difficult in apartment buildings, as I've discovered. Where I am now, recycling reduces my garbage output by a good 33%. It makes a noticeable dent in what I throw out, even being limited to type 1 and 2 plastics.

We're also all familiar with the need to not leave all our lights on, and vampire-energy and so forth, and the evils of big SUV's and other gas-guzzlers.

But now they're after our TVs. I just read on Saturday that "California assails TV power usage" and that a "one-third cut" has been mandated by 2011.

The problem is that the big new flat-panel TVs, though lighter and easier on my back, suck up more power than the old fashioned cathode-ray tubes of yesteryear. TV's account, they say, for 10% of household electrical use if you include "related devices" like digital recorders and game consoles.

Egads, they'll be after our games next, and my gods' given right to record programming for later viewing. The Consumer Electronics Association, as might be expected as an outfit representing manufacturers, disagrees with the 10% figure and says 3% is more reasonable.

Personally, I'm more worried about my back than the power.

Even so, I wasn't consulted and California has decided that there be limits on TVs over 58 inches wide.

So they're shooting for a one-third reduction by 2011 and a one-half reduction by 2013. Those that can't meet the standards won't be allowed in CA. I wonder if they'll stop you at the border when you're moving into the state and make you throw your TV into the desert if it's too big.

And that's not all. Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts, along with Canada and Australia, are considering similar measures.

My biggest TV is 42 inches. Just upgraded from 27. So I'm set even in California, but it's not about me.

Well, okay, it's about me, but it's about a lot of other things as well - where do we draw the line, for instance, between consumer rights and the needs of the environment? What becomes necessary? And how much can we justify in the way of government interference?

The environment is a precious thing. We only have one. I'm a Heathen - a Pagan if you will - and Pagan religions are nature religions, as all original religions were. We have a good healthy respect for the environment. That's perhaps natural when you understand that we live in a world filled with the divine.

As such, I try to be careful. I try not to drive when I don't have to. I don't leave unnecessary lights on. In short, I follow Solon's advice: Nothing in excess. Or, as it is put in the Icelandic Sagas, "A wise man does all things in moderation" (Thorkel in Gisli Sursson's Saga).

If everybody lived according to these rules, we could go a long way towards voluntarily resolving some of the problems we are now seeing legislated against. As we go on, we may see more extreme measures taken to protect the environment.

And they will likely be necessary. The problem is, most of the burden falls on the individual in this country. Very little in the way of regulations control what industry does to our environment. They have power lobbyists in Washington. They practically own members of Congress.

So industry pollutes and we lose our big TVs.

Now being a moderate guy, I can probably live without a TV bigger than 58 inches. Honestly, I don't have the wall space for more than that unless I finish my basement.

Will that be next? You can't finish basements because the construction process pollutes? Or will it harm some heretofore unknown microbe that dwells in the cracks of the concrete.

Excess, you see, can go many ways, not only in individuals who might be careless environmentally, or in businesses which remain unregulated, but in governments - even environmentalists, who resort to extreme solutions where moderation might suffice.

I've seen some crazy things over recent years. Crazier even than wanting to take away our TVs (and you don't see an NRA-like group protecting our TVs do you?). I would just like to see common-sense, moderation prevail.

I don't think that's too much to ask, or to expect - from all sides.

Here is a plan the Obama administration will absolutely NOT support: a mileage tax. Secretary Ray LaHood of the Transportation Department had earlier called it an idea "we should look at." Typically Republican:

Speaking to The Associated Press, Transportation Secretary LaHood, an Illinois Republican, said, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." The remark was part of a discussion about various options to help make up for the highway funding shortfall on the federal level.

Just crazy. Why would anyone think this is a good idea? CNN reports:

In a written statement, the department said, "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy."

The idea -- which involves tracking drivers through Global Positioning System (GPS) units in their cars -- is gaining support in some states as a way of making up for a shortfall in highway funding. Oregon carried out a pilot program and deemed it "successful."

This is how it would have worked, according to the report:

Under a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax program, GPS units would allow the government to keep track of how much each car is driven and where -- though not necessarily with exact street locations. The government could also track other things, including the time each car enters a certain zone.

I can understand the reasoning behind a program such as this - funding our infrastructure, and apparently helping the environment and reducing reliance on foreign fuel hurts the cause because with consumers buying less gas, the government takes in less money. "Last fall, Congress approved an $8 billion infusion into the depleted federal highway trust fund," CNN tells us. Unsurprisingly, people were not enthused by the idea. There are privacy issues, for one thing. Do we really need the government looking over our shoulder as we drive and watching our movements?

There has to be a better way, and I'm sure something will be found. Some possible solutions have already been suggested:

• tolls


• higher registration fees


• and other types of taxes

The Republicans complaining about big government will no doubt fail to take notice of this action by the Obama administration. They will find something else to attack and if there is nothing else to attack, they will invent something. Welcome to 2009, my friends. The loyal opposition is not so loyal after all.

President Obama goes after the obstructionists. It is a must-watch:





I'll quote this report in full:

In a sharp departure from Bush Administration policy, the Obama Justice Department on Friday informed the Supreme Court it is dismissing a challenge on rules dealing with allowable mercury emissions from power plants.

The end result is that the Environmental Protection Agency "has decided consistent with the court of appeals' ruling to develop appropriate standards to regulate power plant emissions," the filing said.

The EPA had set up new rules under which it would drop some power plants as the sources of mercury emissions, loosening more rigorous controls set during the Clinton administration. The appeals court had essentially struck down that new regime, and the Bush administration had appealed.

The decision to withdraw the case leaves the older, more stringent rules in place.

So other than Obama's complete failure to rein in the bloated and unconstitutional Faith-Based Initiative, he's done very well by the country. Unfortunately for me, the support of Christianity by a secular government lowers my approval grade of Obama to a B from an A-.

A full week of Obama's presidency has gone by, and it's been the most enjoyable week of the past eight years. In fact, I don't think I've been this happy since Clinton was president. If Bush hadn't done all in his power to bring America to her knees, I'd be even happier. But as I've been saying, at least we have hope now.

Speaking of Bush, Obama is now facing some hard work fixing the breakdown of environmental protections weakened and, in places, outright destroyed by Bush's maliciousness.

Time Magazine reports

when it comes to environmental regulations, he's still in the grip of yesterday. In his last few months in office, former President George W. Bush's Administration pushed through over 150 "midnight regulations," many of them weakening existing environmental protections. Although Obama is now in charge, most of Bush's new rules are on the books, and changing them will take time and effort from an already burdened White House. "The Obama Administration will be saddled with reversing harmful Bush rules at the same time that Obama wants to enact his own agenda," says John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Time observers that "The Obama Administration isn't completely helpless. As the President, Obama of course can push through regulations of his own, but that can take months."

That said, Obama has already made at least one important move: MSNBC reports that

President Barack Obama is poised to let California and other states set their own more stringent auto emission standards in their drive to slash greenhouse gases, an official familiar with the decision said Sunday.

. This is great news. I well remember how angry I was when Bush denied California's request for a waiver. It seemed small minded and mean spirited. Obama, however, is made of better stuff. As MSNBC notes, "he move is significant on two fronts: It could empower states to set tougher standards in targeting emissions, which are blamed for contributing to global climate change."

Obama is also expected to direct the Transportation Department to get moving on rules for automakers to improve fuel economy. A 2007 law requires that by 2020 new cars and trucks meet 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over current standards. The Bush administration ended its tenure before putting the new fuel-economy rules in place.

I would love to see Bush prosecuted for all his crimes against America and against the American people. The world, I think, should have to get in line and have whatever is left of him when we're through. I don't know if that will happen, but it needs to be done. We can't let a president do the things Bush has done ever again.

Finally, MSNBC reports that "The president on Monday is also expected to tout proposals that he says would boost clean energy supplies while also producing badly needed jobs in so-called "green" industries."

Hopefully, this will not include "clean coal" which is a canard if there ever was one. There is no such thing as recent troubles in Tennessee.

A final bit of news today: The Senate voted today to confirm Tim Geithner as the next treasury secretary. He was sworn in by Joe Biden. He appears to be the best man for the job, and he promises far better oversight on the stimulus money than previously displayed by Bush's people.