Search NHI content
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:41PM 
Friday, October 21, 2011
Feature: In a new CEI study, Dana Joel Gattuso explains why cosmetics aren't the dangerous products that environmentalists say they are.
|
|
CEI, Cosmetics, Environmental Issues, Product Safety Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:27AM 
Cosmetics
In recent months, environmentalists have publically questioned the safety of cosmetics.
"As part of their effort to ban the use of synthetic ingredients from skin products, these environmental extremist groups are working to incite fear among consumers, making outrageous and bogus claims that we are poisoning ourselves by using lipstick, makeup, deodorants, skin creams, and even baby products. Specifically, they claim that the additives can cause cancer, create neurological disorders, or cause hormone disruption—even though they are present in trace amounts. In fact, these preservatives protect users from bacteria. Present in quantities so small—typically, less than 1 percent of a product’s total weight—they are added to prevent contamination and to protect consumers from the buildup of dangerous bacteria"
Capital Gains Tax
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Amity Schlaes recently argued that cuts in the capital gains tax helped innovators like Steve Jobs.
Senior Counsel Hans Bader comments.
"I wrote earlier about double standards contained in the capital gains tax, which result in it being higher and more burdensome than people commonly assume; and how it effectively punishes investors for investing during periods of inflation, since the government ignores inflation in calculating the cost of your investment. Moreover, while capital gains are taxable, capital losses often are excluded from consideration, and cannot be taken into account, in calculating your overall income for the year in which they occur; for example, you cannot list more than $3,000 in net capital losses on your tax return, but you have to list all of your net capital gains. That results in a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation in which the government effectively rips off investors."
Bourgeois Dignity
In Bourgeois Dignity, economit Deirdre McCloskey argues that growing respect for innovators in the Western world paved the way for modernity.
Fellow in Regulatory Studies Ryan Young comments.
"Deirdre McCloskey thinks that a shift in rhetoric and public opinion is what made possible what she calls the Great Fact – the tenfold rise in global per-capita GDP from $3 per day in 1800 to around $30 today, and growing. The average person in rich countries make over $100 per day, more than a 30-fold increase. Remember, even the mighty U.S. was once a $3 a day nation. We had to start somewhere."
CEI, Capital Gains Tax, Cosmetics, Environmental Issues Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:12AM 
True Story of Cosmetics Exposes the Risks of Smear Campaign
New Report Reveals Ugly Politics Behind Extremist Group Anti-Chemical Crusade
Washington, D.C., October 18, 2011 - The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and its partner, the Environmental Working Group, are on a crusade to scare consumers away from using cosmetics and hygiene products that contain preservatives and other useful chemicals. But the truth, exposed in a new report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is that these fringe groups are pushing their own anti-chemical agenda at the expense of human health. In fact, consumers are at far greater risk by avoiding ingredients that fringe groups seek to ban or regulate, as sound and peer-reviewed science shows.
“As part of their effort to ban the use of synthetic ingredients from skin products, environmental extremist groups are working to incite fear among consumers, making outrageous and bogus claims that we are poisoning ourselves by using lipstick, makeup, deodorants, skin creams, and even baby products,” said Dana Joel Gattuso, author of the CEI Issue Analysis, The True Story of Cosmetics: Exposing the Risks of the Smear Campaign.
Among the report’s findings:
Unfortunately, anti-chemical groups have been successful in creating a climate of fear among many consumers and lawmakers, backing bills in Congress, such as the “Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011,” that would ban any cosmetic and skin care ingredients that exceed a one in a million risk of an adverse health impact. That bill would effectively ban most ingredients since almost everything carries risk greater than one in a million.
► Read the CEI Issue Analysis, The True Story of Cosmetics: Exposing the Risks of the Smear Campaign, by Dana Joel Gattuso.
► View the CEI video, Truth About Makeup
► View the How the World Works video, Critique of 'The Story of Cosmetics'
CEI, Cosmetics, Environmental Issues, Fraud Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 05:05AM 
In the News
Lessons from the Solyndra Debacle
Washington Post editorial, 9 September 2011
Why Paul Krugman’s Ozone Argument Doesn’t Work
William Yeatman, Globalwarming.org, 9 September 2011
“Science!”: Beyond the Pose, What Would Huntsman Do?
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 8 September 2011
Had To Be Koch Money, for Christie’s Sake
Paul Chesser, AmSpecBlog, 8 September 2011
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Free Market Recommendations for President Obama and the Congress
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 8 September 2011
New Hampshire Senate Upholds Regional Cap-and-Trade
Tom Fahey, Union Leader, 7 September 2011
The Other Climate Theory
Anne Jolis, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2011
Upton on Greengate
Henry Payne, The Michigan View, 7 September 2011
Will EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Stay or Go?
Robin Bravender, Politico, 6 September 2011
Vermont Environmentalists: “Time Out” for Industrial Wind
Sherri Lange, Master Resource, 6 September 2011
Enough with the Green Jobs
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, 5 September 2011
Where the Jobs Aren’t
David Brooks, New York Times, 5 September 2011
The Lies We Tell about Green Energy
Sherman Frederick, Las Vegas Journal Review, 5 September 2011
News You Can Use
Huntsman v. Perry on Climate at GOP Debate
Jon Huntsman:
“When you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is, in order for the Republican party to win, we can't run from science. By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.”
Rick Perry:
“The idea that we'd put America's economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet to me is just nonsense. Just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said ‘Here is the fact,’ Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”'
Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell
FBI Raids Solyndra
The collapse of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra got even bigger this week. On Thursday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed search warrants at the company’s shiny new headquarters building in Fremont, California. Many boxes of documents and lots of computer equipment were carted away. It was reported that the house of Solyndra’s CEO, Brian Harrison, was also raided.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation initiated by the Department of Energy’s Inspector General. The company’s bankruptcy filing means that the federal government is likely to lose all of its $527 million loan guarantee to the company.
As recently as July, Harrison made the rounds on Capitol Hill to re-assure supporters, such as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), that reports of the company’s financial difficulties were baseless. Waxman had earlier called attempts by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to investigate alleged improprieties “a fishing expedition.” The subcommittee has scheduled a hearing next Wednesday to take testimony from CEO Harrison and top officials at the Department of Energy and the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. President, What Happened to Green Jobs?
President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night included massive new spending on infrastructure projects as a way to create lots of new jobs. The President mentioned transportation projects in general and a big interstate highway bridge over the Ohio River at Cincinnati in particular. But not a word on green jobs or the new clean energy economy.
There had been speculation that the President would support the Senate bill to create a green infrastructure investment bank. The Twenty-First Century Clean Energy Technology Deployment Act (or CEDA) was introduced by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and sent to the Senate floor by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Bingaman chairs.
A press release from Bingaman’s office described his bill’s purpose: “CEDA’s mission would be to encourage deployment of technologies that are perceived as too risky by commercial lenders; thus, the agency is encouraged to back riskier technologies with a higher potential to address our climate and energy security needs.” That is exactly what the Department of Energy was doing when it made a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, the solar company that went bankrupt last week and was raided by the FBI this week as part of a criminal investigation. Perhaps that’s why the President didn’t mention all those great new green jobs in the booming clean energy economy being created by his policies.
House Schedules Votes on Delaying EPA Regulations
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) last week sent a memo to his fellow Republican Members of the House on future votes on bills to delay or block ten major regulations that are hurting the economy and destroying jobs. Seven of the ten are EPA regulations.
The memo can be found here. It includes the list of bills and tentative schedule of votes. A floor vote on H. R. 2401, which would delay the Utility MACT and Cross-State Air Pollution Rules, is scheduled for the week of September 19th.
Across the States
Texas
In July, the EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to control emissions from upwind States that affect air quality in downwind States. Texas was excluded from the proposed [Cross-State] rule. In the final rule, however, Texas was included, due to the supposed need to slightly reduce emissions as monitored 500 miles away in Madison County, Ill.—a locale that meets the EPA air-quality standards in question. The EPA ordered the Lone Star State to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions 47 % within 6 months, despite the fact that it takes 3 years to install sulfur “scrubber” retrofits on coal-fired power plants. EPA asserts that the emissions reductions can be achieved immediately through fuel-switching. Texas power companies argue that the only way to meet the EPA’s “unprecedented” and “impossible” timeline is to shut down power plants.
At the request of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (ERCOT), a non-partisan, independent entity responsible for electricity infrastructure in the State, this week published a report on the reliability ramifications of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. ERCOT noted that, “had the [Cross-State Air Pollution Rule] taken effect in 2011 instead of 2012, ERCOT would have experienced rotating outages during days in August.”
California
California’s proposed Anaheim to San Francisco high-speed rail line would cost $40 to $60 billion dollars. Both the huge price tag and engineering uncertainties have scared off private lenders, and California has a $20 billion budget shortfall, so state officials had been counting on federal aid. However, on Thursday, these hopes were rebuffed when the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development slashed federal funding for high speed rail from the 2012 budget. President Barack Obama had requested $7 billion, but House Republicans already had deemed high-speed rail a “low priority,” due to deficit concerns, and the subcommittee denied the administration’s request. Currently, Governor Jerry Brown is deliberating whether to offer a ballot initiative authorizing $9 billion in bonds for the rail project. In the meantime, he’s ordered a comprehensive review. It stands to reason that the House Appropriations Subcommittee’s decision would compel Governor Brown to abandon high speed rail, especially in light of the state’s budget woes. However, this is California….
Around the World
Brian McGraw
Australia Edges Closer towards Carbon Tax
It is looking more likely that Prime Minister Julia Gillard will pass a carbon tax this fall, despite its widespread unpopularity in Australia. The bill is to be introduced to Australian parliament in the coming week and will be voted on by the end of October. The legislation would establish, a $25 permit for each metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted for the first 3 years, when it would then switch to a emissions trading scheme. Passage of the legislation is looking increasingly likely, as Australian political parties, with rare exceptions, vote in lockstep. Prime Minister Gillard was quoted saying, “We will work our way through and ensure that the legislation does go through.” With the collapse of international support for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, this legislation will hurt Australia’s domestic energy industries while having little effect on global emissions.
Gore Gone Wild
Not content with the attention garnered by seven-thousand word essays in Rolling Stone, angry tirades, and attacks on President Obama, former Vice President Al Gore is hosting a 24 climate change extravaganza this coming Wednesday, September 14. Dubbed the “Climate Reality Project”, it can be streamed live and will also be broadcast on Al Gore’s network, Current TV, which we are told reaches approximately 500 viewers nationwide. You can check out a short preview here. We don’t know about you, but here at CEI we are stocking up on coffee and Red Bull to ensure we don’t miss even a second of Mr. Gore’s exciting “Twenty-four Hours of Reality.”
The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.
Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 07:04AM 
In the News
EPA Bureaucrats Have Gone Rogue
Marlo Lewis, New York Times, 25 August 2011
Rigged for Failure
Investors Business Daily editorial, 24 August 2011
Energy Fact of the Week: The Cost of Germany’s Nuclear Fear
Steven Hayward, American Enterprise Blog, 24 August 2011
This Is What They Mean by Oil and Gas Subsidies?
Coyote Blog, 24 August 2011
Lessons from Evergreen Solar’s Bankruptcy
Gary Hunt, Master Resource, 24 August 2011
Sea Level Declined in 2010
Greg Pollowitz, Planet Gore, 24 August 2011
Obama Administration Plays Political Theatre with Big Oil
Robert Bradley, Jr., Fort Worth Star Telegram, 23 August 2011
Sorry Greens, Halliburton Executive Drinks Fracking Fluid
Catherine Tsai, Huffington Post, 22 August 2011
Green Economy Is Hope over Experience
William O’Keefe, National Journal, 22 August 2011
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
James Bowman, American Spectator, 22 August 2011
Louisiana Says No to Renewable Mandate
Robert Ross, The Pelican Post, 22 August 2011
The EPA’s Giant Green Job Killer
Michael Walsh, New York Post, 22 August 2011
Evergreen Solar: Or, Why Government Shouldn’t Be Picking Winners in Energy Industry
Adam Peshek, Reason, 22 August 2011
The EPA Cannot Be Trusted To Keep the Lights on
William Yeatman, Globalwarming.org, 19 August 2011
News You Can Use
Sea Level Declined in 2010
According to NASA satellite data, global sea levels declined by almost a quarter-inch in 2010.
Inside the Beltway
Keystone XL Pipeline Clears Hurdle
The Keystone XL Pipeline extension, a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would link expanding Canadian tar sands oil production with America’s refining hub in the Midwest and along the Gulf, today cleared a major regulatory hurdle when the State Department concluded that the project would have a “limited environmental adverse impact.”
This is the second-to-last step of the permitting process; within the next 90 days, the State Department must determine whether the project is in the national interest. If the Keystone Pipeline passes this final hurdle, then it would receive a Presidential Permit, and construction could commence.
It is difficult to imagine how the project could not be considered to be in America’s interest: It would increase oil imports by up to 830,000 barrels a day from Canada, our closest ally. Moreover, as is explained in a recent CEI study by Mike Milke, Canada is the only major oil-exporting country besides Norway that scores highly on all measurements of civil, political, and economic freedom, including the rights of women to full career, medical, and travel choices; on media freedom, religious freedom, and property rights; as well as on other measurements such as judicial independence and relative freedom from corruption. Most importantly, the $7 billion project would create 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs, according to an independent analysis by the Perryman Group.
Across the States
California
The number one inhibition to the deployment of utility-scale solar power is that it costs much more than conventional energy generation. Somewhat ironically, the second biggest obstacle to solar energy is environmentalist litigation. Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council this week notified the Interior Department that it will sue to block the Calico Solar Power Generating Facility, a proposed 660 megawatt solar power plant in Pisgah Valley in Southern California. The environmentalist groups allege that the Interior Department violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to adequately account for the project’s possible effect on the desert tortoise, a federally threatened species.
Texas
On Tuesday, the Texas Railroad Commission asked Attorney General Greg Abbott to “bring prompt legal action” to delay the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in July. Texas was excluded from the proposed rule. In the final rule, however, Texas was included, due to the supposed need to slightly reduce emissions as monitored 500 miles away in Madison County, Ill.—a locale that already meets the EPA air-quality standards in question. The EPA ordered the Lone Star State to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions 47 percent within 6 months, despite the fact that it takes three years to install sulfur “scrubber” retrofits on coal-fired power plants.
Particularly hard-hit will be Luminant, the largest merchant power producer in Texas, which relies on high-sulfur coal: It says “curtailing plant and/or mine operations will be the only option” to meet the EPA’s “unprecedented and impossible compliance timetable.” Jonathan Gardner, a vice president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, warns that the rule directly threatens 1,500 employees at six different power plants across Texas.
In addition to job losses and expensive electricity, the Railroad Commission warns that the regulation could cause major reliability problems.
The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.
