From Planet Gore, this has to be the poop de grace of bureaucratic achievement in the climate and ecology category.
Not a Square to Spare [Chris Horner]
Where are the Beatles when you need them? Someone inside EPA has brought to my attention how Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer has proposed legislation calling on a federal agency to define toilet paper.
Really. It says it right in the bill, the “Water Resources Protection Act” (I know, I know — you were expecting it to be called the Protecting Infrastructure and Sewer Systems Act):
‘‘SEC. 4172. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULE.
‘(b) WATER DISPOSAL PRODUCT. — For purposes of this subchapter —
(4) TOILET TISSUE. — The term ‘toilet tissue’ means toilet tissue, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.”
No, it’s not as silly as it sounds. It’s sillier.
The rulemaking to define what rises to the level of a bottom-wipe is in the name of a good cause: to tax the stuff. The current band of feds don’t think you’ve paid enough tax — this has been established ad nauseum — and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer sytems nationwide.
We know what else is involved in the confines of the rest room so, naturally, there’s a “climate change mitigation” section as well though, upon initial scrutiny, it isn’t as invasive as the context indicates should be the case.
It actually gets even more inane: in addition to adding a “3% excise tax on items disposed of in wastewater, such as toothpaste, cosmetics, toilet paper and cooking oil [because these] products wind up in the water stream and require clean up by sewage treatment plants,” according to Blumenauer’s Fact Sheet, water-based beverages, which actually hit the infrastructure both coming and, ah, going (as anyone who’s ever stood in line at a sporting event knows). So, those are hit with a four-cent per-container excise tax. Feeling flush yet?
This is a nice addendum to the dossier that, I believe, we will look back on as having been rolled up by a congressional majority (and indeed, entire political class) that soon found itself circling the drain.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As far as I can tell, I pour no cooking oil down the drain. Mostly I use it for popping popcorn and it is absorbed and eaten. And when I bake cakes I use about a quarter cup of cooking oil. All but a few drops that grease the pan are consumed.
I once had an idea about a band that went around the body and counted expansions and contractions due to respiration. Each breath you take can then be counted taxed. And that makes perfect sense because then those who use the most air can pay more than those who conserve. The tax would then go to help mitigate air pollution with those who use the most air paying the most to clean it up.
Of course, that was right after my idea of having prisoners spend their day pedaling generators where their power generation would be metered and used to calculate their food ration for the day.
Then I saw this article about some place in China that was stuffing dumplings with cardboard and I got another idea …
*sigh* … it’s so weird to be me …
Re:
You’re not immune to this kind of thing over there either. ~ ctm
Thank goodness I’m not over “there” either! Although we do have out own share of idiots in Australia. (We actually have a triumvirate of AGW lemmings in Aus, Kevin Rudd, our PM who things he’s a global diplomat because he speaks Mandarin and sucks up to Barack. Penny Wong the Climate change minister who is as deadpan as a dead fish and the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett (who actually had a point of view when he was a rock musician with “Midnight Oil” but who has had to sell his soul and views when he joined the Labor Party.)
At least we have the chance of getting rid of them within 18 months by the next election, unlike you poor saps in the States who are stuck with BO for 3 1/2 years.
However, back to the thread, “Try Gumleaves- the ultimate green toilet paper”.
Wait a minute. The whole reason we have water meters is to pay for sewage treatment. Why don’t they just raise the water rate if they need more for treatment instead of taxing EVERYTHING that MIGHT get flushed?
It seems they can increase a tax already in place (water rates) rather than creating a phone book size book of regulations in order to tax additional stuff.
Is it required to have your brain deactivated to be a Democrat?
Isn’t it “down under” where they advocate using re-usable cloth wipes?
There is a nice lady called Sheryl
Who uses only one square at her peril
Says the lovely Ms Crow
“When you do gotta go”
“You just try to keep everything sterile”
A tax on bum fodder? Well what do you expect from a crap government? I heard there’s been research into urine powered cars.
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/news/urine-power.shtml
Micturation metres coming to a bathroom near you…
Cut newspaper into suitably sized squares, punch hole in corner of squares, put string through hole, tie ends of string, hang from nail on wall. Better than back in my youth because the newsprint doesn’t come off these days. The tax on newspapers will now rocket.
Why not tax food, we all know where that ends up.
I was wondering if this will make the bidet more popular in the US.
One small wipe for man, one giant roll of disaster for mankind.
Crap and trade? Are visits to the John to be rationed? Should we tax the input or the output?
‘and now want a dedicated revenue, er, stream, to pay to replace corroded pipes and overburdened sewer sytems nationwide.’
This is government’s trickle down economics at its fineness.
Feds collects the tax, takes its cut and allocate funds to certain states (depending on who is in power), states takes its cut and allocate to certain local municipality (depending on who is in power), municipality takes it cut and award contract to a certain local business (depending on who is in power) and has paid into the “pay to play” fund (bribes).
We, central Ohio, just had water and sewer rate increase approved. The reason, Columbus Water Board stated, kid you not, “WE ARE NOT SELLING ENOUGH WATER”.
Trevor (22:23:23) : reply:
Reply: You’re not immune to this kind of thing over there either. ~ ctm
A more balanced report:
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=14544
In this case, the local authority had issued a first warning in July 2007 before contacting Mr Corkhill to discuss how he might reduce the amount of waste produced by his family.
Following further instances of overfilling the bin, the council issued a fixed penalty notice in January of this year.
Two weeks later, the council again wrote to Mr Corkhill giving him the opportunity to pay the fine and avoid a court appearance but he chose not to pay at that time.
“The council gave the resident a number of opportunities to avoid a criminal record, both before and after issuing the fine,” said a statement issued by Copeland Borough Council.
But who is in the right?
http://www.greenbuildingpress.co.uk/article.php?article_id=273
During the month of May 2006, the number of single-use carrier bags used by retailers participating in the agreement was 870 million. This figure fell to 450 million in May 2009 – a total reduction of 420 million. If the level of usage continued for a year this would be equivalent to an annual consumption of 5.6 billion single use bags, compared to 10.7 billion in 2006¹.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/waste/topics/plastics.htm
In 2001 there were 1,678,900 tonnes of plastic packaging in the waste stream, an increase from 1,600,000 in 2000. In 2008 consumers used around 10 billion carrier bags.
Not more balanced Bill. Every article you chose assumes there is a need for waste minimization and there is a justification for the government mandate of enforcement.
It’s not funny. In Australia we use toilet paper at over 1,200 miles per hour. That is nearly twice the speed of sound at C-level. Multiply by about 20 to get USA equivalent, then add 10% for gratuitous insult re excessive USA consumption assumption. If you have the right model, you could calculate the population of the USA when toilet paper manufacture equals the escape velocity from the earth.
Can someone help me find the right model?
DocWat (21:18:57) : “… I know a guy that only uses one sheet per wipe. Never tried it myself.”
What was the problem. Would the guy not let you?
jeez (02:06:26) :
Every article you chose assumes there is a need for waste minimization and there is a justification for the government mandate of enforcement.
People want an easy life and not have to pay for it. The UK is small – rubbish is disposed of in landfill. Suitable sites are in short supply. Joe Bloggs gets his plastic carrier to hold his plasic wrapped apples in a plastic tray to carry 100metres to his car and 10 metres from car to house. Is this sensible? Joe Bloggs finds it convenient and perhaps thinks no more of it. But someone has to pay to collect his bins and dispose of their contents. Why should I pay for his excesses?
You are suggesting that there is no need for waste minimisation and it is for this reason that Government legislation is required – Joe Bloggs is selfish and will not look to the future. He needs to be helped to understand resource management.
I am pointing out assumptions and bias and am not suggesting anything else.
Rubbish can also be incinerated for energy with the metals recovered and reused. There are lots of possibilities besides the assumptions which underlie your points. If you use the term “balanced” be prepared to be called out on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/may/07/sciencenews.greenpolitics
Of course Greenpeace doesn’t like them.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/greenpeace-tells-waste-summit-that-incinerating-rubbish-has-no-future
Many different strands can be traced back to the same source – EPA.
I wonder if it was just a coincidence or whether there is a hidden warning in the Simpson’s movie. As you probably recall, epa was portrayed as a sinister organization with power over life and death.
Prescient?
jeez (02:39:45)
All I was pointing out was that the man fined £200 :
1 was warned months prior to the event that he was overfilling his bin
2 was offered help in reduction of waste
3 continued to overfill (which is the reason the lid would not shut)
4 chose not to pay £100 on the spot fine
5 chose not to go to court and so got a further £100 fine and criminal conviction
The piece you cite simply says man gets fined £200 and criminal conviction for leaving his bin lid open 3 inches. Which is not the whole story!
However I like this quote from the article “The rubbish fairy is dead.”
You could avoid the roll tax by using the Ancient Roman method – a sponge on a stick – and they were very good at plumbing.
Our UK Prime Minister also seems to imagine (I won’t use the word ‘think’) that if he could control (and tax) every bowel movement in the world, we would have an ideal society (Well his name is ‘Brown’).
The answer to this? Use Newspaper for its intended purpose. It is not just for bird cages any more.
” The UK is small – rubbish is disposed of in landfill. Suitable sites are in short supply.”
Er, no.
We use millions of tons of gravel, aggregates, sand etc. from quarries each year. We used to then use them as landfill. The EU banned that (or prohibitively taxed it) so we have a lot of holes in the UK waiting for filling. We also have hangars full of rubbish awaiting ‘export for recycling’.
Fluffy bunny eco-nonsense has seriously screwed up waste management in the EU, but it isn’t on-message so it hasn’t been noticed yet.
You know maybe I have hit on something. Maybe the proposed law has nothing to do with toilet tissue. Maybe this is a back door newspaper bail out. (Jeeze did I make a pun there? Intended? You decide.)
Well then, here’s a ‘time and paper’ saver: Instead of tossing all those corn husks, why we should just eat a few before and immediately after each meal.
.
That way the ‘load’ is ‘self-contained’ and the matter of ‘wiping’ is automatically accomplished.
.
I wonder if I might patent that idea …
.
:o)
.
M. Simon (03:08:39) :
“The answer to this? Use Newspaper for its intended purpose. It is not just for bird cages any more.”
Given current standards of journalism in the MSM papers, I would be worried about getting an infection.