Most Impactful Environmental Policy

[Dreadnaught]

I've been working on a commercial-level heating upgrade project, which has led me to give a lot of thought to the environment. The past decade has yielded such efficiencies that should allow us to reduce environmental harm (EG huge gains in car efficiency and improvement of logistics). However a lack of clear policy direction and rising "dirty" emerging economies has negated any gains. Furthermore, bad policies (such as global shutdowns of nuclear plants) will inevitably make energy generation even more polluting.

This got me thinking to what environmental policy objective I would singularly pursue if I were an elected official or otherwise someone in a position of power. I lean towards aggressive state-sanctioned growth of nuclear power, but I also wonder about just outright banning certain things like widescale methane emissions on a per-acre basis and letting the private sector figure out alternatives.

This is just an open-ended muse, but I have a feeling these kinds of thoughts creep up on all of us in our busy, wasteful first-world lives.

[wiggin]

I would not prefer a ban like you suggest, but rather taxes on pollution. Put a price on pollution and ratchet it up until it drops to targeted levels. Target pollution that causes the greatest environmental, human, and economic costs and work your way down. Pretty much anything else (subsidies for favored industries, criminalization of certain activities, etc.) boils down to picking winners. A nice side effect is that this increases the cost of energy in general so gives an impetus for implementing low hanging fruit in efficiency gains.

Obviously, though, there's other sorts of policy risk that need to be ironed out as well - for example, unreasonably onerous restrictions on some cleaner forms of power (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wind) should be cleared away given that their downsides are nowhere near as dramatic as the alternatives.

The big issue is tying this into a global system; I honestly don't have a good solution for this other than unilateral geoengineering and swingeing tariffs on goods made from dirtier sources.

[GGT]

I've been working on a commercial-level heating upgrade project, which has led me to give a lot of thought to the environment. The past decade has yielded such efficiencies that should allow us to reduce environmental harm (EG huge gains in car efficiency and improvement of logistics). However a lack of clear policy direction and rising "dirty" emerging economies has negated any gains. Furthermore, bad policies (such as global shutdowns of nuclear plants) will inevitably make energy generation even more polluting.

This got me thinking to what environmental policy objective I would singularly pursue if I were an elected official or otherwise someone in a position of power. I lean towards aggressive state-sanctioned growth of nuclear power, but I also wonder about just outright banning certain things like widescale methane emissions on a per-acre basis and letting the private sector figure out alternatives.

Which perspective are you coming from -- as an individual property owner, a member of the property/maintenance 'board', or an investor in natural gas fracking? Which environment are you really talking about, the planet's climate, or planet money?

This is just an open-ended muse, but I have a feeling these kinds of thoughts creep up on all of us in our busy, wasteful first-world lives.

Oh, those open-ended musings can get you in trouble around here.

I would not prefer a ban like you suggest, but rather taxes on pollution. Put a price on pollution and ratchet it up until it drops to targeted levels. Target pollution that causes the greatest environmental, human, and economic costs and work your way down. Pretty much anything else (subsidies for favored industries, criminalization of certain activities, etc.) boils down to picking winners. A nice side effect is that this increases the cost of energy in general so gives an impetus for implementing low hanging fruit in efficiency gains.

Sounds reasonable, but who's going to be the arbiter of what "pollution" means, and which agency will do the data collection and regulatory follow-up? If it's a federal agency...good luck with that in our current political climate where Republicans run election campaigns promising to shrink teh gummint, end the EPA, defund consumer protection agencies, etc.

Obviously, though, there's other sorts of policy risk that need to be ironed out as well - for example, unreasonably onerous restrictions on some cleaner forms of power (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wind) should be cleared away given that their downsides are nowhere near as dramatic as the alternatives.

I'd add trade policy to that mix. It's illogical to outsource energy-intense manufacturing to other nations with little-to-zero environmental policy (and cheap human labor costs to boot) only to turn around and import the end products, and put them on store shelves for the consuming public.

The big issue is tying this into a global system; I honestly don't have a good solution for this other than unilateral geoengineering and swingeing tariffs on goods made from dirtier sources.

No one has "The Solution", that's why it's a political hot potato.

There's a Washington state fight between an energy transportation company that wants to expand a public seaport, and use protected fishery/native waterways, to ship coal to China. Then there's the Keystone Pipleline. Feeding China's insatiable need for cheap, dirty energy is a crappy way to create jobs, let alone 'protect' the environment.

[Dreadnaught]

I would not prefer a ban like you suggest, but rather taxes on pollution. Put a price on pollution and ratchet it up until it drops to targeted levels. Target pollution that causes the greatest environmental, human, and economic costs and work your way down. Pretty much anything else (subsidies for favored industries, criminalization of certain activities, etc.) boils down to picking winners. A nice side effect is that this increases the cost of energy in general so gives an impetus for implementing low hanging fruit in efficiency gains.

Obviously, though, there's other sorts of policy risk that need to be ironed out as well - for example, unreasonably onerous restrictions on some cleaner forms of power (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wind) should be cleared away given that their downsides are nowhere near as dramatic as the alternatives.

The big issue is tying this into a global system; I honestly don't have a good solution for this other than unilateral geoengineering and swingeing tariffs on goods made from dirtier sources.

I'm increasingly not in agreement on the taxes vs. ban issue, because I see the same level of picking winners when it comes to taxation. With an added bonus of capricious regulation from big bureaucracies. I also like the idea of our elected representatives making clear stands. If anything, that clarity breeds some kind of vague momentum towards global standards.

Which perspective are you coming from -- as an individual property owner, a member of the property/maintenance 'board', or an investor in natural gas fracking? Which environment are you really talking about, the planet's climate, or planet money?

I was actually thinking about it across a few areas, but mostly as citizen of the world and harble garble. Though it's continued to be on my mind as I read about this silly Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shutdown that will increase Vermont's reliance on energy sources such as gas. Who told you about my fracking?

[wiggin]

I'm increasingly not in agreement on the taxes vs. ban issue, because I see the same level of picking winners when it comes to taxation. With an added bonus of capricious regulation from big bureaucracies. I also like the idea of our elected representatives making clear stands. If anything, that clarity breeds some kind of vague momentum towards global standards.

I disagree. Some points:

1. It's definitely less like picking winners than subsidizing a certain technology or an outright ban. Methane, in your example, is very much a bad thing to emit. But a blanket ban doesn't take into account the costs of alternatives - both environmentally and economically. The world can tolerate a relatively small amount of methane emissions without any trouble, and the marginal costs of eliminating that last bit of emissions can be quite steep. Some substances are so dangerous that their use should be entirely banned, but most pollution isn't like that. So you're essentially substituting one form of pollution for another. Sure, you can start banning other pollutants but then you go down the rabbit hole of every-increasing regulation to chase where the pollution is being shifted to. A simple price on whatever is the bad outcome is much easier to enforce and probably more effective. Fiat legislation can often have very bad unintended consequences - e.g. mandating all lights move to compact fluorescents increases mercury use (and, incidentally, the reopening of some absolutely awful and dangerous mines in China)... wouldn't it have been better just to jack up the price of electricity to encourage people to conserve in all sorts of ways, not just increasing mercury usage?

2. I'm not sure capricious regulation from big bureaucracies is something you can avoid in any attempt to limit pollution. But in the case of a tax at least you can make it fairly clear-cut - no exemptions for favored industries, a clear definition on measurement, and a simple compliance regime. It will certainly add bureaucratic costs, but it's a lot better than the headache that comes with subsidies or the compliance nightmare of outright bans. If it's structured like a VAT, self-enforcing compliance tends to work in most parts of the supply chain - not so with a ban.

3. I think that a sufficiently high price for pollutants can become a global standard just like anything else. In this respect, though, cap-and-trade schemes work better for spreading to other places - it allows for the establishment of local markets in pollution that can be readily expanded to other places. I'm not a huge fan of emissions trading systems, mostly because their application has been uneven at best - often pollution has too low of a price and too many exemptions, making the system fall apart. But in principle it would work better than either bans or taxes, I think.


Another issue I have with bans is that it turns violators into criminals rather than just increasing their costs. I don't like criminalizing activities unless it's really necessary, and I don't think most forms of pollution should be criminal - just expensive and highly discouraged. Take mercury, for example - we certainly dump plenty of mercury into the environment, mostly through coal burning and small scale gold/silver mining operations. Does it make sense to criminalize it? Sure, that would mean that coal plants would all shut down (or, possibly, work out a very expensive mechanism to completely remove mercury from exhaust?), but it would likely just drive the artisanal miners underground (heh). Increasing the costs of their inputs and providing education about less toxic alternatives would be far better, and would likely lead to less black marketeering. If mercury becomes more expensive, you can still have accountable people working as suppliers; if it becomes criminal, the market moves to shadier types who have no interest in mitigating pollution.

[Dreadnaught]

My problem with a tax comes the measurement piece. I don't think you can create a simple compliance regime based around a clear definition of measurement. Measurement can be highly variable and subject to private and government malfeasance in many quarters. Every new administration can (and does) curry favor with industries by selectively tightening and relaxing standards as it is.

Funny RE your last point, because I think bureaucratic schemes can also turn ordinary people into criminals. Witness all the shenanigans we've seen over the past few decades with the Endangered Species Act. If we feel sufficiently bad about mercury output and coal-burning is a major source of mercury, then sure, let's ban mercury with the understanding that this will involve a phase-out of current coal-burning procedures as we know it. I find that much less of a Rube Goldberg machine than cap and trade, which is just the next generation of filtering money from industry to government without making dramatic steps on environmental progress.

[GGT]

I'm increasingly not in agreement on the taxes vs. ban issue, because I see the same level of picking winners when it comes to taxation. With an added bonus of capricious regulation from big bureaucracies. I also like the idea of our elected representatives making clear stands. If anything, that clarity breeds some kind of vague momentum towards global standards.

Do you mean picking winners like EPA standards...and tax incentives started by the CA "left coast"....that found their way into auto industry mandates for things like catalytic converters, unleaded gasoline, and fuel-efficiency standards several decades ago? That kind of local clarity that can force momentum toward greater standards, and can become global by default?

Then pay attention to the local complaints surrounding natural gas fracking, the contaminated wells and aquifers, the kitchen water faucets that explode with a match, etc. BTW, you told us about your investment in fracking, as a board member of another company with energy investment holdings. Have you forgotten?

[Dreadnaught]

I think some of the car milage standards are quite good, as we've been able to really push automakers to make cars far more fuel efficient in the past decade and really make a dent in gas consumption. That said, CAFE itself is a very strange beast and I have some concerns about the long-term reliability of newer cars. But it's worth noting that CAFE itself is basically a diktat, albeit one fashioned with a very weird set of formulas.

Gas fracking is great as long as methane and other chemicals are properly contained. That said, given that methane is everywhere underground, you know the flaming faucet stuff is BS, right?

[GGT]

Gas fracking is great as long as methane and other chemicals are properly contained. That said, given that methane is everywhere underground, you know the flaming faucet stuff is BS, right?

No.

Maybe you don't realize the numbers and volumes of chemicals, or water, used in fracking. This isn't just about methane ya know.

If you truly had a global environmental investment goal in mind....you wouldn't be "investing" in fracking.


Or tar sand oil extractions from Canada, using the Keystone pipeline .

[Ominous Gamer]

the flaming faucet stuff is BS, right?

flaming faucets are real. The problem is that the test to determine if the cause is bacteria methane or thermogenic gas is several hundred dollars, something most people in fracking towns can't afford.

[wiggin]

My problem with a tax comes the measurement piece. I don't think you can create a simple compliance regime based around a clear definition of measurement. Measurement can be highly variable and subject to private and government malfeasance in many quarters. Every new administration can (and does) curry favor with industries by selectively tightening and relaxing standards as it is.

It depends heavily on the type of pollution. Some pollution is quite centralized in a handful of big plants and can easily be monitored - e.g. carbon (mostly power production and gasoline), nuclear waste, etc. Other bits of pollution are more decentralized with many players and may be tougher - e.g. if you tried to take CFC usage rather than production. So it's important to target types of pollution that are amenable towards good compliance regimes, and to design taxes to hit at a critical bottleneck in its production/usage to limit cheating.

As for industry specific coddling it's a big issue, agreed. Don't have a good solution for it.

Funny RE your last point, because I think bureaucratic schemes can also turn ordinary people into criminals. Witness all the shenanigans we've seen over the past few decades with the Endangered Species Act. If we feel sufficiently bad about mercury output and coal-burning is a major source of mercury, then sure, let's ban mercury with the understanding that this will involve a phase-out of current coal-burning procedures as we know it. I find that much less of a Rube Goldberg machine than cap and trade, which is just the next generation of filtering money from industry to government without making dramatic steps on environmental progress.

The distinction is that it's not the polluting itself that is criminal in a Pigovian tax, it's the tax evading that's criminal. You might think this is a semantic difference, but it's not. In a tax-driven pollution control scheme, people can still pollute when there aren't good alternatives - they just have to pay the price of said pollution. Baking the real costs of externalities into products is far more efficient and less prone to moving to a black market than criminalizing the activity itself.

(Also, though I mentioned cap and trade earlier I am NOT a big fan; I much prefer clean taxes since they aren't subject to as much shenanigans. But that's for another time.)

I also want to mention that I don't have a problem per se with the government being the recipient of these funds (i.e. it doesn't necessarily need to be revenue neutral). Governments are generally on the hook for paying for the costs of externalities, so shifting those costs onto the people who cause the problem is reasonable. It's a fairly efficient response to the free rider problem.

[Khendraja'aro]

Does this tax scheme of yours account for the difference between pollution that's released into the wild and pollution that's contained?

Not to mention that, according to this logic, all kinds of plastic wrapping should be taxed prohibitively. If that meant that Walmart and other stores would be forced to phase out plastic bags, that would make me a happy camper.

[Flixy]

Plastic bags are already taxed in that way in a couple of countries, no? To the effect that people have to pay a (minimal) amount of money instead of getting a few for free, which reduced the use, a lot.

[Khendraja'aro]

They're not taxed enough, based on their actual environmental impact. Most plastic bags are not biodegradable which is a huge problem when (not if!) they wind up in the rivers and seas.

And yeah, we saw a bit of a reduction. Not nearly enough, though.

[wiggin]

Does this tax scheme of yours account for the difference between pollution that's released into the wild and pollution that's contained?

Yes, of course. CCS technology (for example) seems like a good way to avoid emissions. There are some potential unintended consequences, so new control schemes would need to be carefully evaluated, but that's definitely a great way to reduce pollution.

Not to mention that, according to this logic, all kinds of plastic wrapping should be taxed prohibitively. If that meant that Walmart and other stores would be forced to phase out plastic bags, that would make me a happy camper.

Plastic bags are already taxed in that way in a couple of countries, no? To the effect that people have to pay a (minimal) amount of money instead of getting a few for free, which reduced the use, a lot.

They're not taxed enough, based on their actual environmental impact. Most plastic bags are not biodegradable which is a huge problem when (not if!) they wind up in the rivers and seas.

And yeah, we saw a bit of a reduction. Not nearly enough, though.

In many municipalities in the US (DC being a big one), a modest tax per plastic bag (5 cents or so) dramatically reduces plastic bag usage, and said revenues went to a river cleanup project. Similar taxes (or outright bans) continue to spread around the US. I'm not a fan of bans since it's not always clear the alternative is better from an environmental perspective (paper bags), but a tax tends to work quite well. It's actually surprising how well it works given that the money is tiny compared to the value of the purchase, but it does dramatically change behavior.

[Khendraja'aro]

The actual cost probably should be around a dollar. A modest tax simply doesn't cut it: On one hand we have those abolutely gigantic swirls of plastic in the ocean, on the other hand we have accumulation of microscopic plastic particles inside fish. The latter is even worse because the plastic acts as an adsorbant for all kinds of toxic agents.

Paper, at least, is biodegradable. Even if production is more taxing on our ressources. Better still are linen bags. Resuable, sturdy, biodegradable.

It would also be worthwhile to see what we can do to reduce the plastic waste regarding the food industry. Is there any kind of food sold in our supermarkets which isn't wrapped in plastic of some kind, besides glass bottles for beverages?

[Ominous Gamer]

Most fresh food here doesn't come packaged. And a good deal of our stuff at home is canned.

But other than yet, yeah plastic is used for just about everything that requires freshness.

[Khendraja'aro]

I hate to tell you this, but this white stuff on the inside of tin cans?

That's plastic.

[Ominous Gamer]

its also less likely to end up in ocean patches or fish. and thanks to everyone flipping out of bpa, even the coatings are changing

[wiggin]

The actual cost probably should be around a dollar. A modest tax simply doesn't cut it: On one hand we have those abolutely gigantic swirls of plastic in the ocean, on the other hand we have accumulation of microscopic plastic particles inside fish. The latter is even worse because the plastic acts as an adsorbant for all kinds of toxic agents.

Paper, at least, is biodegradable. Even if production is more taxing on our ressources. Better still are linen bags. Resuable, sturdy, biodegradable.

It would also be worthwhile to see what we can do to reduce the plastic waste regarding the food industry. Is there any kind of food sold in our supermarkets which isn't wrapped in plastic of some kind, besides glass bottles for beverages?

If a nickel tax does the trick, why bother with a dollar? You're saying 'X is bad, so let's tax it until it goes away', but when we show that a very small levy dramatically reduces X, you demand a higher tax anyways. I don't get it. There's definitely a point of diminishing returns here. For example, in Ireland plastic bag use dropped by 90% with a 15 cent fee. Similar reductions are found in most places that introduce modest fees. I question the value of significantly higher taxes. In the case of something like oil, demand can be fairly inelastic in the short term, so generally high, persistent taxes are necessary to change behavior. But in the case of plastic bags, demand is highly elastic except for the final few percentage of demand - evidenced by the outsized effects of modest pricing changes. There's no need for punitive taxes.

There is always going to be waste and pollution of some sort, the question is how we can minimize it without unduly screwing with people's lives. Small nudges tend to work better - and are better received - than bludgeons.

I also am curious - do you think this counts as the 'most impactful' environmental policy, or is it just a pet peeve of yours? Because I have a long list of problems that are higher priority than plastic bag waste. Certainly it's a low hanging fruit, though, and should be addressed immediately, but it is hardly the most impactful.


Anecdotally, the town I live in recently enacted a plastic bag ban rather than a tax as had been proposed by others. The ban has resulted not in people switching to reusable bags but instead switching to paper bags which are *not* much, if any, better from an environmental perspective. In contrast, small fees result in switching to reusable bags since the paper alternative is generally not available in the absence of an outright ban. This isn't really directed at you, Khendra, but more at Dread's ban vs. tax argument.

[Khendraja'aro]

I fear you're pretty much mistaken on the "not most impactful" part. Fukushima et al. are pretty much small fry compared to the "plastic waste in the ocean" part. Only thing comparable on its magnitude is Climate Change.

You can go to pretty much any beach on this earth and find those microscopic particles in large amounts.

[wiggin]

I fear you're pretty much mistaken on the "not most impactful" part. Fukushima et al. are pretty much small fry compared to the "plastic waste in the ocean" part. Only thing comparable on its magnitude is Climate Change.

You can go to pretty much any beach on this earth and find those microscopic particles in large amounts.

You honestly think that plastic waste is anywhere close to as much of a problem as climate change? What about particulate air pollution? Heavy metals in the food chain? Ozone depletion? Eutrophication? Dumping of untreated sewage? I think all of these have a much bigger impact on humans and the environment as a whole. Plastic waste is a problem, and quite abundant, but it doesn't come close to the most important.

I don't disagree that radioactive waste/leaks are fairly low on the priority list (which is why, all things being equal, I tend to favor nuclear power over stuff like coal); that's not the comparison, though.

[Khendraja'aro]

If you think heavy metals are a problem, please remember that plastic particulates are adsorbants. If you think untreated sewage is a problem, plastic particulates are part of that. And adsorbants (I think I mentioned that already). Plastic particulates can be mistaken for hormones by the fish/animal/human which ingests it.

Air pollution stops right after you stop polluting - most plastics take hundreds of years to disappear. Eutrophication? Stops right after you stop dumping stuff. Plastics stay in the environment for centuries.

Now, Ozone depletion might as big a problem - but you should remember that this is not a contest as to who finds the biggest problem. And my point is that you perceive the plastic problem to be only a "small" one is actually part of the problem. Educate yourself on the matter. You'll see that this is not something you can easily sweep aside with waving your arms and stating "but this other topic is of much bigger concern!"

Nope.

[GGT]

Doesn't that depend on what kind of "plastic" we're talking about? Petroleum by-products are different from vegetable-based "plastics". Not just in extraction and processing methods, but in waste disposal.

If climate change/impact can be traced to humans using carbon-based fossil fuels....isn't that where we should begin? Seriously, how much good would it do to drive electric cars, if they're manufactured in China that still uses "dirty coal"? Or if domestic charging stations still use coal powered plants for electricity? Can scrubbers and emissions improvements really make the difference....if the extraction, manufacturing, and transportation processes continues to use fossil fuels, in other parts of the world?

For every hybrid automobile using Lithium batteries, or electric cars plugging into receptacles, there are millions/billions using "dirty" carbon-based energy technologies in the process.

[wiggin]

If you think heavy metals are a problem, please remember that plastic particulates are adsorbants. If you think untreated sewage is a problem, plastic particulates are part of that. And adsorbants (I think I mentioned that already). Plastic particulates can be mistaken for hormones by the fish/animal/human which ingests it.

Plastic is an issue with heavy metals, but not the major one. Untreated sewage is an issue not because it has plastic in it, but because it leads to disease transmission. And particulates of plastic most definitely can't be mistaken for hormones - you're thinking on the wrong length scale (though yes, some plastic monomers or degradation byproducts do appears to have potential roles as you suggest, they ain't particulates).

I'm not saying plastic isn't involved in a lot of things, and that it isn't an issue, but completely eliminating plastic waste in a split second would do little to deal with the issues I mentioned above. Plastic is a danger to wildlife and potentially a danger to humans, but nothing like the danger from, say, a cholera epidemic, or widespread respiratory difficulties, or more severe storms, or whatever. You've essentially made the (reasonable) point that plastic waste is bad, and somehow want to extend that to the (unreasonable) conclusion that it is our most impactful problem.

Air pollution stops right after you stop polluting - most plastics take hundreds of years to disappear. Eutrophication? Stops right after you stop dumping stuff. Plastics stay in the environment for centuries.

Not entirely true on either front, but so what? That just suggests to me that plastic is a harder problem to solve in the long run, not that it's a bigger problem.

Now, Ozone depletion might as big a problem - but you should remember that this is not a contest as to who finds the biggest problem. And my point is that you perceive the plastic problem to be only a "small" one is actually part of the problem. Educate yourself on the matter. You'll see that this is not something you can easily sweep aside with waving your arms and stating "but this other topic is of much bigger concern!"

But this thread is precisely about the most impactful environmental policy! That's what we're talking about. I have never suggested plastic waste isn't a problem - I'm well aware of its dangers and the issues involved. I just don't think that a major push to eliminate plastic waste and clean up the extant pollution is the most impactful environmental policy.

[Khendraja'aro]

Doesn't that depend on what kind of "plastic" we're talking about? Petroleum by-products are different from vegetable-based "plastics". Not just in extraction and processing methods, but in waste disposal.

No. First of all, not all plastics which are based on renewable sources are also biodegradable. Secondly, you can't use a plastic based on, say, starch or lactic acid right from the bat. You need all kinds of additional chemicals to harden or soften them, make them more endurable or less, colour them and so on and so forth.

And particulates of plastic most definitely can't be mistaken for hormones - you're thinking on the wrong length scale (though yes, some plastic monomers or degradation byproducts do appears to have potential roles as you suggest, they ain't particulates).

I'm not thinking on the wrong scale. You are. I already stated that plastics decompose very slowly. But they do decompose. And now think about what kind of stuff polymers will actually decompose into. Might that be... monomers? PET, PVC and PS all can dissolve into monomers which mimick estrogen (DEHP, BBzP, Styrene).

[GGT]

....But this thread is precisely about the most impactful environmental policy!.....

Policy should follow science. Science shows that extracting, processing, transporting, and energating carbon-based fossil fuels is a big problem for mankind, and our planet. No matter how we regulate emissions, pollutants, by-products, waste disposal, or trade agreements....fossil fuels are the dinosaur of modern times.

So who wants that dinosaur, and its corporate sponsors, to lead the world into the 21st century, and beyond?

[wiggin]

I'm not thinking on the wrong scale. You are. I already stated that plastics decompose very slowly. But they do decompose. And now think about what kind of stuff polymers will actually decompose into. Might that be... monomers? PET, PVC and PS all can dissolve into monomers which mimick estrogen (DEHP, BBzP, Styrene).

Dude, I'm a polymer chemist. I work in bioengineering. I know. Your statement was that plastic particulates can be hormone mimics. That's not true. I recognized the point about monomers and degradation byproducts, just wanted to correct what you said about particulates. That's it.

[Khendraja'aro]

So, pumping our oceans full of estrogen imitations is not a problem?

[GGT]

OMG. Can we stipulate that both wiggin and Khen have "professional credentials", and move on to the larger/global issue of environmental policy?