OTC inhalers to be phased out to protect ozone layer Asthma patients will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives by Dec. 31 as part of US efforts to protect environment
WASHINGTON — Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products. The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun. But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60. The FDA finalized plans to phase out the products in 2008 and currently only Armstrong Pharmaceutical's Primatene mist is available in the U.S. Other manufacturers have switched to an environmentally-friendly propellant called hydrofluoroalkane. Both types of inhalers offer quick-relief to symptoms like shortness of breath and chest tightness, but the environmentally-friendly inhalers are only available via prescription. "If you rely on an over-the-counter inhaler to relieve your asthma symptoms, it is important that you contact a health care professional to talk about switching to a different medicine to treat your asthma," said Badrul Chowdhury, FDA's director of pulmonary drug division.
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
Does the EPA Need $21 Billion to Hire 230,000 More Employees? Jonathan H. Adler • September 29, 2011 9:01 am
A Daily Caller story claiming the Environmental Protection Agency is “asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion” in order to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act has caused a bit of a stir on the internet (see, e.g., here, here, and here). The critics are correct that the Daily Caller flubbed the initial story. The numbers aren’t new and the EPA isn’t asking for billions of dollars for tens-of-thousands of new hires. But the critics miss the real significance of EPA’s arguments, which is that treating greenhouse gases as “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, as called for in Massachusetts v. EPA, leads to absurd results.
First, the EPA is not asking for additional resources. What the EPA is asking for is permission to ignore the plain text of the Clean Air Act so as to make the task of regulating greenhouse gases more manageable. The brief at issue is quite clear on this point. The specific figures are an illustration of how it is simply unmanageable to try and regulate such emissions, carbon dioxide in particular, under statutory provisions designed for traditional air pollutants that are emitted by far fewer facilities. The obvious answer to this problem would be to recognize that greenhouse gases are not what Congress had in mind when it told the EPA to regulate “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, but this option is foreclosed by Massachusetts v. EPA.
Second, the EPA’s claim that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would overwhelm the agency’s existing resources and effectively require the hiring of thousands of new employees is not new. I detailed this problem in this Reason essay and HJLPP article. The Obama EPA noted this problem it first proposed the Tailoring Rule in 2009. The Bush EPA (and others) also made this point when arguing that the Act should not be interpreted to apply to greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court was not convinced, however. Indeed, the Massachusetts v. EPA majority briefly considered, and dismissed, the claim that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would be impractical.
Third, the real problem with the EPA’s argument is that the agency is asking to ignore the plain text of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the statutory provisions at issue require regulating facilities with the potential to admit more than 100 or 250 tons per year of regulated pollutants. As the EPA admits, this is impossible for the agency to do without increasing the agency’s total budget more than ten-fold. But the EPA’s solution is just as much of a problem, because what EPA wants to do is replace the Act’s express numerical thresholds with new thresholds of its own invention, based on the EPA’s judgment of what it wants to do when. Yet there is no precedent for administrative revision of statutory text in this fashion — and for good reason. It is one thing to allow an agency to twist potentially ambiguous language so as to avoid an absurd outcome, but quite another to allow an agency to rewrite clear statutory provisions, such as express numerical thresholds. Interpreting “pollutant” to mean only traditional air pollutants does far less violence to the Act’s text and structure than replacing 100 and 250 with numbers the EPA finds more convenient. But the source of this problem is not EPA overreaching or overzealous regulators within the Obama Administration, but the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. If the Court had not misread the statute, we would not have to worry about bloggers and journalists misreading the EPA’s briefs.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Now France is talking about phasing out nuclear energy. France and Germany with no nuclear power plants. Good luck maintaining your current carbon footprint with that.
Its as if these people think that well wishing can make solar and wind a feasible base for an energy grid.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
simple schoolboy wrote:
Now France is talking about phasing out nuclear energy. France and Germany with no nuclear power plants. Good luck maintaining your current carbon footprint with that.
Its as if these people think that well wishing can make solar and wind a feasible base for an energy grid.
Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a Harmful Gas
RANJIT NAGAR, India — When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.
Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.
But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.
They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.
That incentive has driven plants in the developing world not only to increase production of the coolant gas but also to keep it high — a huge problem because the coolant itself contributes to global warming and depletes the ozone layer. That coolant gas is being phased out under a global treaty, but the effort has been a struggle.
So since 2005 the 19 plants receiving the waste gas payments have profited handsomely from an unlikely business: churning out more harmful coolant gas so they can be paid to destroy its waste byproduct. The high output keeps the prices of the coolant gas irresistibly low, discouraging air-conditioning companies from switching to less-damaging alternative gases. That means, critics say, that United Nations subsidies intended to improve the environment are instead creating their own damage.
The United Nations and the European Union, through new rules and an outright ban, are trying to undo this unintended bonanza. But the lucrative incentive has become so entrenched that efforts to roll it back are proving tricky, even risky.
China and India, where most of the 19 factories are, have been resisting mightily. The manufacturers have grown accustomed to an income stream that in some years accounted for half their profits. The windfall has enhanced their power and influence. As a result, many environmental experts fear that if manufacturers are not paid to destroy the waste gas, they will simply resume releasing it into the atmosphere.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
I'm not an anti-nuclear power guy, but given the Japanese leak that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable.
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
Shockingly, the current administration is halting new nuke plant permits.
and they think they can meet the carbon standards they want to get too while doing this? The Japanese built and operated a nuclear plant ON TOP off a FAULT LINE, the IAEA brought this to thier attention on numerous occassions and they operated anyway. I wonder what this means for the gigantic expensive projects that are almost completed or half built. Waiting for the election I guess, like everything else.
The Japanese built and operated a nuclear plant ON TOP off a FAULT LINE, the IAEA brought this to thier attention on numerous occassions and they operated anyway.
I'm not an anti-nuclear power guy, but given the Japanese leak that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable.
The thing is, we cannot replace our aging plants unless we can build new ones. Which requires permits. Which are now all on hold. Which means the plants are in more danger of a disaster since they will need to operate for longer. Which, if I put my Rush hat on, may have been the environmentalist's plan all along.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not an anti-nuclear power guy, but given the Japanese leak that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable.
The thing is, we cannot replace our aging plants unless we can build new ones. Which requires permits. Which are now all on hold. Which means the plants are in more danger of a disaster since they will need to operate for longer. Which, if I put my Rush hat on, may have been the environmentalist's plan all along.
We have similar issues on the other side of the energy business namely aging/ancient refineries.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not an anti-nuclear power guy, but given the Japanese leak that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable.
The thing is, we cannot replace our aging plants unless we can build new ones. Which requires permits. Which are now all on hold. Which means the plants are in more danger of a disaster since they will need to operate for longer. Which, if I put my Rush hat on, may have been the environmentalist's plan all along.
I'm not deeply inside the environmentalist camp but I read a lot of stuff coming from the left and I've never heard this bandied about.
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Ever since I played the original SimCity as a little kid I've been anti-coal and pro-nuclear in the sense that it should have helped in phasing out coal for good years if not decades ago while we transition to the next phase after nuclear.
I'm not an anti-nuclear power guy, but given the Japanese leak that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable.
The thing is, we cannot replace our aging plants unless we can build new ones. Which requires permits. Which are now all on hold. Which means the plants are in more danger of a disaster since they will need to operate for longer. Which, if I put my Rush hat on, may have been the environmentalist's plan all along.
I'm not deeply inside the environmentalist camp but I read a lot of stuff coming from the left and I've never heard this bandied about.
Sorry, I was trying to make a joke about the insanity of certain right wing talkers,not diss greenies. (I support a lot of what environmentalists preach and I suspect most people do even if they won't admit it)
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
stip wrote:
broken iris wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not an anti-nuclear power guy, but given the Japanese leak that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable.
The thing is, we cannot replace our aging plants unless we can build new ones. Which requires permits. Which are now all on hold. Which means the plants are in more danger of a disaster since they will need to operate for longer. Which, if I put my Rush hat on, may have been the environmentalist's plan all along.
I'm not deeply inside the environmentalist camp but I read a lot of stuff coming from the left and I've never heard this bandied about.
Sorry, I was trying to make a joke about the insanity of certain right wing talkers,not diss greenies. (I support a lot of what environmentalists preach and I suspect most people do even if they won't admit it)
yeah but ever since David Stockman and 'starve the beast' it's not necessarily crazy to think stuff like that.
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum