Is it just me, or does this story smell vaguely of bovine fecal matter:
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.
If CFCs are so terrible, why isn’t the government banning the dominant sources of CFCs? It seems to me that the current policy of banning inhalers is remarkably pointless in that the government’s new policy will only address an irrelevantly small amount of the problem. Seriously, how big an impact will banning inhalers have in reducing the presence of CFCs?
This story shows, once again, that environmentalism is more of a religion than a science-based policy stance. Environmentalists believe that humanity’s greatest sin is damaging Mother Earth, and that all humans must do penance by living their lives as inconveniently as possible.
This story also shows that liberals are neurotic, when it comes to policy. Liberals, in general, tend to support protecting the environment as well as universal health care. Yet, their real-world policy prescriptions, as seen here, help neither the environment (at least in a meaningful way) nor sick/unhealthy people. Frankly, their policy prescriptions are downright schizoid.
But, what else could you expect from liberals? Their alleged compassion for others and the environment is simply an excuse to indulge in narcissistic god-complexes in order to feel better about themselves. No wonder they feel the need to do penance.