June 5, 2025 • 33 mins
On the third hour with Michael Brown: How could the process of visa denials work out over time? What to make of the concerns over visa denials being weaponized?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
If you go down some of the roads less traveled
on the Eastern Plains and visit some of the mom
and pop grocery stores, gas stations, what have you, they
still they still give you plastic bags because they're not
you know, they're not charmed by King Poulis.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I guess I know.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
And it should It's funny because uh and I'll get
to the text message in just a second, because I
think many of us see this because we're I shouldn't
say all of us, but I think a lot of
us are trying to find our own little way of revolting,
which may be minimal, but at least we're revolting. At
(00:49):
least we're saying no, you know, enough is enough. Now,
before I go to the text messages, I want to
I want to finish with the carbon footprint because this
is probably maybe you already know it. I didn't realize it.
It makes sense though when you think about it, except
I would have thought it would have been different because
(01:10):
the the amount of petroleum based products, obviously in a
plastic bag, is much greater than the amount of petroleum
product in a paper bag. So remember the average CO
two for everything that the life cycle of a plastic
(01:30):
bag is zero point zero one nine kilograms of CO two.
Just keep that number in mind. But now let's talk
about the paper bag because we've been brainwashed to believe that.
And again, by the way, for the persons told me
King Supers, King Supers, King Supers, just get over King Supers,
(01:55):
go to different store. I'm only picking on King Soupers
because that's the store I use. It's not going to
be any different if I go to Whole Foods, or
if I go to Sprouts, or if I go to
Safeway or I go to natural Grocers. I'm just using
my anecdotal experience. So bite my ass. You know if
(02:17):
you got if you love King Soupers, fine, I don't
hate King Soupers. I'm using it as the example. So
let's go to the carbon foot print of a paper
bag production. Now, paper bags, you've got the raw material,
which is craft paper made from wood pulp. That, including
(02:37):
the logging and the pulping, amounts to about eight tenths
to one point.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Two kilograms of CO two. Wow, already we're pretty igh right.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Then you have the manufacturing, you have the pulping process,
you have the pressing process that's going to account for
about seven tenths to a full kilogram of CO two.
Well the total for a fifty five gram bag, so
you you would have this, Well, I'm not going to
go through the formula for a fifty five standard size
(03:10):
paper bag. You're going to get anywhere from eight tenths
to zero point one two one kilograms of CO two.
That's just for production. That that's the carbon footprint from production.
But now, just like everything else, you've got to get
(03:30):
it from the point of production to the point of
distribution or the end use. Now, obviously transportation is going
to be a little bit higher because you have weight
paper bags, you're going to weigh more than a plastic bag.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
But assuming.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Point zero zero five kilograms of CO two, you drive
one hundred kilometers, that's one tenth of a kilogram of
COE two per ton per kilogram. For per ton per kilometer,
you get fifty five grams fifty five grams. Now, again
(04:15):
that's production transportation, and now we get to use again.
Picking up your bag, unfolding the bag, putting the bag away,
throwing in the trash, whatever you do, negligible emissions. But
what happens when you you know, when you get the
bag home, it's gotten wet and it's torn, and you
(04:36):
put it in your like I do at home. I
put it in my kitchen trash can that has a
plastic trash bag in it. It's now going to go
to the landfill. Seventy percent of paper bags go to landfill.
Paper decomposes, and when it does, it releases methane. About
(04:59):
two and a half kilogram of CO two per kilogram
for paper recycling accounts for about twenty percent. That's very
energy intensive also, just like it is for plastic, but
it does offset somewhat by virgin paper. Now you've got
(05:22):
again about uh point zero five to five kilograms of
CO two. You got composting minimum, but about ten percent
of paper bags get composted. Now, if done properly, that
will result in about point zero zero.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Two kilograms of CO two.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
So let's get to the total the total carbon footprint, production, transport,
disposal of the paper bag. The average is zero point
one seven five kilograms of CO two. Now ask yourself
a simple question, which is greater or which is larger
(06:07):
zero point one seventy five kilograms of CO two or
zero point zero one nine kilograms of CO two. Oh,
well by a significant amount. The zero point one seven
five kilograms of CO two for a paper bag is
(06:28):
much larger than it is for a plastic bag. So
all of this time, well, in fact, a paper bag's
carbon footprint is about nine point two times higher than
a plastic bag's carbon footprint.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
And yet what was the name of this act?
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Oh yeah, the Plastic and Pollution Reduction Act of twenty
twenty three or twenty four, whatever it was. Seems to
me that paper bags higher footprint. Uh, that's what actually
questions if you're concerned about the environment, especially if consumers
(07:14):
use more than needed, you know, like they double bag something.
Plastic bags litter impact is probably overstated, if you know,
if the fees actually reduce you know, the consumption of
plastic bags.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
But I can't quantify.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
That, the I guess the conclusion would be this, a
standard grocery store plastic bag has a carbon footprint of
about approximately point zero one nine kilograms of CO two,
(07:53):
and that paper bag you use has about zero point
one seventy five kilograms of CO two, making paper bags
nine point two times more carbon intensity. Now, if paper
bags replace multiple plastic bags or are recycled, then the
gap narrows a little bit about six times difference. But
(08:17):
plastic bags objectively speaking, do pose a greater litter and
a microplastic risk, but paper bags contribute more to landfill methane,
all of which you can quantify that. But let's go
full circle back to the bag fee. Has it reduced
(08:39):
the number of bags and plastic bags in the landfill,
may or may not have if it's based on just
the number of plastic bags or the amount of fees
that are being collected. As those fees continue to decline,
that could be from lack of enforcement, or it could
be from lack of people actually using plastic bags. But
(09:03):
has it accomplished what we were told it was going
to accomplish. Probably not. Now let's go to the text
message is because you raise really good points twenty nine
oh nine, you're just now popped up. Well, Michael, that's
all well and good, but you can't fill a plastic
(09:24):
bag with dog poop and then light it on fire
on your neighbor's doorstep. Well, lighter fluid you could, and
then you have the additional benefit of not just stomping
out the poop, but now you have toxins in the air.
Goober number ninety three seven to zero. Can't read your
(09:47):
text message, but I find it freaking funny. Twin Mike,
in your numbers for CO two from plastic bags in
the landfill, over what time frame are they based? I
spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to make plastic
bags turn into CO two in landfill conditions. The problem was,
it takes decades even if you're trying. I question if
(10:11):
those numbers are from data, grocery, extrapolated data, or just theory. Well,
some of the data comes from actual studies Sweden and
the US. But if you recall I pointed out that
over a significant period of time, they degrade, which is
one of the complaints. It takes a long time for
(10:31):
them to degrade. Seventeen thirteen. Michael, here's a real question.
We're currently at four hundred and fifty parts per million
of CO two. The six hundred million year average for
CO two is about fifteen hundred parts per million. The plants,
the plant life, the plant life lives on, the plant's life,
(10:55):
lives on, lives on have evolved. You prefer about thirteen
hundred parts per million. Why is CO two currently solow
Well That's an easy answer, because the climate changes and
CO two in the amount of CO two in the
atmosphere up and down. It's just like a wave. It
(11:17):
just comes and goes, comes and goes all the time.
Forty five eighteen Michael, speaking of Into Life bags. I
was at Coals returning in Amazon package and they were
pulling new bags out and wrapping up the returns, putting
the label on each return. How many Amazon returns go
(11:37):
through Coals. I've only taken Amazon return to a Coals
maybe once or twice, simply because the coals happen to
be close by. And both times I did there were
piles of plastic that were going back. So there you
have six zero one five Mike. They'll brainwash you just
(12:00):
the same as me. They brainwash everybody. North Korea is
trying to brainwash everybody, and that's what this bill is doing.
So every time you go to the grocery store, answer
the question correctly, how many bags do you wish to purchase? Well,
I don't wish to purchase any bags, so the answer
is zero, Or do like the other googer did on
(12:23):
the talk back, do an Amazon you can buy thousands
of plastic bags. For probably ten bucks or something, and
then just you know, they come and they're kind of
they're kind of step together. Just take some and just
rip them apart, put them in your trunk, and when
you go to the grocery store, you've got the easy carry,
(12:44):
hard to break plastic bags. Just hand them to the
you know, or if you have to, you know, pack
your own groceries, sack your own groceries, you can do
it yourself. Or if you got the little sack pimple
faced sack boy there, just hand him the plastic bag
and say, put them in these. It's not against the law. No,
not against the law at all. And even if it was,
(13:08):
there's no enforcement mechanism. So don't forget that. So how
can I claim, for example, that what they're trying to
do is similar to what they're trying to do in
North Korea.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I don't know whether you've been to.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Some of these places or not, but some of these
countries are really bad when it comes to controlling information,
what you can access on the internet, what you cannot
access on the internet. But if these radicalized democrats ever
return to power, updates to Orwell's New Speak Dictionary, or
(13:47):
are going to come fast and furious, because this is
the dissident thought has to be systematically abolished. Well, if
these radicplies Democrats, these Marxists that pretty much control many
of the states, control the state of Colorado, California, Illinois, Massachusetts,
(14:07):
others New York, they're probably going to take a page
from the book of their fellow Marxists in North Korea
by enlisting our phones to assist them. This is a
post I found on x Someone smuggled a phone out
(14:28):
of North Korea. Listen to what they find.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
We've got hold of this phone that was smuggled out
of North Korea last year, and it shows some of
the surprising lengths the regime is now going to fensor information.
North Korea blocks information from outside the country, and these
phones don't have access to the Internet. But South Korean
TV shows are being smuggled over the border to try
(14:52):
to show North Koreans how rich South Korea is and
how much freedom people have here to try to undermine
the regime. Now, Kim Jong un has banned these shows,
and from this phone you can see that he's now
also blocking people from using popular South Korean words. Look
what happens when I type in the word opa. This
(15:13):
word literally means older brother in Korean, but people here
in South Korea now use it as slang to refer
to their boyfriends as well.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Will mother.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
When I enter it, it automatically changes to the word comrade.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Now, imagine you're on your I message, you're on WhatsApp,
you're on whatever. You get, an Android, you got an iPhone,
I don't care, whatever you have, and you're sending a
text message, and you're you're using the word open oppa
upper slang for your boyfriend, and as you type oppa,
(15:55):
it automatically comes up as comrade.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Well, I would hope you wouldn't stand for it.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
You take your phone back and say there's something wrong
with the phone, or you take it to your service
provider and say, hey, there's something wrong. The phone's not
operating properly. All in North Korea, it's operating precisely the
way they want it to operate.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
You know.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
The cabal kind of does that.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Now, and I get this warning It says this word
can only be used to describe your siblings. Now, look
what happens if I type in the word as South Korea,
which is namhang, it automatically changes it to puppet state.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
You type in the word South Korea the proper noun
south Korea, and it translates instantly on your text message
app to puppet state, kind of like the state. You know,
we should call it Colorado. I mean, it's really commi Colorado,
but we live in a puppet state too, which.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Is what the North all the South. In this folder,
we can see that the phone is taking a screen
shot every five minutes or so.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
How many of you want a screenshot of your phone
taking every few minutes? Yes, and then just you know,
transferred to a central database and the you know, the
minders are looking over what you're looking at and no
precisely the sites that you're going to and what you're
doing on those sites.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
But the user can't open these files. Only the authorities can,
so they can.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Yeah, it's hard to visualize what she's showing right there.
So your phone in North Korea will show that the
screen shots been taken. And then when you go to
your files under your settings, there are all of those screenshots,
but they're contained, you know, you know how you have
(17:51):
like the blue folder, or at least on iOS, you
have a blue folder that represents a file. I forget
what they look what looks like Windows, But you have
a folder that's a file folder. Well, you can see
the folder on your phone, and you see hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of them, but you can't open them.
(18:15):
Only the central authorities can open because those are your
screen shops. Now you know what you were looking for,
but they don't want you to know what they're looking at.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
What you looked at. Coming to a phone near you soon, Mike.
Speaker 5 (18:32):
Remember I was confused about the bag fee for a
quartered gray wolf. Well I found the address of this
guy named Marlin who's married to somebody named Jared. I
went to their driveway and I just got it and
quartered that gray wolf, and I left the fur and
the guts there. I took the meet. You know that
one guy that leaves talkbacks and has that hungry cat
(18:54):
in the background. That's who got the meat.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Uh, this Jared and Marlin guy, I don't know what
you're talking about, but they sound like.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
A nutjob nutjob couple to me.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
So in a really bold move to safeguard free speech,
the State Department has enacted a new policy to deny
visus to foreign nationals, particularly government officials who happen to
be involved in censoring American citizens, American companies, or individuals
posting from within the United States. Trump announced this policy
(19:34):
back while I was on vacation. It leverages the Immigration
and Nationality Act and it targets those who threaten or
who actually suppress US based speech, and it includes threats
of arrests or other punitive actions against social media content. Now,
(19:56):
there's obviously a lot of debate about it, and supporters
is it as a defensive American sovereignty, but the critics
are warning of, oh, we might have some diplomatic fallout
and there might be some reciprocal measures from other nations.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Yeah, to which I would say, so what you know.
I I know that.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
This program because when I go to look at the
podcast stats, I know where this program is downloaded. And
I would say I haven't looked at it in a
week or so. But there are probably a dozen foreign
countries that download the podcast. Now I'm happy to have them,
(20:44):
and I really don't want to lose them. But if
there was retaliation against this podcast, this broadcast from a
foreign country, because some of the foreign countries are interesting,
they're they're places that you really wouldn't expect. It's like
I always wonder, like, who is it that's listening who's
(21:07):
listening to this podcast? Say in Cutter, who's listening to her?
I'm sorry, Catar, who's listening to it in Egypt? Who's
listening to it in Singapore? But whoever it is, whether
it's an expat or it's you know, a foreign national
(21:28):
listening to it, Welcome a board, Glad to have you
with me. Now, if I say something that offends your
government and your government and retaliation for what our government's doing,
cuts you off and denies you access to the podcast,
well then you know, Ca Sarasra or Cay Sarah Sarah.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
I don't care either one.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Hate to lose you, but maybe you could get a
VPN and listen to it anyway. The policy focuses on
foreign officials who have directly participated in or who have
facilitated censorship against Americans, including any action that or pressure
(22:12):
US based social media platforms to get them to suppress
what's legal speech in this country, and it also extends
to the immediate family members of those foreign officials. Now
that obviously is designed to amplify the impact of Trump's
policy and according to Tammy Bruce, the State Department spokesperson,
(22:38):
this is all part of a broader effort of Rubial
and others.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
To uphold the highest standards of national.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Security and public safety through the visa adjudication process. I'm
excited about this. Anything that enhances our national security. I
shouldn't say anything, because there are some limits. But those
things that enhance our national security through the visa adjudication
process stand up and say hallelujah for because I'm tired
(23:10):
of people coming here and overstaying their visas. I'm tired
of people like the dirt bag from Colorado Springs that
went up to Boulder. I'm tired of dirt bags like
that applying for a tourist visa, gets here, hangs out
for a while, and then applies for asylum. Wait a minute,
(23:32):
what made you change your mind? The problem is we
don't have well, we do have the number of personnel,
but we don't have the type of personnel in the
consulates and the embassies that have an America first attitude.
Let's really vet these people, Let's really find out what
(23:55):
they're doing, why they're doing it. And that all gets
back to the immigration and Nationality Act of enforcing the
visa process. So Rubio emphasizes that visa decisions are now
going to be treated as national security decisions. I don't
(24:18):
think that's I mean, it's something new in terms of
what we've been doing, but I don't think it's new
in terms of what the Immigration and Nationality Act expected
visas to be in the first place. Shouldn't just rubber
stamp them. That's been a while since I actually had
to get a visa to travel to a foreign country,
(24:39):
and when I did well, there were a few times
post post time as under Secretary, but I still had
to fill out all the questionnaire where am I going,
where am I staying? Do I have a round trip ticket?
How am I going to support myself while I'm there?
(25:00):
I you know, the typical visa requirements. Now, Obviously, when
I was the Undersecretary, it went through diplomatic channels and
they were pretty much raber stamped. But no, as as
an individual, I had answer all the questions.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Now.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
While the while the specific criteria for identifying targeted individuals
hasn't been disclosed yet, I think, or at least I believe,
that it's to address actions such as foreign governments that
are pressuring the tech companies to either remove content or
when they're threatening legal consequences for posting things that originate
(25:39):
in the US. Now, posts on x have highlighted the
policies intent to counter global censorship efforts, and some users
are describing it as a response to governments threatening and
centering US social media platforms for legal speech. I am
to think they're right now. The State Department hasn't, at
(26:02):
least as of last night, clarified how it's going to
identify individuals for a visa denial, or whether the policy
might apply retroactively to any past censorship efforts by these
foreign governments. And you know, I'll give them time because
I know how Trump. I don't well, I've observed how
(26:23):
Trump operates.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Boom.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Let's do this and then let's figure out the details.
I really don't have a problem with that. Sarah Patel,
who's an immigration attorney based in New York, says this
the challenge is defining what constitutes censorship and ensuring this
isn't weaponized against political adversaries without wait a minute, we're
talking about foreign governments. Even our allies at times can
(26:51):
be considered political adversaries. Take Israel for example, Israel probably
our strongest ally. We probably spend as much time, energy
and effort spying on Israel as Israel spends time, energy
and efforts spying on us, because we are at time
(27:12):
in adversarial positions. So I think the immigration lawyer is
really just trying to hype up the fact that well,
probably just trying to hype herself up for that matter.
So the visa man is probably going to strain some
diplomatic relations, particularly with those countries that are known for
(27:34):
restricting online speech. Well, China, Russia, some European allies that
have strict content moderation laws. United Kingdom, France, Germany, We're
looking at you. China's foreign ministry is already condemned the
visa restrictions as politically motivated and discriminatory.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
The Chinese are accusing us of doing something that's politically
motivated and discriminatory, right, says the same country that disappears people,
or they just harvest organs, you know, on the side
of the highway.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
And of course they're threatening retaliation too. What are you
gonna do? Take all your spies home withdraw all of
your foreign students there at Harvard and all the other
Ivy League schools. You're gonna take them back, okay, fine
with me. And of course then they're the usual analysts
that warn that some countries might respond by imposing their
(28:31):
own visa restrictions on American officials or citizens, and that
might escalate tensions between some of these countries, and that
somehow it's going to impact global trade and security negotiations.
This kind of stuff goes on all the time. Now,
there are some economic repercussions. Foreign officials and their families
(28:52):
often contribute to the economy through tourism, education, business investments,
heal it. And in twenty twenty three, the last year
that I could find numbers, visitors government officials spent over
two hundred billion dollars in this country. That's according to
the National Travel and Tourism Office. So you know, restricting
(29:12):
visus could reduce that amount of revenue. But when you
think about our budget, I mean, I don't want to
lose two hundred billion dollars in revenue. But when you
think about the size of our budget, it's like me
losing the two pennies I've got out in the cup
holder and the beamer BFD you think about every single thing.
(29:36):
I'm working on this on a story that I'm not
ready to give it to you yet. But over dinner,
someone made a comment to me about how difficult it
is to either start or maintain a business in Colorado,
(29:57):
and so I've been going down the rabbit hole trying
to ascertain, like, what are some of the regulations and
rules and policies that Colorado has implemented, say in the past,
let's just go back, you know, five years, so you
have to go back ten years, just go back, go
back to COVID, and then see what's happened since then,
(30:18):
and you realize that we really hadn't made it virtually impossible.
Last night, as part of it, I was reading a
story about the whole tip policy and as many of
you on me giving the numbers about the CO two
in plastic bags versus you know, the paper bags, and.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
You're like, stepping, stopping is too much.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
As I tried to comprehend what restaurants or businesses that
involve tips, the calculations they have to go through to
figure out what the base rate is, the hourly rate
is for a server or someone in there in their restaurant,
(31:04):
Mike Cash. You've got to have a degree in calculus
to figure it out. And I'm thinking, what and it
all had to do with minimum wage. Why don't we
just get rid of minimum wage? And why don't we
just stop the whole concept of tipping in this country
and just charge me what it costs you to serve
me a meal. It may be lower or higher in
(31:27):
some in some instances. That's what I love about. One
of the things I love about Europe lots of things
I don't like about Europe is generally there's just a
no tipping policy. The kind of general rule in Europe
is you can leave a few coins, which you're pretty
much worthless, but you can leave a few coins for
(31:49):
exceptional service. Well, for that means they've gone way beyond
the call of duty. It's something where you look at
you look at your dinner table mates and you go, wow,
this was really good, and so you leave, you know,
you pull out a few pencils or something and throw
them on the table. A few euros. In this country,
it's just stupid. And I think about the bag policy,
(32:15):
the minimum wage policy, everything that we've done to businesses
in this state. It's amazing that we have any economy whatsoever.
We make it hard to do business in this state,
and then police schools around talking about the free state
of Colorado. This is a great place to do a
great state to do business in. Really, then one, why
(32:38):
do we have You know, Ryan must have been listening
to me, because remember I talked about how I think
it's one of the Michael Brown minutes, how we have
out migration and particularly in Denver, it's a PODS report. Gee,
I wonder why. And then we have an incredibly common
sense Kathleen Chandler with the Independence Institute sent me a
(33:02):
story that I'm digging into about how the birth rate
in Colorado is declining. Gee, I wondered why. I started
digging around trying to figure out why is that? Because
common sense just gives you the figures.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Oh yeah, the.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
Birth rate in Colorado's declining. Okay, Well I want to
know why. What's the cause of it. All of those
things are tied together, and it's all emanating from not
just the polit Bureau at colfaxing Broadway, but your city council,
your county commission, everywhere that there's a government.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
We're doing it to ourselves
If you go down some of the roads less traveled
on the Eastern Plains and visit some of the mom
and pop grocery stores, gas stations, what have you, they
still they still give you plastic bags because they're not
you know, they're not charmed by King Poulis.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I guess I know.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
And it should It's funny because uh and I'll get
to the text message in just a second, because I
think many of us see this because we're I shouldn't
say all of us, but I think a lot of
us are trying to find our own little way of revolting,
which may be minimal, but at least we're revolting. At
(00:49):
least we're saying no, you know, enough is enough. Now,
before I go to the text messages, I want to
I want to finish with the carbon footprint because this
is probably maybe you already know it. I didn't realize it.
It makes sense though when you think about it, except
I would have thought it would have been different because
(01:10):
the the amount of petroleum based products, obviously in a
plastic bag, is much greater than the amount of petroleum
product in a paper bag. So remember the average CO
two for everything that the life cycle of a plastic
(01:30):
bag is zero point zero one nine kilograms of CO two.
Just keep that number in mind. But now let's talk
about the paper bag because we've been brainwashed to believe that.
And again, by the way, for the persons told me
King Supers, King Supers, King Supers, just get over King Supers,
(01:55):
go to different store. I'm only picking on King Soupers
because that's the store I use. It's not going to
be any different if I go to Whole Foods, or
if I go to Sprouts, or if I go to
Safeway or I go to natural Grocers. I'm just using
my anecdotal experience. So bite my ass. You know if
(02:17):
you got if you love King Soupers, fine, I don't
hate King Soupers. I'm using it as the example. So
let's go to the carbon foot print of a paper
bag production. Now, paper bags, you've got the raw material,
which is craft paper made from wood pulp. That, including
(02:37):
the logging and the pulping, amounts to about eight tenths
to one point.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Two kilograms of CO two. Wow, already we're pretty igh right.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
Then you have the manufacturing, you have the pulping process,
you have the pressing process that's going to account for
about seven tenths to a full kilogram of CO two.
Well the total for a fifty five gram bag, so
you you would have this, Well, I'm not going to
go through the formula for a fifty five standard size
(03:10):
paper bag. You're going to get anywhere from eight tenths
to zero point one two one kilograms of CO two.
That's just for production. That that's the carbon footprint from production.
But now, just like everything else, you've got to get
(03:30):
it from the point of production to the point of
distribution or the end use. Now, obviously transportation is going
to be a little bit higher because you have weight
paper bags, you're going to weigh more than a plastic bag.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
But assuming.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Point zero zero five kilograms of CO two, you drive
one hundred kilometers, that's one tenth of a kilogram of
COE two per ton per kilogram. For per ton per kilometer,
you get fifty five grams fifty five grams. Now, again
(04:15):
that's production transportation, and now we get to use again.
Picking up your bag, unfolding the bag, putting the bag away,
throwing in the trash, whatever you do, negligible emissions. But
what happens when you you know, when you get the
bag home, it's gotten wet and it's torn, and you
(04:36):
put it in your like I do at home. I
put it in my kitchen trash can that has a
plastic trash bag in it. It's now going to go
to the landfill. Seventy percent of paper bags go to landfill.
Paper decomposes, and when it does, it releases methane. About
(04:59):
two and a half kilogram of CO two per kilogram
for paper recycling accounts for about twenty percent. That's very
energy intensive also, just like it is for plastic, but
it does offset somewhat by virgin paper. Now you've got
(05:22):
again about uh point zero five to five kilograms of
CO two. You got composting minimum, but about ten percent
of paper bags get composted. Now, if done properly, that
will result in about point zero zero.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Two kilograms of CO two.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
So let's get to the total the total carbon footprint, production, transport,
disposal of the paper bag. The average is zero point
one seven five kilograms of CO two. Now ask yourself
a simple question, which is greater or which is larger
(06:07):
zero point one seventy five kilograms of CO two or
zero point zero one nine kilograms of CO two. Oh,
well by a significant amount. The zero point one seven
five kilograms of CO two for a paper bag is
(06:28):
much larger than it is for a plastic bag. So
all of this time, well, in fact, a paper bag's
carbon footprint is about nine point two times higher than
a plastic bag's carbon footprint.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
And yet what was the name of this act?
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Oh yeah, the Plastic and Pollution Reduction Act of twenty
twenty three or twenty four, whatever it was. Seems to
me that paper bags higher footprint. Uh, that's what actually
questions if you're concerned about the environment, especially if consumers
(07:14):
use more than needed, you know, like they double bag something.
Plastic bags litter impact is probably overstated, if you know,
if the fees actually reduce you know, the consumption of
plastic bags.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
But I can't quantify.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
That, the I guess the conclusion would be this, a
standard grocery store plastic bag has a carbon footprint of
about approximately point zero one nine kilograms of CO two,
(07:53):
and that paper bag you use has about zero point
one seventy five kilograms of CO two, making paper bags
nine point two times more carbon intensity. Now, if paper
bags replace multiple plastic bags or are recycled, then the
gap narrows a little bit about six times difference. But
(08:17):
plastic bags objectively speaking, do pose a greater litter and
a microplastic risk, but paper bags contribute more to landfill methane,
all of which you can quantify that. But let's go
full circle back to the bag fee. Has it reduced
(08:39):
the number of bags and plastic bags in the landfill,
may or may not have if it's based on just
the number of plastic bags or the amount of fees
that are being collected. As those fees continue to decline,
that could be from lack of enforcement, or it could
be from lack of people actually using plastic bags. But
(09:03):
has it accomplished what we were told it was going
to accomplish. Probably not. Now let's go to the text
message is because you raise really good points twenty nine
oh nine, you're just now popped up. Well, Michael, that's
all well and good, but you can't fill a plastic
(09:24):
bag with dog poop and then light it on fire
on your neighbor's doorstep. Well, lighter fluid you could, and
then you have the additional benefit of not just stomping
out the poop, but now you have toxins in the air.
Goober number ninety three seven to zero. Can't read your
(09:47):
text message, but I find it freaking funny. Twin Mike,
in your numbers for CO two from plastic bags in
the landfill, over what time frame are they based? I
spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to make plastic
bags turn into CO two in landfill conditions. The problem was,
it takes decades even if you're trying. I question if
(10:11):
those numbers are from data, grocery, extrapolated data, or just theory. Well,
some of the data comes from actual studies Sweden and
the US. But if you recall I pointed out that
over a significant period of time, they degrade, which is
one of the complaints. It takes a long time for
(10:31):
them to degrade. Seventeen thirteen. Michael, here's a real question.
We're currently at four hundred and fifty parts per million
of CO two. The six hundred million year average for
CO two is about fifteen hundred parts per million. The plants,
the plant life, the plant life lives on, the plant's life,
(10:55):
lives on, lives on have evolved. You prefer about thirteen
hundred parts per million. Why is CO two currently solow
Well That's an easy answer, because the climate changes and
CO two in the amount of CO two in the
atmosphere up and down. It's just like a wave. It
(11:17):
just comes and goes, comes and goes all the time.
Forty five eighteen Michael, speaking of Into Life bags. I
was at Coals returning in Amazon package and they were
pulling new bags out and wrapping up the returns, putting
the label on each return. How many Amazon returns go
(11:37):
through Coals. I've only taken Amazon return to a Coals
maybe once or twice, simply because the coals happen to
be close by. And both times I did there were
piles of plastic that were going back. So there you
have six zero one five Mike. They'll brainwash you just
(12:00):
the same as me. They brainwash everybody. North Korea is
trying to brainwash everybody, and that's what this bill is doing.
So every time you go to the grocery store, answer
the question correctly, how many bags do you wish to purchase? Well,
I don't wish to purchase any bags, so the answer
is zero, Or do like the other googer did on
(12:23):
the talk back, do an Amazon you can buy thousands
of plastic bags. For probably ten bucks or something, and
then just you know, they come and they're kind of
they're kind of step together. Just take some and just
rip them apart, put them in your trunk, and when
you go to the grocery store, you've got the easy carry,
(12:44):
hard to break plastic bags. Just hand them to the
you know, or if you have to, you know, pack
your own groceries, sack your own groceries, you can do
it yourself. Or if you got the little sack pimple
faced sack boy there, just hand him the plastic bag
and say, put them in these. It's not against the law. No,
not against the law at all. And even if it was,
(13:08):
there's no enforcement mechanism. So don't forget that. So how
can I claim, for example, that what they're trying to
do is similar to what they're trying to do in
North Korea.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
I don't know whether you've been to.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Some of these places or not, but some of these
countries are really bad when it comes to controlling information,
what you can access on the internet, what you cannot
access on the internet. But if these radicalized democrats ever
return to power, updates to Orwell's New Speak Dictionary, or
(13:47):
are going to come fast and furious, because this is
the dissident thought has to be systematically abolished. Well, if
these radicplies Democrats, these Marxists that pretty much control many
of the states, control the state of Colorado, California, Illinois, Massachusetts,
(14:07):
others New York, they're probably going to take a page
from the book of their fellow Marxists in North Korea
by enlisting our phones to assist them. This is a
post I found on x Someone smuggled a phone out
(14:28):
of North Korea. Listen to what they find.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
We've got hold of this phone that was smuggled out
of North Korea last year, and it shows some of
the surprising lengths the regime is now going to fensor information.
North Korea blocks information from outside the country, and these
phones don't have access to the Internet. But South Korean
TV shows are being smuggled over the border to try
(14:52):
to show North Koreans how rich South Korea is and
how much freedom people have here to try to undermine
the regime. Now, Kim Jong un has banned these shows,
and from this phone you can see that he's now
also blocking people from using popular South Korean words. Look
what happens when I type in the word opa. This
(15:13):
word literally means older brother in Korean, but people here
in South Korea now use it as slang to refer
to their boyfriends as well.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Will mother.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
When I enter it, it automatically changes to the word comrade.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Now, imagine you're on your I message, you're on WhatsApp,
you're on whatever. You get, an Android, you got an iPhone,
I don't care, whatever you have, and you're sending a
text message, and you're you're using the word open oppa
upper slang for your boyfriend, and as you type oppa,
(15:55):
it automatically comes up as comrade.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Well, I would hope you wouldn't stand for it.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
You take your phone back and say there's something wrong
with the phone, or you take it to your service
provider and say, hey, there's something wrong. The phone's not
operating properly. All in North Korea, it's operating precisely the
way they want it to operate.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
You know.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
The cabal kind of does that.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Now, and I get this warning It says this word
can only be used to describe your siblings. Now, look
what happens if I type in the word as South Korea,
which is namhang, it automatically changes it to puppet state.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
You type in the word South Korea the proper noun
south Korea, and it translates instantly on your text message
app to puppet state, kind of like the state. You know,
we should call it Colorado. I mean, it's really commi Colorado,
but we live in a puppet state too, which.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Is what the North all the South. In this folder,
we can see that the phone is taking a screen
shot every five minutes or so.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
How many of you want a screenshot of your phone
taking every few minutes? Yes, and then just you know,
transferred to a central database and the you know, the
minders are looking over what you're looking at and no
precisely the sites that you're going to and what you're
doing on those sites.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
But the user can't open these files. Only the authorities can,
so they can.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Yeah, it's hard to visualize what she's showing right there.
So your phone in North Korea will show that the
screen shots been taken. And then when you go to
your files under your settings, there are all of those screenshots,
but they're contained, you know, you know how you have
(17:51):
like the blue folder, or at least on iOS, you
have a blue folder that represents a file. I forget
what they look what looks like Windows, But you have
a folder that's a file folder. Well, you can see
the folder on your phone, and you see hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of them, but you can't open them.
(18:15):
Only the central authorities can open because those are your
screen shops. Now you know what you were looking for,
but they don't want you to know what they're looking at.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
What you looked at. Coming to a phone near you soon, Mike.
Speaker 5 (18:32):
Remember I was confused about the bag fee for a
quartered gray wolf. Well I found the address of this
guy named Marlin who's married to somebody named Jared. I
went to their driveway and I just got it and
quartered that gray wolf, and I left the fur and
the guts there. I took the meet. You know that
one guy that leaves talkbacks and has that hungry cat
(18:54):
in the background. That's who got the meat.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
Uh, this Jared and Marlin guy, I don't know what
you're talking about, but they sound like.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
A nutjob nutjob couple to me.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
So in a really bold move to safeguard free speech,
the State Department has enacted a new policy to deny
visus to foreign nationals, particularly government officials who happen to
be involved in censoring American citizens, American companies, or individuals
posting from within the United States. Trump announced this policy
(19:34):
back while I was on vacation. It leverages the Immigration
and Nationality Act and it targets those who threaten or
who actually suppress US based speech, and it includes threats
of arrests or other punitive actions against social media content. Now,
(19:56):
there's obviously a lot of debate about it, and supporters
is it as a defensive American sovereignty, but the critics
are warning of, oh, we might have some diplomatic fallout
and there might be some reciprocal measures from other nations.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Yeah, to which I would say, so what you know.
I I know that.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
This program because when I go to look at the
podcast stats, I know where this program is downloaded. And
I would say I haven't looked at it in a
week or so. But there are probably a dozen foreign
countries that download the podcast. Now I'm happy to have them,
(20:44):
and I really don't want to lose them. But if
there was retaliation against this podcast, this broadcast from a
foreign country, because some of the foreign countries are interesting,
they're they're places that you really wouldn't expect. It's like
I always wonder, like, who is it that's listening who's
(21:07):
listening to this podcast? Say in Cutter, who's listening to her?
I'm sorry, Catar, who's listening to it in Egypt? Who's
listening to it in Singapore? But whoever it is, whether
it's an expat or it's you know, a foreign national
(21:28):
listening to it, Welcome a board, Glad to have you
with me. Now, if I say something that offends your
government and your government and retaliation for what our government's doing,
cuts you off and denies you access to the podcast,
well then you know, Ca Sarasra or Cay Sarah Sarah.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
I don't care either one.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Hate to lose you, but maybe you could get a
VPN and listen to it anyway. The policy focuses on
foreign officials who have directly participated in or who have
facilitated censorship against Americans, including any action that or pressure
(22:12):
US based social media platforms to get them to suppress
what's legal speech in this country, and it also extends
to the immediate family members of those foreign officials. Now
that obviously is designed to amplify the impact of Trump's
policy and according to Tammy Bruce, the State Department spokesperson,
(22:38):
this is all part of a broader effort of Rubial
and others.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
To uphold the highest standards of national.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Security and public safety through the visa adjudication process. I'm
excited about this. Anything that enhances our national security. I
shouldn't say anything, because there are some limits. But those
things that enhance our national security through the visa adjudication
process stand up and say hallelujah for because I'm tired
(23:10):
of people coming here and overstaying their visas. I'm tired
of people like the dirt bag from Colorado Springs that
went up to Boulder. I'm tired of dirt bags like
that applying for a tourist visa, gets here, hangs out
for a while, and then applies for asylum. Wait a minute,
(23:32):
what made you change your mind? The problem is we
don't have well, we do have the number of personnel,
but we don't have the type of personnel in the
consulates and the embassies that have an America first attitude.
Let's really vet these people, Let's really find out what
(23:55):
they're doing, why they're doing it. And that all gets
back to the immigration and Nationality Act of enforcing the
visa process. So Rubio emphasizes that visa decisions are now
going to be treated as national security decisions. I don't
(24:18):
think that's I mean, it's something new in terms of
what we've been doing, but I don't think it's new
in terms of what the Immigration and Nationality Act expected
visas to be in the first place. Shouldn't just rubber
stamp them. That's been a while since I actually had
to get a visa to travel to a foreign country,
(24:39):
and when I did well, there were a few times
post post time as under Secretary, but I still had
to fill out all the questionnaire where am I going,
where am I staying? Do I have a round trip ticket?
How am I going to support myself while I'm there?
(25:00):
I you know, the typical visa requirements. Now, Obviously, when
I was the Undersecretary, it went through diplomatic channels and
they were pretty much raber stamped. But no, as as
an individual, I had answer all the questions.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Now.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
While the while the specific criteria for identifying targeted individuals
hasn't been disclosed yet, I think, or at least I believe,
that it's to address actions such as foreign governments that
are pressuring the tech companies to either remove content or
when they're threatening legal consequences for posting things that originate
(25:39):
in the US. Now, posts on x have highlighted the
policies intent to counter global censorship efforts, and some users
are describing it as a response to governments threatening and
centering US social media platforms for legal speech. I am
to think they're right now. The State Department hasn't, at
(26:02):
least as of last night, clarified how it's going to
identify individuals for a visa denial, or whether the policy
might apply retroactively to any past censorship efforts by these
foreign governments. And you know, I'll give them time because
I know how Trump. I don't well, I've observed how
(26:23):
Trump operates.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Boom.
Speaker 3 (26:25):
Let's do this and then let's figure out the details.
I really don't have a problem with that. Sarah Patel,
who's an immigration attorney based in New York, says this
the challenge is defining what constitutes censorship and ensuring this
isn't weaponized against political adversaries without wait a minute, we're
talking about foreign governments. Even our allies at times can
(26:51):
be considered political adversaries. Take Israel for example, Israel probably
our strongest ally. We probably spend as much time, energy
and effort spying on Israel as Israel spends time, energy
and efforts spying on us, because we are at time
(27:12):
in adversarial positions. So I think the immigration lawyer is
really just trying to hype up the fact that well,
probably just trying to hype herself up for that matter.
So the visa man is probably going to strain some
diplomatic relations, particularly with those countries that are known for
(27:34):
restricting online speech. Well, China, Russia, some European allies that
have strict content moderation laws. United Kingdom, France, Germany, We're
looking at you. China's foreign ministry is already condemned the
visa restrictions as politically motivated and discriminatory.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
The Chinese are accusing us of doing something that's politically
motivated and discriminatory, right, says the same country that disappears people,
or they just harvest organs, you know, on the side
of the highway.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
And of course they're threatening retaliation too. What are you
gonna do? Take all your spies home withdraw all of
your foreign students there at Harvard and all the other
Ivy League schools. You're gonna take them back, okay, fine
with me. And of course then they're the usual analysts
that warn that some countries might respond by imposing their
(28:31):
own visa restrictions on American officials or citizens, and that
might escalate tensions between some of these countries, and that
somehow it's going to impact global trade and security negotiations.
This kind of stuff goes on all the time. Now,
there are some economic repercussions. Foreign officials and their families
(28:52):
often contribute to the economy through tourism, education, business investments,
heal it. And in twenty twenty three, the last year
that I could find numbers, visitors government officials spent over
two hundred billion dollars in this country. That's according to
the National Travel and Tourism Office. So you know, restricting
(29:12):
visus could reduce that amount of revenue. But when you
think about our budget, I mean, I don't want to
lose two hundred billion dollars in revenue. But when you
think about the size of our budget, it's like me
losing the two pennies I've got out in the cup
holder and the beamer BFD you think about every single thing.
(29:36):
I'm working on this on a story that I'm not
ready to give it to you yet. But over dinner,
someone made a comment to me about how difficult it
is to either start or maintain a business in Colorado,
(29:57):
and so I've been going down the rabbit hole trying
to ascertain, like, what are some of the regulations and
rules and policies that Colorado has implemented, say in the past,
let's just go back, you know, five years, so you
have to go back ten years, just go back, go
back to COVID, and then see what's happened since then,
(30:18):
and you realize that we really hadn't made it virtually impossible.
Last night, as part of it, I was reading a
story about the whole tip policy and as many of
you on me giving the numbers about the CO two
in plastic bags versus you know, the paper bags, and.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
You're like, stepping, stopping is too much.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
As I tried to comprehend what restaurants or businesses that
involve tips, the calculations they have to go through to
figure out what the base rate is, the hourly rate
is for a server or someone in there in their restaurant,
(31:04):
Mike Cash. You've got to have a degree in calculus
to figure it out. And I'm thinking, what and it
all had to do with minimum wage. Why don't we
just get rid of minimum wage? And why don't we
just stop the whole concept of tipping in this country
and just charge me what it costs you to serve
me a meal. It may be lower or higher in
(31:27):
some in some instances. That's what I love about. One
of the things I love about Europe lots of things
I don't like about Europe is generally there's just a
no tipping policy. The kind of general rule in Europe
is you can leave a few coins, which you're pretty
much worthless, but you can leave a few coins for
(31:49):
exceptional service. Well, for that means they've gone way beyond
the call of duty. It's something where you look at
you look at your dinner table mates and you go, wow,
this was really good, and so you leave, you know,
you pull out a few pencils or something and throw
them on the table. A few euros. In this country,
it's just stupid. And I think about the bag policy,
(32:15):
the minimum wage policy, everything that we've done to businesses
in this state. It's amazing that we have any economy whatsoever.
We make it hard to do business in this state,
and then police schools around talking about the free state
of Colorado. This is a great place to do a
great state to do business in. Really, then one, why
(32:38):
do we have You know, Ryan must have been listening
to me, because remember I talked about how I think
it's one of the Michael Brown minutes, how we have
out migration and particularly in Denver, it's a PODS report. Gee,
I wonder why. And then we have an incredibly common
sense Kathleen Chandler with the Independence Institute sent me a
(33:02):
story that I'm digging into about how the birth rate
in Colorado is declining. Gee, I wondered why. I started
digging around trying to figure out why is that? Because
common sense just gives you the figures.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Oh yeah, the.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
Birth rate in Colorado's declining. Okay, Well I want to
know why. What's the cause of it. All of those
things are tied together, and it's all emanating from not
just the polit Bureau at colfaxing Broadway, but your city council,
your county commission, everywhere that there's a government.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
We're doing it to ourselves
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.