Brickbat: The (Artificial) Grass Is Greener

In 2015, in the midst of a drought, California lawmakers banned cities and counties from prohibiting synthetic grass. The logic behind the law was that artificial turf was better for the environment because it saved water. But state lawmakers now argue artificial turf is bad for the environment because it contains so-called forever chemicals such as PFAS. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of PFAS in synthetic turf but not because he disagreed with the law. Rather, Newsom said the law did not contain any method to enforce the ban on PFAS.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
JOIN US I’m making a good salary from home 16580-47065/ Doller week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
Here is I started.…………> http://Www.Smartwork1.Com
What do progressives care about what they said in 2015?
Since there's no opposition party in Sacramento, it's basically "I support what's trendy." And progressives will always have some new monster to slay, always something that makes regular people's lives a little harder, and always something that doesn't actually do jack shit but won't be rescinded, ever.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Seriously, how/why do you stay in Cali?
Born and raised here, my whole family is here. Parents retired here and I chose to stay to be near them as long as I could. You only get so much time, after all. Been plotting my escape since they passed, but the last half dozen years it seems like one thing after another so I haven't gotten out just yet.
Used to be a wonderful place, before the progressives decided to impose San Francisco sensibilities on the rest of the state.
Anything that seems like a "magic bullet" or other kind of quick fix to whatever they happen to be looking at in one moment gets jumped on without any hesitation or scrutiny.
Remember MTBE? That whole cycle payed out when the legislature was maybe a little smarter than they are now (or at least lacked the kind of overwhelming supermajority which leads to jumping with both feet into whatever the Dem party decides looks good at first blush. First they mandated MTBE in all the gas in the state (except for boat fuel and the Tahoe Basin), then they started requiring gas pumps to feature a warning sticker that there's MTBE (which "has been determined by the State of CA to be harmful to the environment") in the gas without any mention of the reason why it's in there, and finally 8-10 years after the mandate (and 6-8 years after learning that it was carcinogenic/mutagenic when it got into ground or surface water) they eventually banned it entirely.
Or the "Prop 65" warning that comes on almost all upholstered furniture that mentions the presence of chemicals "known to cause cancer" but without any mention of the State fire resistance regs which mandate the use of those chemicals in all such furniture sold in the state.
Our legislators in Sacramento are committed to meet their goal of passing 1000 new laws per year. There's no way they could possibly hit that goal if they were to ever slow down to read what's in the laws they're voting on, whether the State even needs any new laws at all, or how what they're doing now might actually interact with the already excessive and barely-scrutinized pile of laws on the books already.
I prefer the feel of real grass, and boobs.
Well, California is full of boobs. Particularly the legislature.
If mammary serves me correctly, a lot of inactive men that dine at fast food places and pound double-stuff Oreos agree.
The lowest common denominator is people. California needs to ban people.
The lowest common denominator is California. California should ban California.
NOOO! If California banned people, even more Californians would move to other states.
If CA banned people, the ones you really need to fear making that move would assume that the ban didn't actually apply to themselves.
California remains in an intellectual drought.
Reminds me of that old 80s joke about a bunch of black people buried up to their necks.
Bet that’s a real hum-dinger.
afro-turf
Dark humor
Can anyone explain to me what's wrong with "forever chemicals"? They're so inert they don't break down. What's wrong with that?
PFAS exposure has been linked to negative health effects. I’m neither supporting nor refuting the studies. Just sharing their conclusions.
Long-lived (not really "forever" but pretty long) does not mean biologically inert. Perfluoroalkyl substances repel water and oils - that's what makes them attractive for industrial uses. Despite repelling water, they also can dissolve in water under the right conditions. And when they do, they can get into a body. When they accumulate in the body at high enough levels, they may cause biological effects possibly including higher cholesterol levels, thyroid problems, an increased risk of certain cancers, etc. (Note that the Wikipedia page currently says that they "have" caused those effects. That actual research is more nuanced - PFASs are implicated but not yet proven as causative agents.)
A side-note on "forever" - While these chemicals are relatively long-lived in the environment at large, it's worth noting that their half-life in a body (the "serum elimination" half-life) is only about 4-5 years.
Good to know that California's fixed their budget, solved homelessness and can finally get to issues like this...
The objective is never the thing being banned, it is always to restrict freedoms.
I have a much more boring interpretation of most politicians. They see movie businessmen yelling "Give me the Harrison report!" or "Have it on my desk in one hour or you're fired!" and wish they had that kind of power. So the emulate Pharaoh by shouting orders, and "So let it be written, so let it be done" becomes their mantra. They think writing laws solves problems, regardless of whether the laws have anything to do with the problems "addressed". Thus when some mental case shoots up a school with pistols and 10 round magazines, they ban bayonet lugs.
A lot of my reasoning on this was knowing an astrologer who was sharp enough to have gotten any STEM degree, but too bored to sit through all the classwork. She loved the trappings of astrology: books full of timezone and geographical data, formulas and things to run through a calculator, the precision of birth times down to the minute. She even admitted she could read people better in person without knowing anything about their birth data than she could with the most complete birth data possible.
That's all politicians are, aping the trappings of Hollywood businessmen because they don't have the patience to put in the hard work actually required.
Which is more hazardous to life on earth: lack of drinking water or the possibility that sometime, somewhere, someone might get sick from PFA's?