^ God,

Yah, I get why you're under the delusion that people in cities obviously have a smaller impact on global warming, its because they use less energy per person (they can drive less for example) and therefore emit fewer GHGs.

But my point is that is a retarded line of thinking.

You are basically ignoring everything else about living in a city--even if individual residents a city use less energy, the industries and people supporting that city will have to use more energy supplying the cities residents with food and other goods. Not to mention the fact that cities displace natural carbon sinks like wetlands and forests.

PS* I should note that I am not saying suburbs are better for the environment. I'm just saying that hipsters thinking they're saving the planet by taking the tube is a really tired cliche i wouldn't have expected coming from fucking RTP.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM. Reason : ``]

4/28/2010 2:20:35 PM

^ So, you would construct a city that only uses trolley's and subways? Get real dude.

We could build a city that doesn't use energy, but that doesn't make it practical. You are completely ignoring the economic impact your "solution" would have on us. People would still own cars (not as many, granted), you would still have busses and you would still have Taxi cabs. We would still be using coal and we would still be drilling for oil.

You forget that we would still need oil for petroleum based products (those plastic bags that we all use, as well as packaging and the plethora of plastic based products).

You're "solution" is to marginally reduce the consumption of oil while drastically reducing people's quality of life all in a shitty attempt to reduce pollution and keep our oceans clean. I hope you're trolling, because this is the worst, thought out "solution" I think I have ever heard. But I doubt you are trolling, because there are a bunch of you people who think that getting rid of suburbia is a great idea, all because it's a bit more efficient, while ignoring the economic and health issues, as well as the variety of other means of pollution that goes along with cities.

4/28/2010 2:25:25 PM

Quote :

"Step 1: Destroy the suburbs and rebuild cities that revolve around public transportation, bicycling, and walking. "

Wow. When you say things like this to your peers do they just nod thier heads?

Dont get me wrong this sounds great, so does a world without violence, Im just asking.

4/28/2010 2:25:47 PM

I'm sorry, redoing urban development is a pipe dream.

A)It's not grocer's nor clothing stores responsibility to be located both within walking distance of available and affordable residential areas and commercial areas with plenty of jobs.

B)There are plenty of areas in Cary that have housing, food, clothing and presumably places to work all within walking distance. Westin + Harrison comes to mind. Also Cary Parkway + Tryon Rd.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2010 2:25:50 PM

^ But it's not HIS responsibility to be within walking distance of him. It's THEIR responsibility to relocate to where he lives so that he doesn't have to drive that gas guzzling SUV of his.

4/28/2010 2:30:47 PM

Disco_stu,

Word. You can work close to home if you want. If God lives in Cary, chances are is a stones throw from a Walgreens or CVS (there are 3 within a mile of each other on Davis Drive for example). He could work there if he wanted. But he doesn't.

Obviously, what he really wants isn't a city per se, but a city built around him--with everything in arms reach. Well, so would everybody. But it isn't exactly what I call good civil planning.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ``]

4/28/2010 2:33:12 PM

That's why we're all lucky you're not a civic planner.

4/28/2010 2:34:55 PM

I guess we're just confused. Because you claim that you're being forced in driving your 15mpg car 15-30 miles to work, when it's simply not true.

The truth is, it's very convenient to get paid a lot more money than working at a grocery store. And it's way more convenient to not bother looking for a residence that's closer to your latest job.

But in reality the only thing that's stopping you from taking advantage of what the city planners *have* done is your unwillingness to give up that convenience.

Which I'm not dogging you for. Fuck I live in Cary and work on Highwoods in Raleigh. It's an annoying ass commute. But it's an anti-annoying ass paycheck.

4/28/2010 2:41:02 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/28/cape.cod.wind.farm/index.html

Quote :

"Nation's first offshore wind farm approved for Nantucket Sound The 130 turbines are to be located several miles from the Massachusetts shore in the iconic waters of Nantucket Sound. The interior secretary said Cape Wind, as the project is known, is the start of a "new energy frontier." "The United States is leading a clean energy revolution that is reshaping our future," Salazar told reporters in Boston. "Cape Wind is an opening of a new chapter in that future, and we are all part of that history." "Cape Wind will be the nation's first offshore wind farm, supplying clean power to homes and businesses in Massachusetts, plus creating good jobs here in America," he said. "This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast." Thank you for this decision," said Gov. Deval Patrick. "With this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation. This day has been a long time coming.""

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/obama-admin-approves-controversial-cape-cod-wind-farm/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"Obama admin. approves controversial Cape Cod wind farm Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce his approval for a massive wind turbine project off the coast of Cape Cod on Wednesday, three administration sources tell CNN. The project has been the subject of resistance for years from some local organizations concerned it will threaten the wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents and environmental groups also fear it will decrease property values and significantly disrupt the habitats of several local animal species. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy M. Kennedy opposed the project. Supporters of the project say the wind farm will significantly reduce oil consumption with clean energy and provide a substantial supply of electricity to New England."

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce his approval for a massive wind turbine project off the coast of Cape Cod on Wednesday.

This move seems like its worth a try to me.

4/28/2010 2:46:50 PM

God, if you're so into big city living then why don't you move there? (honestly question). At the least why not move to downtown Raleigh? There are certain areas you could live in where almost everything you need is within walking distance.

As a society sure we need to move towards a cleaner future. But its not something that should be forced upon us, especially at economic cost. It's been shown time and time again that the most economically prosperous nations are the most environmentally friendly as well.

Supplanter, I'm curious to see how that all works out. Though I have to wonder how long before some nutjobs protest about the windmills killing birds

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM. Reason : k]

4/28/2010 3:18:23 PM

what happens when the wind farms destroy native bird migration patterns or when we discover that the turbines and solar panels have some other unforeseen harmful impact on the environment? do we scrap them then, or live with the "broken eggs?"

my point is that there is no perfect solution and while we should be striving for cleaner and better so should also acknowledge that the cleaner and better does not yet exist in a viable option therefore we must keep drilling.

4/28/2010 3:41:02 PM

From reading both those articles, there seemed to be environmentalists on both sides of the issue. Some who were worried about local wildlife, but more were on the side of greener energy. The article says its our nation's first try at an offshore wind farm, but you have try everything once right?

4/28/2010 3:52:18 PM

"Mill, Baby, Mill"

I am sure that most of you are aware of my staunch anti-environmental stance here on TWW but recent events have made me question all of that. Captivating and compelling headlines have challenged my previously held beliefs as to the potential risks inherent to activities such as offshore windmills. That stated, it has been made very clear to me that my concerns were completely unfounded and that windmilling for energy off of our coasts is exceptionally safe and should be expanded with all due haste to any and every potential source that we find.

Take for example, the modern wind platform:

It's sturdy and practically invincible construction is a modern marvel. It stands as a testament against the anti-capitalists and tree-huggers who claim rigs pose a fire potential of epic proportions.

Here again:

We see the radiating structure of the modern windmill platform at day blazing a trail into the future of energy independence.

But, purely for the sake of argument for all of you liberal hippies out there, that something did go wrong. The ocean is a very large place and the windmills that are being built is so far out that there is no way coastlines could possibly be affected.


So perhaps Barack Obama and Keith Oberman were correct all along. Windmilling ourselves to a better future is possible. Cheap energy is the American way after all. What harm could come from sticking a few holes in the ground?



*NOTE: I do support offshore drilling and windmills. I just wanted to post this in the same sarcastic manner that HockeyRoman posted his. I did this to show that anyone can make an argument against any energy source. I also did not get into the inefficiencies of windmills, their costs, and how little energy we can really get from a windmill. Although putting them in the ocean does help a little bit with the wind problem.*

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2010 5:01:04 PM

if you have to explain it.....

4/28/2010 6:32:32 PM

^^ that's the stupidest post in TSB this week.

4/28/2010 6:35:06 PM

Power lines kill waaaaaaay more birds than windmills just fyi.

What I find most curious about this thread is that, similar to the military gunning down camaramen thread, it draws out the apathetic miscreants who so callously shrug their shoulders and go "meh, shit happens".

4/28/2010 7:28:52 PM

Quote :

"Power lines kill waaaaaaay more birds than windmills just fyi. "

I don't suppose that has anything to do with there being orders of magnitude more power lines than windmills does it?

4/28/2010 7:56:29 PM

There's that combined with that even though Lonesnark will try and tell you that animals have mastered revolving their existence around humans, power lines are not a native part of their environment and is undoubtedly hard to see for a bird traveling at high velocity. There are likely a host of other contributory factors as well.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2010 8:03:22 PM

Quote :

"^^ that's the stupidest post in TSB this week."

Seeing as how this post had absolutely NO content in it, I think you took the top spot with this one.

4/28/2010 8:40:10 PM

^^ I would argue no such thing. I would argue that animals do manage to exceed my expectations when it comes to survival. Birds that get confused by outdoor lighting die off and are replaced reproductively by birds which are not. Evolution continues.

4/28/2010 9:31:43 PM

gg merbig, nice parody.

We should get rid of powerlines too. Run our cars, homes, businesses, and computers...er macs only.. on love and freedom maannn.




[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2010 9:43:21 PM

^^ And you have some sort of proof that these new birds evolve/adapt? Light pollution has been rampant for decades yet millions of birds still die each year from it. Are you saying that since birds haven't died out that that is somehow proof they can cope? And what the fuck are your "expectations" for animals surviving the onslaught brought on by modern human behavior?

4/28/2010 10:08:54 PM

Quote :

"Power lines kill waaaaaaay more birds than windmills just fyi."

with the exception of California Condors, power lines rarely kill birds.

4/28/2010 10:33:02 PM

Quote :

"Bird Deaths a year: up to 174 million Estimates made by the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service demonstrate millions of birds die each year as a result of colliding with transmission lines."

http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

174million deaths = rarely. Got it.

4/28/2010 10:59:49 PM

Quote :

"it draws out the apathetic miscreants who so callously shrug their shoulders and go "meh, shit happens". "

maybe that's because, well, shit does happen sometimes. Just because someone admits that shit happens doesn't mean they don't think it sucks.

4/28/2010 11:27:13 PM

Not birds!!!

Quote :

"In the U.S., each year, 9 billion “broiler” (baby) chickens, both males and females, are raised and killed for food. Worldwide over 50 billion chickens are now being slaughtered every year."

http://www.upc-online.org/chickens/chickensbro.html

Grill, baby, grill!

4/29/2010 12:28:22 AM

Finally, this thread turns delicious.

4/29/2010 12:35:20 AM

lol at God's "utopia".

4/29/2010 12:39:47 AM

God is right, seems to be the only one with some formal education on ecology, environmental science or vil engineering. heres why

Quote :

"Step 1: Destroy the suburbs and rebuild cities that revolve around public transportation, bicycling, and walking."

This is clearly best solution but will always draw opposition because it is yet another assault on white privilege.

We can find other ways to make energy, but until we change the way we consume energy, we'll never be sustainable. Here are some things people haven't mentioned.

1.The more dense your population is, not only do you use less energy per capita but you effect a lot less of the natural area. The best method would be to create urban development boundaries around all current development. This is what is used in Dade county and simply means you can't cut down anything else further expanding development.


The ideal society would have very small cities with minimal to no effect on any land outside of the citiy. (maybe 1 highway or rail line going from city to city but no actual development.

This is very feasible everywhere considering every family in the world could live in texas and all have single family homes with small yards. That statement is hard to believe because it shows how much land we WASTEFULLY destroy just for the sake of sprawl.

2.Hidden efficiency

We lose so much energy just by having an overstretched grid. When power lines have to take electricity several miles between homes, thats when you have a problem. and no its not a freedom issue because the people who live in the sticks don't pay for the energy lost, everyone does. Urban society means less power lines.

No matter where you are, food has to be brought to you, goods have to be brought to you. How much trucking is wasted on bringing goods to every small town and suburb in the us? every supermarket? every walmart? The amount of waste in this regard is astounding. With super urban areas, goods can be brought into the city by train and then transported a short, local distance instead of tens of thousands of routes that are massive journeys just to get goods to maybe 100k people each. Energy thrown away.

3. Several experiments have proven that if you decrease the size of an ecosystem by 50%, it can only support 10% the number of species. This means if I could hypothetically cut a forest in half, I could potentially lose the ability to support 80% of the species that lived in that forest without even destroying anything, just by cutting it in half

What does all that mean? It means the more of nature we build on, we have an exponentially greater impact on the ecosystems. Ecologically speaking, it would be the most efficient for everyone in the world to live in a huge city the size of texas and have minimal affect on the rest of the world. I know thats not realistic but moving away from super-sprawl that we have here in the US is.

Our original notion that you could simply set aside some areas for wildlife, and build around them are simply false. That doesn't preserve the area. The area of uninterrupted wildlife and amount of life that can be supported have an exponential relationships. Claiming that suburbs are environmentally friendly because they have tree clusters in them IS A COMPLETE JOKE. Modern civilization can't coexist with nature so its best we minimize the area we exist in.

4/29/2010 12:44:16 AM

If you're going that route... 30,000 people per square mile is the most efficient.

From the "Raleigh is denser than Charlotte" thread (The Lounge):

Quote :

"The [McKinsey] team found research on energy consumption in cities around the world, plotted on a curve according to population density. Up to about 50 residents per acre, roughly equivalent to Stockholm or Copenhagen, per capita energy use falls fast. People walk and bike more, public transit makes economic sense, and there are ways to make heating and cooling more efficient. But then the curve flattens out. Pack in 120 people per acre, like Singapore, or 300 people, like Hong Kong, and the energy savings are negligible."

Given a sometime future population of 7 billion, that would mean about 234,000 square miles.

Continue...

4/29/2010 1:25:59 AM

Do you understand the problem with using cities in sweden and denmark for your smaller samples and asian cities for your larger samples?

4/29/2010 1:30:37 AM

Yes, but the burden of proof is on you, sir.

4/29/2010 1:32:13 AM

cnn.com

NEW oil leak

5,000 barrels per day

4/29/2010 1:35:10 AM

Quote :

"You are basically ignoring everything else about living in a city--even if individual residents a city use less energy, the industries and people supporting that city will have to use more energy supplying the cities residents with food and other goods. Not to mention the fact that cities displace natural carbon sinks like wetlands and forests."

People not living in a city have industries supporting them too. And being in rural areas to serve the rural population, these industries face far lower land prices than their city fellows. As such, there is no doubt in my mind that humans living in rural areas inflict far more impact upon the environment than their city cousins, be it pollution, energy consumption, or land use.

The difference is that I don't care. This planet is our garden and we can use it as we see fit. While human society cramming itself into urban lifestyles would cut down on environmental impact and serve the innate human desire to protect the environment, doing so would sacrifice many other desires, some of which are far more important than some limited environmental impact. Urban political entities tend to become politically corrupt without the ability of exit afforded by suburbanization. Outlawing green-zone development, as occurred in London all those decades ago, has a documented and severely negative impact upon human living standards. It not only drives up land prices, but the loss of regional political competition leads to poorer social services and rampant rent-seeking.

4/29/2010 2:22:07 AM

^Fix it then.

Environmentally conscious cities don't have to be doomed to political corruption, crappy social services, and excessive rent-seeking. Not if you can do some fancy economy tricks and stuff...


Cause I really don't wanna wait on some invisible market bogeyman to get his act together while we needlessly suffer avoidable health hazards for an extra fifty years.

4/29/2010 3:16:13 AM

Quote :

"It's an annoying ass commute. But it's an anti-annoying ass paycheck."

fuck the earth and consuming large amuonts of resources as long as I GOT DAT PAPER

4/29/2010 8:37:34 AM

Stop posting photos of dead birds. I hate birds. Feathery dinorats. The fewer birds on this planet, the better.

4/29/2010 8:42:22 AM

http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/states/north-carolina/wake-37183.html

Quote :

"Ozone Grade: F PARTICLE POLLUTION - 24 Hour Grade: D "

4/29/2010 8:46:50 AM

There's no place like home.

Fortunately we have very few birds.

4/29/2010 8:52:04 AM

Quote :

"fuck the earth and consuming large amuonts of resources as long as I GOT DAT PAPER "

What's your excuse, dipshit? My car gets better than 15mpg.

4/29/2010 8:58:39 AM

I commute by bicycle whenever I can.

4/29/2010 9:11:13 AM

Quote :

"People not living in a city have industries supporting them too. And being in rural areas to serve the rural population, these industries face far lower land prices than their city fellows. As such, there is no doubt in my mind that humans living in rural areas inflict far more impact upon the environment than their city cousins, be it pollution, energy consumption, or land use"

Well, as I explicitly said at the top of the page, my point wasn't that suburbs or rural areas are great for the environment. I just don't think it is obvious that cities are always better. And no matter how convinced you] are, nothing you said changed my mind.

Now, exactly like I expected, mambagrl et al harp on energy consumption per person being lower in cities, but that is simply not the only or even the best measure of a person's environmental impact.

If you **REALLY** want to argue that cities are objectively always better for the environment, you should really stop talking out your ass and cite some empirical, peer-reviewed studies on the matter that at least take several environmental measures into account (air quality, water quality, etc). Maybe then I will see where you're coming from. Until then, these types of statements only convince me that you watch too much Planet Green.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM. Reason : ``]

4/29/2010 9:39:05 AM

Quote :

"I commute by bicycle whenever I can."

And I am sure the planet thanks you.

Well, except the part of the planet that covered in pavement so you can bike to work easily (and the animals who lost their habitat as a result). And the part of the planet chocking on the pollutants that were released in creating that Schwinn monstrosity.

But never mind that. I would hate for you to get a smaller paycheck by getting a job you could walk to. Or better yet, living off the land using no-till farming and burning your own feces for warmth.

But hey, rather than inconvinience your pansey ass, lets destroy all suburbs because you want to judge people for living in the exact same areas you do. Driving the exact same fucking SUV POSes you do.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ``]

4/29/2010 9:48:35 AM

Quote :

"cnn.com NEW oil leak 5,000 barrels per day"

*yawn* *shrug* Who cares? Shit happens. You can't bake a cake without destroying a few eco-systems.

4/29/2010 9:56:35 AM

^^ Ahh yes

Because there are only two choices, I either accept the status quo or I live in an organic hut in the wilderness, right? No middle ground.

Fuck off.

4/29/2010 10:00:04 AM

Not according to these people. Either you live in an organic grass hut or you are a hypocrite.

4/29/2010 10:02:23 AM

YUKON DENALI

SCHWINN BICYCLE

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

4/29/2010 10:03:22 AM

^ and your idea of razing all suburbs to the ground and moving everyone to cities is a middle ground solution (as if cities are always and everywhere better for the environment)?

My point is that if you want to propose such extreme solutions, you can at least consider extreme alternatives.

That and also to emphasize the point that this has nothing to do with the environment per se. You could easily have a smaller impact on the environment by altering your own choices (if you think suburbs are bad for the environment, fucking get another job and move out of Cary, that would surely have a bigger impact than sometimes biking to fucking work, right?). Instead, this is more about wanting to tell others what to do so your life is not greatly inconvenienced and your green-guilt is mitigated.

That is some piss poor environmentalism.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ``]

4/29/2010 10:05:22 AM

Quote :

"Not according to these people. Either you live in an organic grass hut or you are a hypocrite."

HockeyRoman,

God says that suburbs are bad for the environment, yet lives in one (driving a fucking car that gets 15mpg). If he actually cares about the environment, then yes he is being a hypocrite by living this life style.

Thus far, his only solution has been to force other people to make drastic changes to their way of life to one he prefers (but oddly doesn't embrace in real life). My point was that if he actually gave a shit, he would at least alter his own choices before telling other people what to do.

Also, it isn't clear what exactly he (or you or anyone in this fucking thread) considers an "optimal" impact of humanity on the environment. If you really believe human's impact on the environment should be the least possible, then yes, burning shit to stay warm and eating wild fruit is probably what you should be doing.

In reality, what God and everyone else really means is they want minimize humanity's impact on the environment subject to some life style constraint. But even then it still isn't clear what that constraint is or even how we measure environmental impact. Mambagrl and God seem to favor "energy consumption per capita", but there are other metrics we should consider (air quality, water quality, etc).

Nothing drives me crazier than people like God that just make these idiotic "solutions" without any real idea of what they are actually suggesting.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason : ``]

4/29/2010 10:14:41 AM

. . . . . so back to the OP . . . . . . .


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-29/gulf-coast-fishing-tourism-industries-imperiled-by-oil-spill.html

Quote :

"Gulf Coast Fishing, Tourism Industries Imperiled by Oil Spill"

Quote :

"The Louisiana coast includes 3 million acres of wetlands that serve as a nursery for game fish such as speckled trout and red drum, and are currently nurturing the brown shrimp crop to be harvested by the state’s fishing fleet. "

Quote :

"Louisiana is the largest seafood producer in the lower 48 states, with annual retail sales of about $1.8 billion, according to state data. Recreational fishing generates about $1 billion in retail sales a year, according to the state. "

Quote :

"Mike Voisin, who owns Motivatit Seafood in Houma, said significant quantities of oil reaching shore might force closures of oyster beds in some areas or hurt the shrimp harvest, which generates about $962 million in annual retail sales, according to the state. "

Quote :

"Damon McKnight, a fishing guide who operates three 30-foot boats in Venice near the mouth of the Mississippi River, said bookings are already down at his Super Strike Charters LLC. Since the spill, fewer anglers want to travel from Venice, Louisiana at the Mississippi River’s mouth to the Gulf of Mexico in pursuit of marlin or tuna. Saltwater sport fishing generates about $757 million in annual economic impact in Louisiana, while sustaining more than 7,700 jobs, according to the state. "

Its still to early to tell how badly the spill will affect some of posted industries and Im sure the coast guard and BP will do their best to prevent bad effects.

But assuming these industries are affected, will BP have to compensate them? Who decides how much? How do you quantify environmental damage to ecosystems that can't be readily converted to dollar amounts? How does that money get doled out to those that deserve it? etc etc etc.

4/29/2010 10:53:55 AM