I like how everyone's concerns are about:

a) How it affects businesses.
b) How it affects the scenic view of the beach.

And not

c) How it's destroying the ecosystem in the ocean.

4/29/2010 10:57:25 AM

Quote :

"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."

If it's anything like the Exxon-Valdez spill then the results will be calamitous, communities and eco-systems will be annihilated, the litigation will drag out for a decade plus and BP will get a slap on the wrist financially.

4/29/2010 11:04:13 AM

On the flip side, how much money does Louisiana get each year from the oil industry?

(not saying those effects aren't inconsequential)

4/29/2010 11:05:31 AM

Quote :

"I like how everyone's concerns are about: a) How it affects businesses. b) How it affects the scenic view of the beach. And not c) How it's destroying the ecosystem in the ocean."

I shouldn't have to tell you this, as you're guilty of this as well, as shown in this thread; but we are selfish. Some of us cut the bullshit out and admit it, while others (such as yourself), pretend to show a genuine interest in the environment, yet they expect everyone else to do something about it.

4/29/2010 11:18:39 AM

^ nice

4/29/2010 11:24:39 AM

Quote :

"On the flip side, how much money does Louisiana get each year from the oil industry? "

Quote :

"In 1994, the oil/gas and petrochemical industries employed 97,600 workers (5% of the statewide total), and paid $530 million in state taxes (about 10 percent of total state revenues)"

But, not suprisingly, they are also heavily subsidized

Quote :

"Three notable subsidies to the oil/gas and petrochemical industries are:  The Ten Year Industrial Property Tax Exemption program grants firms promising to make jobcreating investments in the state an exemption from ad valorem property taxes for five years, renewable for another five years. According to one estimate, in the 1980s the oil/gas and petrochemical industry received $130 million a year ($1.3 billion total) with small, if any, gains in permanent employment.8  On average in the U.S., residential consumers pay about twice what industry pays for an equal amount of energy, but in Louisiana, this ratio is 4:1. By one estimate, the annual energy -price subsidy to industry, more than $200 per person, is higher in Louisiana than in all other states but Alaska. The oil/gas and petrochemical industry account for the bulk of the subsidy, which exceed $800 million a year.9  In 1989 the state estimated that the cost of assessing and cleaning up hazardous sites would exceed $1 billion. The majority of the costs attributable to oil/gas and petrochemical industries will ultimately be paid by state and federal taxpayers.10 "

http://data.leanweb.org/pub/fullcost.pdf


The link also attempts to take into account ecosystem costs and quality of life costs (Im sure some see those as more of a stretch though)

4/29/2010 11:45:59 AM

I missed the 15 mpg quote from God, now I'm positive he's just trolling

Quote :

"^I can't get anywhere in Cary without driving. I can't get groceries without travelling 3 miles. I can't get clothes without travelling 5 miles. I can't get to my work without travelling 10 miles. Plus, I am one person driving a Yukon Denali that gets 15 mpg."

On a bicycle at a leisurely 10MPH it would take you ~ 20 minutes to get to the grocery store, ~30 minutes to get to the clothing store and a mere hour to get to work. You don't need to drive at all. And if you really couldn't stand to be that slow, you could invest in a moped that gets 50-90 MPG and get there just as fast as you do in your giant ass Yukon.

4/29/2010 12:55:31 PM

thats assuming its safe to ride your bike in Cary.

too many women on cell phones and Asian drivers.

4/29/2010 1:02:34 PM

^ Meh, if he gets hit and killed by some crazy lady driving a yukon while calling into AirAmerica on her cell phone about how the oil companies are destroying the world, that's just one less polluting human in the world.

4/29/2010 1:21:04 PM

Quote :

"On a bicycle at a leisurely 10MPH it would take you ~ 20 minutes to get to the grocery store, ~30 minutes to get to the clothing store and a mere hour to get to work. You don't need to drive at all. And if you really couldn't stand to be that slow, you could invest in a moped that gets 50-90 MPG and get there just as fast as you do in your giant ass Yukon."

Okay? I don't get your point.

4/29/2010 1:36:09 PM

Here, I'll underline it:

You're a god-damned hypocrite.

4/29/2010 1:45:18 PM

4/29/2010 4:58:25 PM

hahaha

4/29/2010 5:00:28 PM

One person making an individual change isn't going to make any impact. God has suggested a collective solution, not an individual solution. He didn't say "everyone should look to find a job in the city" he said "we should get rid of suburbanization". The only way he could be a hypocrit is if he was some type of golf course community developer or government planner working against collective ubranization.

Also note that this doesn't necessarily suggest demolishing but simply no more spreading out. Use what we have and leave the rest alone.

Quote :

" but there are other metrics we should consider (air quality, water quality, etc). "

Which are all clearly better without suburbanization. One of the main threats to water quality is suburban construction runoff. Air quality would be less because there would be less fuel being burned and more people would use public transportation which would use much much cleaner forms of fuel. Possibly even all electric systems.

4/29/2010 6:07:06 PM

Quote :

"Air quality would be less because there would be less fuel being burned and more people would use public transportation which would use much much cleaner forms of fuel. Possibly even all electric systems."

Yeah. That's why many cities around the world have smog problems. The air in cities is CLEARLY better.

4/29/2010 6:59:56 PM

Quote :

"One person making an individual change isn't going to make any impact. "

No but a lot of one persons making an individual change will. But why should we do anything when he isn't willing to every change his own life?

Quote :

"He didn't say "everyone should look to find a job in the city" he said "we should get rid of suburbanization". "

And aside from the words, what is the difference between those two? I suppose the first is actually better than the second but you're claiming he's not arguing the first.

Quote :

"The only way he could be a hypocrit is if he was some type of golf course community developer or government planner working against collective ubranization."

He is actively working against collective urbanization. By buying housing the suburbs, he is increasing demand for suburban housing. By driving that yukon, he is increasing demand for large trucks, gasoline and urban and suburban expansion to accommodate such large vehicles. I also presume he hasn't torn down his home and rebuilt it as a multi family unit, nor pushed to have his neighborhood rezoned for a higher residential density.

Quote :

"Also note that this doesn't necessarily suggest demolishing but simply no more spreading out. Use what we have and leave the rest alone."

I suggest you reread his post. Demolishing what we have is pretty much platform #1.

Quote :

"Which are all clearly better without suburbanization. One of the main threats to water quality is suburban construction runoff. Air quality would be less because there would be less fuel being burned and more people would use public transportation which would use much much cleaner forms of fuel. Possibly even all electric systems."

You really never have left the sheltered little world you live in have you? I'll give you a hint, air and water quality in uban areas tends to be much lower than the suburbs and rural areas, hence the appeal of suburban living.

4/29/2010 7:08:00 PM

fyi I don't drive a yukon denali, that was just an example of the stereotypical cary soccer mom (who drives a yukon denali)

4/29/2010 8:40:00 PM

Cary soccer moms are the worst.

4/29/2010 8:49:32 PM

Quote :

"Socks``: 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."

I doubt that LoneSnark watches Planet Green at all, let alone too much.

In fact, I'm one hundred percent positive he doesn't. "I don't care. This planet is our garden and we can use it as we see fit" isn't exactly the talk of a staunch environmentalist.

4/29/2010 8:53:38 PM

Quote :

" Yeah. That's why many cities around the world have smog problems. The air in cities is CLEARLY better. "

well you're pointing out the obvious differences in concentration but missing the big picture. having a higher concentration of smog in a few places and only farming emissions elsehwere will clearly be better.

By increasing population density, cities would run cleaner because you'd have less people commuting in. A city like La has smog because of its oil industry, and everyone needing a car to drive across the vast, sprawling area that also has poor public transportation. Getting rid of oil and coal fired power plants would also drastically increase overall air pollution. There would clearly be less carbon emissions , less acid rain and less total pollution even if these mega cities would have more higher pollution concentrations than Cary (sorry white privilege).

Energy efficiency, energy use, and population density are all directly correlated.

Quote :

" No but a lot of one persons making an individual change will. But why should we do anything when he isn't willing to every change his own life?"

I'm pretty sure he's willing if he made the suggestion but why should he take this leap of faith and be the only thus wasting his life without helping anything? this is like the argument people make suggesting people who want higher taxes donate money to the government.

Quote :

"And aside from the words, what is the difference between those two? I suppose the first is actually better than the second but you're claiming he's not arguing the first."

Voluntary vs involuntary. We all know that in a capitalist nation, nobody is going to voluntarily do anything unless it will get them some sort of financial profit.

Quote :

"He is actively working against collective urbanization. By buying housing the suburbs, he is increasing demand for suburban housing. By driving that yukon, he is increasing demand for large trucks, gasoline and urban and suburban expansion to accommodate such large vehicles. I also presume he hasn't torn down his home and rebuilt it as a multi family unit, nor pushed to have his neighborhood rezoned for a higher residential density."

1 person. how much is he really increasing demand?

Quote :

" I suggest you reread his post. Demolishing what we have is pretty much platform #1."

Demolishing the idea of suburbanization. This could be done by green zones, progressive taxes for distance away from city center, ending our colonialzation of oil thus driving gas prices to their natural 7 dollars per gallon and others.

Quote :

"You really never have left the sheltered little world you live in have you? I'll give you a hint, air and water quality in uban areas tends to be much lower than the suburbs and rural areas, hence the appeal of suburban living."

cities would run much clearner if you didn't have commuters from the suburbs, production for the suburbs and inefficiencies due to lack of density in cities.

4/29/2010 10:11:49 PM

who lugs around groceries and clothes in a bike/moped?

lol

4/29/2010 10:34:31 PM

Me.

4/29/2010 10:36:24 PM

I do on my motorcycle and have on my bike.

4/30/2010 12:06:31 AM

Quote :

"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)."

no need, it should be obvious. In terms of air quality, people living in urban cities drive less, burning less oil. They also live in high rises, which have less outside walls and windows per square foot of living space, so they consume less energy to heat and cool, burning less coal. Urban per-capita consume more concrete, a substitution away from lumber for construction, but significantly less asphalt. Humans in the suburbs may consume less metals, but I cannot be sure after all the extra miles of utilities are run. Urban citizens consume less land, living and working in high-rises rather than two story homes with a yard, and commute shorter distances on greater utilized transportation, all displacing less wilderness. I know of no mechanism for an urban citizen to inflict more harm on the environment, especially nothing to displace all the mechanisms I do know an urban human causes less harm.

It is true that all the emissions and impacts that remain are then crammed into that urban space, so air and water pollution are squeezed into a hundred square mile space rather than dispersed over the thousands of square miles of suburbs. But the absolute pollution is much less, even if the humans living in this dense world are having more trouble breathing.

4/30/2010 1:38:08 AM

^ the per capita environmental impact for a city slicker is, at best (hypothetically), equal to a rural dweller. But cities encourage more people, which means that cities will have a gross higher environmental impact.

4/30/2010 1:43:17 AM

^^ How much pollution does it take to build a utopia?

4/30/2010 2:24:15 AM

Quote :

"well you're pointing out the obvious differences in concentration but missing the big picture. having a higher concentration of smog in a few places and only farming emissions elsehwere will clearly be better. By increasing population density, cities would run cleaner because you'd have less people commuting in. A city like La has smog because of its oil industry, and everyone needing a car to drive across the vast, sprawling area that also has poor public transportation. Getting rid of oil and coal fired power plants would also drastically increase overall air pollution. There would clearly be less carbon emissions , less acid rain and less total pollution even if these mega cities would have more higher pollution concentrations than Cary (sorry white privilege). Energy efficiency, energy use, and population density are all directly correlated. "

Again. Nobody is denying that cities are more effiicient as far as energy consumption goes. But you act as if that is the only thing to consider. You ignore the fact that air pollution also increases, and as such, the quality of health decreases.

The more you bunch people up together, the lower the quality of life goes for us. The more susceptible we are to disease, worse water, worse air. Really, worse of everything.

All for what? Some minute delay in the decay of our ozone. Sorry. But it's not worth it. But I guess that you won't see that until you get your head out of your ass.

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure he's willing if he made the suggestion but why should he take this leap of faith and be the only thus wasting his life without helping anything?"

"Leap of faith" my ass. Him moving to a city, like Raleigh, would hardly be a "leap of faith."

Quote :

"We all know that in a capitalist nation, nobody is going to voluntarily do anything unless it will get them some sort of financial profit."

"Nobody?" Really? "Nobody?" Stop talking out of your ass. There are plenty of people who make sacrifices in the name of helping the environment.

Quote :

"1 person. how much is he really increasing demand?"

That's the same bullshit attitude people who choose not to vote have, when they use the "justification" of "1 vote doesn't really matter." All it takes is one person to set the example and incite a movement. That is literally all it takes to motivate people to think or act a different way.

Quote :

"Demolishing the idea of suburbanization."

You're not going to demolish the idea of suburbanization. People wanted the privacy of rural living, without the isolation. People wanted a sense of community, without feeling crowded. People still want this.

Quote :

"This could be done by green zones, progressive taxes for distance away from city center,"

So, you want to strip away people's freedom on where to live and force them to live in worse environments, all so you can maybe impact the environment just a little bit less. Here's an idea. Instead of trying to lower our consumption on fossil fuels. Why not divert all of that effort into getting us off of fossil fuels? If we get off of our dependence on oil, then there really is no reason to get rid of suburbia.

But you'd rather delay the inevitable. Put a band aid over a gunshot wound. Typical liberal eco bullshit.

Quote :

"cities would run much clearner if you didn't have commuters from the suburbs, production for the suburbs and inefficiencies due to lack of density in cities."

No. They would not. They would be dirtier. All those big, polluting, factories would be relocated from rural and suburban areas into cities. You would not only increase the population density, but also increase the pollution density. You're advocating for a decrease in the quality of life.

If you want to help the environment out, go kill yourself. Stop breathing. Stop polluting. Stop contributing to the degeneration of this planet with your meaningless existence.

4/30/2010 3:03:29 AM

new orleans just can't catch a fucking break.

first a hurricane, and now a wall of fire. that's some old testament shit.

Quote :

"They also live in high rises, which have less outside walls and windows per square foot of living space, so they consume less energy to heat and cool, burning less coal"

buildings are a huge contributor to green house gasses. more so than automobiles. high rises, in particular, are energy hogs. the chase for energy neutral buildings is really in its infancy, so this argument doesn't work (although hopefully someday soon, it will).


masdar city would be the case study to look at for energy neutral/positive architecture for anyone interested, but alas it may never be completed, because they have no monies.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 7:42 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2010 7:34:50 AM

Are you people seriously arguing that urban cities have less pollution than suburban sprawl?

4/30/2010 8:44:59 AM

LoneSnark,

You are simply talking out of your ass. Not much else I can say.

"Absolute" pollution will be lower? How is that relevant? Concentration matters. Think about it this way, 600 people pissing into Jordan Lake are going to have less of an impact on water quality in Cary than 1 person pissing into your drinking glass--regardless of the 600 people releasing more "absolute pollution".

4/30/2010 8:53:23 AM

That was a fucking masterful analogy. Oh my God, the immediacy of the image of someone pissing into your glass of water!

4/30/2010 8:54:09 AM

The Earth is an absolute size. Thus, concentration doesn't matter.

Even then, I'd rather have one concentrated congested area surrounded by pure, clean nature, than a giant suburban sprawl of McMansions and tilled lawns and SUVs taking up the entire area.

4/30/2010 9:03:04 AM

It's like...would you rather have one heinous zit or acne?

4/30/2010 9:05:10 AM

This kid was hilarious.

4/30/2010 9:29:26 AM

Quote :

"Even then, I'd rather have one concentrated congested area surrounded by pure, clean nature, than a giant suburban sprawl of McMansions and tilled lawns and SUVs taking up the entire area."

In other words this isn't about objective measures of environmental quality, its about your preferences for how everyone else should live. Gotcha. Just so we're clear.

4/30/2010 9:52:57 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/louisiana-oil-spill-2010_n_558287.html

Oil finally reaches land and:

Quote :

"This oil spill is on track to become the worst oil spill in history, surpassing the damage done by the Exxon Valdez tanker that spilled 11 million gallons of oil into the ecologically sensitive Prince William Sound in 1989"

4/30/2010 10:20:13 AM

so have more than 11 million gallons been spilled? I didnt think it was close to that number.

4/30/2010 10:29:38 AM

na I don't think so, not yet.


I think they are speculating that by the time BP drills that new well to shut off the leaking well more than 11 million gallons will have been lost (if the well keeps leaking at the same rate)

4/30/2010 10:33:06 AM

Ah. I believe I also read that this rig did not have a pretty standard safety mechanism that is specifically designed to prevent leaks of this kind and in fact. If that is the case, doesnt that speak to a lack of oversight, vs the oil impact itself? I thought I also read this rig was recently inspected, a matter of weeks ago.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 11:35:35 AM

It reminds me of the West Wing episode where Sam is in the meeting with the shipping company that is being given information by the lawyers on ways to get around environmental laws by buying older ships with thinner hulls.

How these acoustic valves weren't standard boggles my mind yet when it comes to the oil lobby in America I am not at all surprised.

4/30/2010 11:41:48 AM

Quote :

"the per capita environmental impact for a city slicker is, at best (hypothetically), equal to a rural dweller."

All the mechanisms stated to the contrary? I get it, that is your opinion, but you have given no basis for your opinion, while I have given several for mine. The people of New York live differently from those of Raleigh, so there must be some difference. To suggest there is none is absurd on its face.

Quote :

""Absolute" pollution will be lower? How is that relevant? Concentration matters."

Concentration matters for who? This discussion is about the Earth, not your personal lungs. It is obvious to me that the Earth is helped (as defined by the empty Earth people) when Humans hurt themselves by cramming themselves into tiny dense cities. I accept this as a given. But that only starts the discussion, as I don't care only about helping the Earth in this narrow sense. Earth is our garden, we can harm it any way we please if it serves our interests. As such, clear-cutting a hundred acres and emitting sizable quantities of air and water pollutants in the name of clearing up your lungs is perfectly acceptable.

Quote :

"It reminds me of the West Wing episode where Sam is in the meeting with the shipping company that is being given information by the lawyers on ways to get around environmental laws by buying older ships with thinner hulls."

I would blame Congress for such eventualities. In fact, we can blame them for a sizable chunk of our current water and air pollution, as older coal fired plants are less efficient, far dirtier, and more costly to operate, but stay around because Congress grandfathered them out of current environmental requirements. If the new rules are good for some then they should be good for all. It would be a helpful amendment to the constitution if laws were required to be applied equally to everyone. That this is already in the constitution and is unenforced is a cruel irony.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/30/2010 11:56:18 AM

These people are assuming that urban pollution would continue at the same rate after further urbanization and forgetting that as density increases the cities will run cleaner and cleaner. Also, since you have so much overall efficiency, dirty industries would be a lot less needed and could be strategically placed.

This is going to be much worse than valdez because of the situation, not necessarily the amount of oil spilled by the amount of wildlife and industry/people impacted.

4/30/2010 12:35:23 PM

Quote :

"How does that money get doled out to those that deserve it? etc etc etc."

well, first, you look at who has the most influence in Washington, and then you go from there...

4/30/2010 12:51:26 PM

According to Rush - Bush:Katrina::Obama:Oil Spill . . . . . . . .

4/30/2010 12:57:09 PM

Seems like a pretty apt comparison to me. Bush had nothing to do with Katrina, and Obama has nothing to do with this oil spill. Or are you one of those crazy fuckers that thinks Bush engineered a hurricane using secret CIA spay weather drones because he hates black people?

4/30/2010 1:04:09 PM

That's a really dumb statement.

4/30/2010 1:06:25 PM

Quote :

"It reminds me of the West Wing episode where Sam is in the meeting with the shipping company that is being given information by the lawyers on ways to get around environmental laws by buying older ships with thinner hulls."

west wing geek

(i'm one too, so not hatin )

4/30/2010 1:07:38 PM

^^^ No, no. He's trying to make the case that the president just sat on his hands while oil blanketed the Gulf.

**this is the point where hooksaw or now aaronburro would swoop in to prop up the absurdity**

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2010 1:09:15 PM

Quote :

" It is obvious to me that the Earth is helped (as defined by the empty Earth people) when Humans hurt themselves by cramming themselves into tiny dense cities. I accept this as a given"

There are really too many misconceptions to name. Humans "hurt" the Earth? Not sure what that means.

Its all silly people, crazy talk.

[Edited on April 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM. Reason : CRAZZZZZYYY]

4/30/2010 1:17:15 PM

^^I'd have to agree with you. I don't see any of this situation being mishandled like the Katrina incident. Even one of my friends who lives in New Orleans (and is doing research for getting a PhD in marine biology) commented to me how pissed off he was about this oil screwing up his research and that he's disappointed in Obama's action. I'm not a fan of Obama but I can't see how he's "been fucking up".

4/30/2010 1:46:25 PM