Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you; there are a lot of possibilities, but I'll try to focus on just a few.
Urban congestion (or the lack of it, in some cities) is the result of both economic trends and large commitments of capital sometimes made several generations previously, when some of the present-day rules did not apply. We're now trying to adapt a mass transit alternative to a wide spectrum of communities. Some, like Boston and Chicago, developed "heavy rail" (subway/elevated systems) long before the automobile emerged. Others, like Denver and Phoenix, can develop the less-expensive light-rail alternative (but there are a handful of zealots who just don't understand that the high cost of tunneling makes the estheticially-appealing subway system too expensive). There are other special cases like Detroit (spread out too far and devastated by urban blight - it boomed, and busted along with the auto industry) and Los Angeles (hemmed-in enough by geographic barriers that more capital-intensive ideas will likely become more attractive).
My other objection lies with the point that too much of the environmental movement places too much faith in technology that might never develop to a point where it serves a market based on mass-production and mass-distribution. The "green consensus" relies heavily on a contingent of "sunshine patriots" who like to believe they're doing their part on a number of small individual issues (recycling and consumer choices, for example) but Madison Avenue also knows that "When you're talking about real money, the weight of numbers rules."
Over the past two years or so, I've seen all sorts of near-fantasies emerge on this site about "self-driving cars", for example. As one who stays informed on this issue, I can attest that while a few of the basic components are under development, it is going to be quite a while before even a limited pilot program emerges. When it does, it will likely be confined to a handful of toll roads in predominately flat country, where access can be more closely controlled, and where the principal beneficiary, the trucking industry, can be incentivized into paying for much of the research and development. But there are a lot of impressionable people out there who believe that a "self-driving" car will be available to take Grandma to the dentist within a few more years; a belief that resonates well with an emerging Millennial generation who grew up with too much of the "George Jetson" fantasy, or feels that because it can cycle ten miles to work, everyone else can -- rain or shine.
We face a series of less-than-perfect choices, and the workings of the open portions of the economy in recent years are demonstrating that several alternatives are emerging. The current uproar over transporting oil by rail, to cite one example, developed both because the Bakken (Dakota) field is more dispersed, and because the removal of artificial barriers in the form of economic regulation made this more economically effective relative to pipelines.) But as demonstrated in the current public-relations battle between several entrenched lobbies, we seem more interested in harnessing Big Brother's power to coerce in favor of "our side" than to allowing the free flow of both information and capital settle the issue.
And there are several versions of "our side" out there -- screaming to be heard and bought by a sometimes-gullible public. If that doesn't work, we'll just demonize an invisible group of evil-doers in three-piece suits -- somewhere.
I'm just going to focus on the statement in bold.
More often, I've seen the opposite of this argument in the urban planning forum. i.e. Bicycling isn't a viable alternative to driving, if there are even a few days a year where bicycling isn't practical. Those of us who promote using the car less aren't suggesting that we eliminate the car entirely.
Instead, when many people make small changes, those small changes can add up to a lot. If 50 million people could be convinced to drive just 5-10 minutes less every weekday, whether through bicycling, walking, use of public transit, or just a shorter commute, that adds up to a lot less driving, overall.
I'm one of those "sunshine patriots" and am proud of it. My solar panels are Made in the USA and the payoff will be about 10 years. Of course I had some retrofitting work done to make my home more energy efficient before I got them, so I wouldn't be paying for more solar than I need.
I like being called a solar patriot, even if there is a put down tone in the way you used it. However, it doesn't seem like the way to try and start a debate, unless one is looking for the kind of "debate" that turns into an quasi shouting match with multiple exclamation points.
You misunderstood; By "sunshine patriot" (a phrase borrowed from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", which I doubt is taught in our schools anymore), I mean the person, usually young and impressionable, who is all for environmental consciousness, until the bill, in the form of higher taxes, comes due. Then, too many of them fall for the belief that somebody else can be made to pay for it.
I don't have any quarrel with solar or wind power, and I would love to see geothermal power advance to the point where technology could better address the instability of the source fields, (which, I'm given to understand, is the biggest single obstacle).
But the point with these alternatives is that while some hold some promise for the homeowner who's willing to invest his own capital (and possibly limit a few of his options), they are not as readily adaptable to the needs of an enterprise that requires a steady supply of a large quantity of power, and a lot of the "me, too" crowd whom the environmental pitch(wo)men are so eager to attract don't want to think about such issues.
If we're going to play the game (and I think we'll have to, in many cases) lets make sure that only those who understand the rules are permitted to set them, and temper the misguided zeal of those who would change them on a whim.
You misunderstood; By "sunshine patriot" (a phrase borrowed from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", which I doubt is taught in our schools anymore), I mean the person, usually young and impressionable, who is all for environmental consciousness, until the bill, in the form of higher taxes, comes due. Then, too many of them fall for the belief that somebody else can be made to pay for it.
But the point with these alternatives is that while some hold some promise for the homeowner who's willing to invest his own capital (and possibly limit a few of his options), they are not as readily adaptable to the needs of an enterprise that requires a steady supply of a large quantity of power, and a lot of the "me, too" crowd whom the environmental pitch(wo)men are so eager to attract don't want to think about such issues.
If we're going to play the game (and I think we'll have to, in many cases) lets make sure that only those who understand the rules are permitted to set them, and temper the misguided zeal of those who would change them on a whim.
Maybe you understand the issue your current debating skills are not letting your knowledge come through.
For starters the title of this thread is a disaster. A better title would be "why I think environmentalists got it wrong". Saying "I don't like x or z" sounds like you are expressing your personal feelings not like you are trying to open a debate. If I say "I don't like to eat fish" that is not up for discussion. Those are my feelings. Now if I open a thread saying "why I think people should stop eating fish" that can be debated.
And you still continue to insult environmentalists in every post instead of presenting to us why you think they are wrong.
In your defense a lof of people speak like you. They think bullying is debating.
Maybe you understand the issue your current debating skills are not letting your knowledge come through.
For starters the title of this thread is a disaster. A better title would be "why I think environmentalists got it wrong". Saying "I don't like x or z" sounds like you are expressing your personal feelings not like you are trying to open a debate. If I say "I don't like to eat fish" that is not up for discussion. Those are my feelings. Now if I open a thread saying "why I think people should stop eating fish" that can be debated.
And you still continue to insult environmentalists in every post instead of presenting to us why you think they are wrong.
In your defense a lof of people speak like you. They think bullying is debating.
I recognize your point, but I see the strategy differently. The environmental movement consists of a moderate sized core of forward-thinking and sensible people but, exclusively for political reasons, it was decided to attach it to the general leftward shift which evolved back in the late Sixties, and for whom the young and less economically-astute were the driving force.
As a libertarian who supports both social and economic autonomy, I face a parallel stereotyping by those who subscribe to the "pop wisdom" which smears all "conservatives" as red-necked provincials and Bible-thumping prudes.
If we date the birth of the contemporary environmental consciousness from the first Earth Day back in 1971, it ought to be recognized that at that time, the United States was still the only fully-developed and -recovered free world industrial economy (and also, that our emerging Japanese and other competitors were engaging in far more severe pollution, as the Chinese are today). We now have to compete in a globalized economy, and our pockets are no longer that deep.
The bill for cleaning up our mistakes (while others are excused) is often hidden; as disproportionate share of it turns up in the state and local tax bill -- my property taxes have nearly tripled over the past ten years, and the rate of state income tax has gone from 2.3% to 3.2%. (And the very wealthy get a break on this, because they can deduct them directly from Federal taxation -- the average struggling couple or single adult probably doesn't have enough to itemize). But very little of this is recognized by the MTV crowd who are the "target market" for the environmental zealots.
I've offered up a challenge, on respectful terms, and asked people to look a little deeper -- nothing more and nothing less.
Let me say a the outset that I grew up on the fringe of the anthracite regions of Pennsylvania -- few areas were more deeply scarred by the excesses of mining and the extractive industries when I entered this life back in 1949, and every day I see firsthand evidence that that damage can be repaired.
And I was raised in part by a career-educator uncle who was very much into what was called the "conservation" movement long before it was made "trendy" by substituting the buzzword "ecology" (which, BTW, I first encountered in the juvenile sci-fi works of Robert Heinlein). That gentleman first told me about the extinction of the passenger pigeon by showing off his collection of endangered-species stamps which the National Wildlife Federation used to issue back in the Forties.
So I don't think I qualify as a redneck from Dum-Dum Land.
But I cannot ignore the fact that just around the time I entered college, the leadership of the environmental movement decided to throw in its lot with the collection of disaffected dreamers and economic illiterates on the far-Left end of the political spectrum -- and who were then co-opted into a Democratic party which seems determined to turn a nation built by all the world's rebels and independent thinkers into something modeled on a stagnant, class-conscious Europe which never seems to admit that while it pretends to represent a more-refined level of enlightenment, has been the scene of too many of history's bloodiest and most-vicious chapters over the past century.
I spent my working years in the transportation industry; I grew up around a rail system which was in decline until revived (by deregulation) in the 1980's, but worked mostly in and around trucking; so I got a front-line exposure to conditions in both industries. I hold a degree in Business Logistics with minors in both Transportation Economics and Carrier Management options.
And the journalistic profession has always produced a small, but well-informed group of writers and editors who actually do know how things work out there: here's a link to one of the best in the current crop:
But the unfortunate fact is that for every word written which demonstrates an understanding of why the American infrastructure is both so expensive and so difficult to change on short notice, there are a dozen written by people with a limited understanding (and often, an innate resentment toward) technology in any form, or lobbyists pursuing one side or another of an argument about which most of the public is not fully informed. And much of it is directed toward "swing voters" not known for long-term thinking, or toward "trailing spouses", juveniles, retirees or other groups which seldom deal with the tradeoffs and hard choices many of us face in the daily struggle to run a business or hold a job.
I'm posing a couple of links which serve to illustrate both an example of such simplistic reasoning:
I sincerely wish there were more opportunities for reasonable discussion on a sensible (and mostly privately-financed) re-orientation of the American transport infrastructure; that actually happened once in the period 1965-1985, when a one-time infusion of capital transformed the disaster of the Pennsylvania-New York Central-New haven merger into a property which was then returned to the private sector, and continues to pay taxes and dividends, and will have to figure in a transport system moving steadily toward the post-petroleum era. But it's not likely to happen when the environmental movement continues to sink to emotional appeals directed toward 14-year-olds.
There are plenty of opportunities to discuss this, including this one.
Large amounts of capital needed? There's more to life than money - do we really not care what happens to our planet? And what good is having the money when you can't enjoy it?
Long lag time? That's all the more reason to start now rather than postponing it.
You may see a pay back in ten years but someone else is paying for the rest of it. You got a 30% tax credit from the feds and presumably the typical 20% tax credit from the state? Are you getting green credits too? Are you connected to the grid and is there separate charge for the use of that infrastructure?
That's just you, what about the company that manufactured the panels?
Yes, I accepted tax credits. It's an American Tradition to subsidize industries and institutions when it is considered to benefit the country. It's being going on for centuries. Examples include giving land to railroads, land to settlers and Revolutionary War veterans, helping build sports stadiums, giving tax exempt status to non profits and religious institutions, just to name a few. Building infrastructure and letting organizations operate freely to promote the public good has always been important to the United States.
I'm also connected to the grid which helps minimize outages for everyone in the region where I live because I put more power into the grid during peak hours than I use. Most of my use is during off peak hours. If anything, my having installed a system for power generation will help prevent the need for an increased number of power plants.
Both the manufacturer and I benefited equally. If they got the rebate and passed it on to me in the form of a lower price, my net cost would have been the same. Likewise, the manufacturer would have received the same amount of money. Either way, the cost was subsidized.
Subsidizing any industry or organization is always controversial to someone.
Thank you; there are a lot of possibilities, but I'll try to focus on just a few.
In this medium, I think you'd be better served to focus on one at a time. In my perception your complaint is disjointed and all over the map all over the map all over the map and it's hard to understand what your issue really is.
I'll focus on the most serious flaw I see in your screed... pretending there is some actual group out there called "Environmentalists" that you can lump together and bash because of whatever it is that you're actually upset about. Is it your property taxes? When one has been been hit with a bag of rocks it's hard to pick out specifically which one caused the blackest bruise. But you must have an idea what set you off enough to post this.
In any case, let's take a look at the dictionary definition of the word "environmentalist":
en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist
noun
a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.
In other words, this term is the broadest possible catchall for people who have any concern at all about our environment. And as such, my personal experience is that this label can be applied to an extremely wide spectrum of people, of all political stripes, from all ways of life. But people who have concerns about the environment cannot actually be lumped together in any kind of meaningful way, because different groups under that very wide umbrella have very different objectives, and very different views on how to achieve those objectives.
It is the fact that these very different groups can wind up in opposition to each other which really puts the lie to almost anything you might want to generalize about environmentalists. To name just one of the of the obvious examples, one group of environmentalists supports building wind farms and solar farms to reduce our use of petroleum energy, while another is opposed due to concerns about the loss of wilderness space and the effect on wildlife.
So I'd like to start there... exactly what burr do you have under which part of your saddle blanket that compelled you to speak out this way? And who are you really angry with, since there is no actual group in reality called Environmentalist?
So I'd like to start there... exactly what burr do you have under which part of your saddle blanket that compelled you to speak out this way? And who are you really angry with, since there is no actual group in reality called Environmentalist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
There are plenty of opportunities to discuss this, including this one.
Large amounts of capital needed? There's more to life than money - do we really not care what happens to our planet? And what good is having the money when you can't enjoy it?
Long lag time? That's all the more reason to start now rather than postponing it.
We've managed to turn this thread into a firm, but civil exchange of concerns, and I appreciate the restraint shown by "the opposition".
As I've already said, I don't think too many of us are opposed to cleaning things up -- where the technology is clearly available and the extent of the required effort (and price tag) is known. I live within a few hundred yards of the Susquehanna (North Branch), a river that was so heavily damaged by acid mine drainage back in the Sixties (and the operators aren't Fortune 500 companies, but locals with shady connections) that it could support no fish life. That was slowly corrected over the following thirty years, but there are still some streams (our own Nescopeck Creek is one) where the concentration is too high, the source hard to get at, and the bill will be very steep.
It is a matter of "How much we can afford, and how soon".
My other problem is what happens when the dreams of extremists collide with the desires of men and women in the street who don't like Big Brother making too many decisions for them -- especially when private industry is then used as the "whipping boy". What happened to the automakers caught between the desires of some families, many with young children, for the larger (and safer) SUV's versus the self-righteous wrath of some self-appointed and "self-enlightened" people is a near-perfect case.
That's all the more reason to start now rather than postponing it.
That is precisely the alarmist "reasoning" used by people like Al Gore to call for a huge increase in a bureaucracy (and remember -- many bureaucrats don't really want to "solve" problems as much as "reform" them into new ones -- if "solved", they would be out of a job, or at the least, face reductions in staff, budget and influence).
I recognize that the continuing controversy over the issue of climate change is a major sore point here. But I have to point out that even as "traditionalist" a publication as the conservative standard National Review has acknowledged it; the use of the more simplistic term "global warming" -- complete with emotional ads featuring cuddly polar bears, and imported European films like March of the Penguins used as an "end-run" to appeal to people too young to see the more-complicated part of the picture is what stokes the resentment of people who live a little closer to the constraints of "hard science" and "hard economics".
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 08-30-2014 at 12:03 AM..
There are simply too many variables and subjects in the OP to do all of them justice. I'll just skim some of the meta-issues.
Railroads and death tolls.
Ever since Trammel (from whom the word tramway is derived), rail transportation has been recognized as dangerous. My Vermont Railroad Commissioner Reports from the late 1800s list hundreds of deaths, and those are just from one tiny state. Over time, standardization, regulation, and safety laws took an industry that was a psychopathic killer and tamed it. Megantic was a reminder of earlier times and what happens when cost cutting trumps safety concerns. The cry and outrage over the occurrence is justified. When a child cries at the loss of its mother, one does not expect it to parse grief in Elizabethan English or proper legalese. It is an emotional response that must be examined and dissected by those with cooler heads and engineering know-how.
Were those tank cars outdated and less safe than viable alternatives? Absolutely. No one is denying that. Given that no one has raised a serious contender to the Westinghouse brake, the argument to eliminate a repeat performance then becomes one of the speed and cost of changeover of the vessels involved in the wrecks. Changeover of equipment is not a "hardship" except to the stragglers, and happens on a regular basis in the industry. The apparent cost is often not the actual amortized cost. When I was growing up there were plenty of 32 foot boxcars and steam locomotives still in service. I look at the size of the talgo containerized freight carriers on mainlines and am still amazed at the immensity of change over a relatively short time. The cost of tank car replacement has to be adjusted for the natural life cycle replacements, reduced insurance costs, increased capacity, the boon to rail car manufacturers and their communities, and other factors. One might also remember that the cost of replacing the entire fleet of tank cars is far less than is spent by the oil industry in exploration every year. Whinging about costs is not something that sits well when the profits are as extreme as they are.
Taken as a whole, both of the cited web links are valid, just in different ways. The type of pressure placed by the petition is nothing new for railroads and has little to do with "environmentalism." The reason for heavy-weight passenger cars was public outcry over unnecessary deaths by telescoping cars and cars that burst into flames in crashes. That occurred long before any environmental issues were recognized.
There are groups that hoist the "environmentalist" banner that are using it as a shield for other agendas. There are groups that would find themselves disbanding if members were forced into listening to a debate on the relative values they express. There are groups that are pot-stirrers and trolls for emotional responses. If you want to rail against those (pun intended), I'll agree with you. However, your choice of battlefield was a tactical blunder.
As I've already said, I don't think too many of us are opposed to cleaning things up -- where the technology is clearly available and the extent of the required effort (and price tag) is known. I live within a few hundred yards of the Susquehanna (North Branch), a river that was so heavily damaged by acid mine drainage back in the Sixties (and the operators aren't Fortune 500 companies, but locals with shady connections) that it could support no fish life. That was slowly corrected over the following thirty years, but there are still some streams (our own Nescopeck Creek is one) where the concentration is too high, the source hard to get at, and the bill will be very steep.
It is a matter of "How much we can afford, and how soon".
I'm trying hard to follow the throughline on your posts, but so far I'm finding that to be a daunting task.
You may well see associations amidst the swirl, yourself, but you aren't making them clear. So please connect some of these seemingly disparate dots for me...
I get that some of the tributaries of the Susquehanna were so badly polluted by mining in the sixties that they may never get cleaned up, but does that have to do with the Mafia? Or with your disdain of "Environmentalists"?
Quote:
My other problem is what happens when the dreams of extremists collide with the desires of men and women in the street who don't like Big Brother making too many decisions for them -- especially when private industry is then used as the "whipping boy". What happened to the automakers caught between the desires of some families, many with young children, for the larger (and safer) SUV's versus the self-righteous wrath of some self-appointed and "self-enlightened" people is a near-perfect case.
If it's a near perfect case, then how came I can't figure out what you're talking about?
Quote:
That's all the more reason to start now rather than postponing it.
That is precisely the alarmist "reasoning" used by people like Al Gore to call for a huge increase in a bureaucracy (and remember -- many bureaucrats don't really want to "solve" problems as much as "reform" them into new ones -- if "solved", they would be out of a job, or at the least, face reductions in staff, budget and influence).
What's the option? Sit in a burning house gathering information on possible ways to determine if there really is a fire, and if so, to assess the most cost-effective ways to put out the fire?
And by the way, although Al Gore is an easy target for political opponents because of his attempt to assert some leadership in this area, I've never read a single article or speech in which he argued for a bigger bureaucracy.
Quote:
I recognize that the continuing controversy over the issue of climate change is a major sore point here. But I have to point out that even as "traditionalist" a publication as the conservative standard National Review has acknowledged it;
As has the Department of Defense, which is spending billions of dollars to mitigate the already apparent effects of climate change on our defense preparedness. The reality of rapid climate change is simply no longer a controversy in the world of science... the house actually IS on fire, folks... and it hasn't been a big controversy for a decade. It's really only a controversy today in any major way in the domain of politics.
Quote:
the use of the more simplistic term "global warming" -- complete with emotional ads featuring cuddly polar bears, and imported European films like March of the Penguins used as an "end-run" to appeal to people too young to see the more-complicated part of the picture is what stokes the resentment of people who live a little closer to the constraints of "hard science" and "hard economics".
To put in a much needed correction to this debate, "global warming" is not an alternative wording for "climate change." Global warming is only one aspect of climate change, and climate change is just one aspect of the rapid environmental changes that are being recorded all over the world.
Again, I just can't see the throughline in your post. How does mining pollution > mafia > SUVs > Al Gore > March of the Penguins = resentment of some people? And who are those people anyway, and are you really talking about yourself there, and if so, what is your issue, actually?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
