Seattle Greenies religious fanaticism against blue collar jobs (Tacoma, SeaTac: neighborhoods, purchase)

[seattlerain]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

This is a fanaticism the can only be described as religious in nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/us...n-seattle.html

Shell Oil isn't drilling in Seattle or in the Puget Sound. It simply signed a contract with the port for space to repair some of it's oil rigs and every nut job environmental extremist, which includes the mayor and the merry band of mental midgets on the city council are throwing a slobbering hissy fit over it. This would provide some jobs for several years for the repairs to take place.
Whether climate change is a real danger, opposing jobs at the port because you oppose oil drilling thousands of miles away is just insane.

I have to say that I think the whole thing is a bit extreme...but so is calling people you don't agree with "mental midgets".

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I think we've already established that nothing is risk-free; the point is "How much are the rest of us expected to endure to indulge your fantasies, fears, and unattainable goals?"

My goal is a beautiful Puget Sound. And I got it. No one is asking you to live here.

[CityWok]

The passion that some of you express almost brings a tear eye. It's sweet

I think people are getting too wrapped up in words though. As usually is the case with arguments like these, the spirit of the OP's post was to make sure people--not necessarily *all* people who care about the Sound--but those that didn't consider all the facts not jump to conclusions. Coincidentally enough, both sides are making the same argument now.

I doubt it was meant as a general insult to everyone who cared about the environment, sound, etc.

That being said. I thought Seattle job market was doing fine on its own. Why would it be so devastating if the project got turned down?

And though nothing is risk free (the classic "nothing is perfect" argument) fact is, some things are riskier than others, and some projects can be more devastating than others, especially in an area where people care so much about it.

[flyingsaucermom]

Originally Posted by CityWok

I doubt it was meant as a general insult to everyone who cared about the environment, sound, etc.

Yes, because we're all in the custom of calling our friends and family mental midgets in good fun.

If someone with a strong bias is going to come on here with an equally strong presentation I will respond in kind. In other words... it's the classic "well he started it!"

[jdhpa]

While I want to leave the environment in its natural state as much as possible, I'm always sensitive to the effect these decisions have on the quality of life of people who would be employed. For many it will be the difference between a good standard of living, and something much less than that. I make decisions as if it were me and my family who were being affected even when it isn't, because I know it's someone's family. They matter too.

I'll also note that I've been to many coastal areas, and I thought they were all quite beautiful. If this work goes to another port, it won't protect the environment so much as move whatever problems ultimately ensue to another area. That's a zero-sum game rather than an overall win.

[GatsbyGatz]

If people were so against oil and the preservation of our environment, then the Seattle metro area would be much denser and based around electric rail transportation. Light rail can run off of electricity which Seattle produces via water power which is nearly 100% free from greenhouse gases. If our population were so against oil, we could have an extensive electric rail system and build our metro area tightly and compactly around train/subway stations.

But of course, our metro area sprawls out via auto-dependent roads. Our infrastructure practically demands oil companies like Shell to operate the way they do.

Oh, but yes, let's blame Shell Oil for all of our problems. It's not like our own living style is desecrating the environment. We COULD create a society around a renewable energy source (electric trains), but no, everyone wants to own a big house and a nice car in a sprawled out suburb. Yet those same people blame the very hand that feeds them their precious oil.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

This is a fanaticism the can only be described as religious in nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/us...n-seattle.html

Shell Oil isn't drilling in Seattle or in the Puget Sound. It simply signed a contract with the port for space to repair some of it's oil rigs and every nut job environmental extremist, which includes the mayor and the merry band of mental midgets on the city council are throwing a slobbering hissy fit over it. This would provide some jobs for several years for the repairs to take place.
Whether climate change is a real danger, opposing jobs at the port because you oppose oil drilling thousands of miles away is just insane.

Says the mental dwarf who doesn't even live here...

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by CityWok

That being said. I thought Seattle job market was doing fine on its own. Why would it be so devastating if the project got turned down?

And though nothing is risk free (the classic "nothing is perfect" argument) fact is, some things are riskier than others, and some projects can be more devastating than others, especially in an area where people care so much about it.

^^ This.

In the grand scheme of things, the primary damage is not whether a single project is or isn't approved. I suspect the bigger issue is potential damage to Seattle's reputation as a good place to do business, but that's a minor concern at most.

Obviously, people prioritize differently, but both sides tend to cartoon-ify their opponents in these discussions. Environmentalists conflate the pro-business stand into indifference about babies taking baths in toxic sludge. Pro-business types conflate reasonable environmental concerns into radical NIMBY socialism.

Meh.

[Seacove]

I don't see the point in living in what I consider the most beautiful part of the United States only to destroy it. I support jobs but if those jobs could result in the destruction of the Puget Sound, I would suggest we look at other potential jobs and find ways to attract those instead.

Have you seen the shores of Biloxi? If you don't care about this area, you should move to a cheaper place that is all about fracking. North Dakota seems to be a happening place.

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by Seacove

I don't see the point in living in what I consider the most beautiful part of the United States only to destroy it. I support jobs but if those jobs could result in the destruction of the Puget Sound, I would suggest we look at other potential jobs and find ways to attract those instead.

Have you seen the shores of Biloxi? If you don't care about this area, you should move to a cheaper place that is all about fracking. North Dakota seems to be a happening place.

Really? Nobody is drilling for oil in Seattle. Nor is anyone advocating for the destruction of anything. So if anyone isn't sufficiently opposed to a plan that could damage the environment in some way, you immediately tell them to leave the Seattle area? If someone speaks out in favor of nuclear energy, do you demand they move to Minsk so they can savor the scent of Chernobyl, or buy a seafront condo in Fukushima?

Again, ferries transit the Puget Sound every day. Let's think about a scenario.

Based on your reasoning about what "could" happen, any one of them could crash into a Greenpeace boat and pollute the waterway. So when are you going to advocate for banning all Greenpeace boats from Puget Sound? Oh, right, the ferries could crash into anything, or one another, or a rock, or could just spring a leak and down they go.. oh, no, we have to ban the ferries, too. And all boats, any of which could sink. Oh, and aircraft could crash into the Sound too. See how quickly "could" gets a little, well, you know?

I value the environment very highly. If someone said that they were opening a massive catalytic cracker in a salt marsh next to Ballard, which would add 5,000 jobs to the economy, I'd laugh them right out of the thread. However, that's a false comparison. The question isn't whether someone cares about the area or not. The question is where the local community wants to set the needle on the spectrum from jobs to environment. That's a rational conversation.