Seattle Greenies religious fanaticism against blue collar jobs (SeaTac: 2015, how much)

[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.

[Seacove]

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 don't know the specifics but I will vote for the environmental protection of Puget Sound. I'm not against jobs by any means but if those jobs could result in the harming of Puget Sound, I would suggest finding jobs another way.

[GatsbyGatz]

Some might see the irony in this revolt, considering how suburban and auto-dependent the entire Seattle Metro Area is. We purchase oil like any other metro, but we like to wipe our hands clean as if our entire metropolis isn't addicted to oil.

Last time I checked, our public transportation is pretty garbage. We have a decent bus system, but that's only for Seattle's urban core and some fringe urban villages. I live in Cap Hill and use public transit almost exclusively. I have easy access to UW, Downtown, or SeaTac thanks to the limited light rail line, but anyplace outside of Seattle city proper is virtually inaccessible to me due to our region's dearth of comprehensive mass transit infrastructure. I would need to take 2 buses at least just to reach other neighborhoods within Seattle like Ballard, Queen Anne, Wallingford, Greenlake, or West Seattle. I shall not even mention how disconnected outer cities are to Seattle for residents like myself who are trying to make an effort to live without driving a car.

For an American city, Seattle does have more than typical public transit usage and coverage. But that doesn't alter the reality that the Seattle region is largely consumed by surburbia.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Seacove

I don't know the specifics but I will vote for the environmental protection of Puget Sound. I'm not against jobs by any means but if those jobs could result in the harming of Puget Sound, I would suggest finding jobs another way.

Typical radical greenie combination of scare tactics and simple answers rather than adapting to the real economy and the real world.

The hydrocarbon-driven lifestyle is an integral part of modern life; but the knowledge that the supply is finite, and that the easiest-to-extract portions are the first to be exhausted guarantees that further foresight and vigilance will have to be exercised in the future.

The "environmental protection of Puget Sound" as envisioned by the most simplistic, is likely an unattainable goal. There always have been tradeoffs, and always will be, because when environmental standards are toughened, the price tag invariably goes higher, If we can measure contaminants in parts per billion rather than parts per million, but the effect is negligible, why bother?

And yes, I regret to say that there will be accidents and incidents, as there have been in the past. But previous experience has demonstrated both that nature has a capacity to heal herself, and that those mistakes have enabled us to learn more from them and to reduce the risk in the future.

The only absolute security I know of is found in a cemetery plot or a cremation urn.

[flyingsaucermom]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

This is a fanaticism the can only be described as religious in nature:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/us/oil-company-lease-stirs-revolt-in-green-seattle.html[/url]

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.

First of all, let's get something straight: It's not whether climate danger is a real danger or not. That has been settled some years ago, as well as the cause and the question of if it will just go away on it's own. You're only going to hear more as it materializes and becomes meaningfully disruptive (economically and socially).

Secondly: You're the "mental midget" if you think that providing "some jobs for several years" is more worthwhile than protecting the ecological viability of the entire planet. Do you not comprehend the gravity of the situation, or understand why climate change is happening? The difference in mechanical properties between hydrocarbon and atmospheric carbon is remarkably easy to understand. Look it up.

Thirdly: Do you think that a city that gets 98% of it's power outside of carbon or writes tickets for not sorting garbage wants to enable a petrochemical giant to continue business as usual? Seattle is being consistent with it's moral imperative.

[WriterDude]

From what I can tell, this is less about actual environmental risks or protection, and more of a protest vote against the petroleum industry. That's fine, if the local population wants to prioritize a minor environmental risk over employment, but let's be honest about it, and call it what it is.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

And yes, I regret to say that there will be accidents and incidents, as there have been in the past. But previous experience has demonstrated both that nature has a capacity to heal herself,

Good, you vote for Pennsylvania, frack away, whatever. But I pay the costs to live in the Seattle metro. I live here because among many things, it is stunningly beautiful. We have whale pods that live here and hundreds of islands all around. It's not like any other place in the country. I will vote to protect that.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Good, you vote for Pennsylvania, frack away, whatever. But I pay the costs to live in the Seattle metro. I live here because among many things, it is stunningly beautiful. We have whale pods that live here and hundreds of islands all around. It's not like any other place in the country. I will vote to protect that.

For the record, I grew up, and still live within ten miles of the fringes of the anthracite-mining regions, and I'm old enough to recall when those areas looked a lot uglier. Proof again that an intelligent society recognizes and cleans up its mistakes; the only point we're debating is how much security we can afford, and how soon he necessary technology will evolve.

The uproar over fracking is similar to the uproar over nuclear power -- it originates mostly from places and sectors of society where it is not an immediate concern. As time passes and the prophecies of doom fail to materialize (I've lived within five miles of an operating nuclear power plant for the past 33 years), it's likely to be recognized as "much ado about nothing". I don't have much of a problem with that, but in the meantime, we'll all be paying higher prices for questionable "security".

Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom

Seattle is being consistent with it's moral imperative.

Just like Prohibition, the unenforceable 21-year drinking age, and the current flip-flop over marijuana?

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

I'm old enough to recall when those areas looked a lot uglier.

No.thank.you. I want to enjoy the beauty of this area, not hope I live long enough to see it recover.

Nuclear plants are not risk free Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Seacove

No.thank.you. I want to enjoy the beauty of this area, not hope I live long enough to see it recover.

Nuclear plants are not risk free Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?"