Enbridge & Churchill Falls

[TimG]

Are you absolutely sure?

Give me an example were environmentalists approved a project that resulted in a permanent change to the local environment? Their position seems to be always: Rule 1) No development of any sort. If economics means that they are going to get ignored then they follow Rule 2) development must not change the environment.

In fact, give me as many examples as you can of development projects that were "approved" by environmentalists.

Edited August 19, 2012 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

You mean Bill is wrong, population growth has stopped and consumption of the planet has slowed down?

You mean like the inability to adapt our economy to zero growth?

Okay.

Well eyeball, why are you wasting time talking to us? We can do nothing about such a problem!

You have to convince all those populations in third world countries to first dramatically limit their reproduction and second, kill off any excess babies.

Third, any excess babies that survive to adulthood must not be allowed to consume anything!

Unless you have another idea that would WORK? Or just more wishes?

[eyeball]

Give me an example were environmentalists approved a project that resulted in a permanent change to the local environment? Their position seems to be always: Rule 1) No development of any sort. If economics means that they are going to get ignored then they follow Rule 2) development must not change the environment.

In fact, give me as many examples as you can of development projects that were "approved" by environmentalists.

No, you're the positive claimant here not me. Why are you so absolutely certain?

[eyeball]

Well eyeball, why are you wasting time talking to us? We can do nothing about such a problem!

You have to convince all those populations in third world countries to first dramatically limit their reproduction and second, kill off any excess babies.

Third, any excess babies that survive to adulthood must not be allowed to consume anything!

Unless you have another idea that would WORK? Or just more wishes?

Conserve what we have for domestic use and let nature take its course. It wouldn't take a genie to do that.

[TimG]

No, you're the positive claimant here not me. Why are you so absolutely certain?

Because environmentalists of one form or another oppose everything today. I have never heard of any project which was not opposed from solar panels in deserts to oil and gas pipelines. It is impossible for me to prove a negative so the onus is on you to provide an example if you disagree.

[Wild Bill]

Because environmentalists of one form or another oppose everything today. I have never heard of any project which was not opposed from solar panels in deserts to oil and gas pipelines. It is impossible for me to prove a negative so the onus is on you to provide an example if you disagree.

Ditto, Tim. I too have never heard a damn thing but "NO" from the green movement. They offer only generalities as alternatives - dreams without specifics.

However, they have no problem attacking any plan dreamed up by their opponents! That's because it is always easier to criticize than create. That is simple human nature.

Eyeball, the onus of proof is on the side of the environmentalists! They are the ones attacking a positive, not trying to prove a negative.

The ship is sinking. Some guys come up with a plan to bail the water out. The environmentalists try to shoot it down, with everything from the shape of the bucket to how the bailer is holding it!

They never offer a practical plan for saving the ship! And the ship is still sinking!

They shout out things they don't understand, like "Solar Power!" They have no idea of how solar power works or the problem of storing the power for use during the night. They don't care! They turn that back on the engineers and demand THEY come up with the solution!

When you know little to nothing about the technical aspects of a problem it is easy for anyone with hair in their ears to just demand a magic solution.

[eyeball]

Environmentalists where I live proposed to build a salmon hatchery to sustain our commercial fishing industry while we restored local salmon habitat and salmon runs damaged by mismanagement from Ottawa, Victoria and the headquarters of corporations thousands of miles away.

There's nothing magical about building salmon hatcheries, planting riparian areas, reintroducing large woody debris or removing a hung culvert in a fish creek but they said we had hair in our ears and blew that ship right out of the water. It was the scientists and engineers - biologists and economists - who said no to our proposal, not environmentalists.

You guys have heard this example many many times but you continue to ignore it and cling to your misplaced assumptions and positions like they were the only things you know with absolute certainty.

Edited August 19, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Environmentalists where I live proposed to build a salmon hatchery to sustain our commercial fishing industry while we restored local salmon habitat and salmon runs damaged by mismanagement from Ottawa, Victoria and the headquarters of corporations thousands of miles away.

There's nothing magical about building salmon hatcheries, planting riparian areas, reintroducing large woody debris or removing a hung culvert in a fish creek but they said we had hair in our ears and blew that ship right out of the water. It was the scientists and engineers - biologists and economists - who said no to our proposal, not environmentalists.

You guys have heard this example many many times but you continue to ignore it and cling to your misplaced assumptions and positions like they were the only things you know with absolute certainty.

Alright eyeball, I'll give you that one. ONE! I'm almost 60 years old and I now have ONE!

Got anymore?

[waldo]

ya, clearly... your posts show a continued theme of total disregard for considerations of the environment, for sustainability, for emission reductions, for expanded emphasis on renewables... you're completely and totally all about Big Oil development - maximized development; the sooner the better, the bigger the better - full bore! Tell me, does your concern for your postulated worldwide reduced living standards extend to you supporting like emphasis on providing aid/assistance, including monetary assistance, to developing countries meeting the challenges of climate change - of mitigating, adapting and working to prevent climate change? Are you that guy? As for your ignorant strawman, I'll run you ragged quoting MLW posts where I speak directly to a continued, mapped, progressive... and diminishing reliance on fossil fuels. The problem with a progressive roadmap concept is you corporate Big Oil hucksters can't accept anything that works towards any kind of diminishing reliance on fossil fuels... can't accept anything that presumes to shift your hallowed status-quo! And meanwhile, climate change continues, essentially unabated... emissions continue to grow... extreme weather events magnify... the environment goes to, 'hell in a handbasket'!

What you propose is not only arrogant, but dangerous.

what you conjure is ignorant and disingenuous... but that's the ruse BigOil hucksters play when you trot out the boogeymen!

I note the limits of your fake altruistic self's concern for developing countries (only) extends to ensure BigOil can continue to, with ever increasing speed, intensity and abandon, ply non-renewable resources with little or no regard for the environment. Cash is King, hey!!!

but really, c'mon - you need to more precisely define your boogeymen... perhaps prioritize them. Balanced against that non-renewable resource, that ever diminishing resource, will it be the, "end of cheap oil, rise of ultra-expensive $200/barrel oil" boogeyman? Or the, "artificial industry crafted available reserves" boogeyman? Or the, "peak oil kryptonite" boogeyman? Or the, "war for oil" boogeyman? Or the, "governing protectionist measures to preserve internal reserves" boogeyman? ... or the, "ever increasing demand forecast" boogeyman? Just where do you rank your/the boogeymen... above your blatant and complete lack of concern for the environment?

[waldo]

You guys have heard this example many many times but you continue to ignore it and cling to your misplaced assumptions and positions like they were the only things you know with absolute certainty.

that example and a thousand more... clearly, the MLW myopic anti-environmentalists and "self proclaimed techies" skew their view of the "environmental movement" towards the stereotypical protestor... while turning a blind eye to the decades long positive societal gains/benefits that direct protest and challenge has resulted in... notwithstanding solutions the major environmental organizations continually bring forward.

of course, as we just saw, when you really challenge them to put up - they revert to their tried and true blankee protector: "can't prove a negative"!!!

amazingly, these wizards have a most self-serving exclusionary view towards those they include within the 'environmental movement'... they can't fathom that those bringing forward change/solutions/data/information from within academia and research... or those that have chosen careers in environmental related industries... or politicos actively working toward policy solutions... or educators... etc., or... a smallish local group attempting to bring forward a localized fisheries solution, are all a part of the 'environmental movement'. Nope! To these wizards the environmental movement is nothing more than their forced stereotypical 'in your face' protestor. Myopic skewed anti-environmentalists... nothing more, nothing less!

[cybercoma]

I think the confusion stems from a naive belief that the rare resource is the oil, or the diamonds. In fact, the "rare resource" in these cases is the "ability to deliver to market".

I don't think people are naive to think that the resources themselves are valuable. It's a very reasonable belief. Where the naivete comes in is where people don't believe that there's myriad other things that aid in making those resources valuable. People are naive not to see the value in transportation, legal protection, etc.

[eyeball]

Alright eyeball, I'll give you that one. ONE! I'm almost 60 years old and I now have ONE!

Got anymore?

No, I'm almost 60 as well and given the years it's taken for this one example to sink in (for the moment), I'm not about to start banging my head into that wall again thanks.

Suffice to say there are thousands of similar examples around the world where local solutions to local problems are ignored in lieu of those imposed from afar. Millions of people seem to have blindly accepted that local opposition to the decisions of distant centralized authorities and their techie types is always because of environmentalism/communism/terrorism, people like you and Tim for example.

[cybercoma]

No, I'm almost 60 as well and given the years it's taken for this one example to sink in (for the moment), I'm not about to start banging my head into that wall again thanks.

Suffice to say there are thousands of similar examples around the world where local solutions to local problems are ignored in lieu of those imposed from afar. Millions of people seem to have blindly accepted that local opposition to the decisions of distant centralized authorities and their techie types is always because of environmentalism/communism/terrorism, people like you and Tim for example.

The ironic inconsistency here is that those who support these centralized decisions are sometimes the same ones who claim to reject centralization, calling it socialism or communism.

[Wild Bill]

No, I'm almost 60 as well and given the years it's taken for this one example to sink in (for the moment), I'm not about to start banging my head into that wall again thanks.

Suffice to say there are thousands of similar examples around the world where local solutions to local problems are ignored in lieu of those imposed from afar. Millions of people seem to have blindly accepted that local opposition to the decisions of distant centralized authorities and their techie types is always because of environmentalism/communism/terrorism, people like you and Tim for example.

So you think it "suffices to say" something that directly contradicts my own experience?

Sorry eyeball, but it doesn't suffice for ME to just chuck everything I've seen and believe you just because you say so.

Even if you bought me a beer, I would still need something a bit more fleshed out than that!

You are not giving me reason. You are giving me your faith!

Please don't bang on my door too early in the morning!

Edited August 19, 2012 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

So you think it "suffices to say" something that directly contradicts my own experience?

Such as?

[waldo]

Such as?

oh my! You mean push the guy beyond his most treasured (unsubstantiated) generalities and his favoured broad-based stereotype labeling? Besides... he/they already played their, "can't prove a negative card"!

[The_Squid]

Alright eyeball, I'll give you that one. ONE! I'm almost 60 years old and I now have ONE!

Got anymore?

Because Eyeball has experienced the only example that has ever happened in the world! LOL

I'm guessing you haven't looked too hard. Nor do you have an open mind to anything that any environmental group does.

Look at all the give and take between stakeholders in the Carmanah Valley, or the Great Bear Rainforest, etc, etc. http://www.savethegreatbear.org/news/detail/117

[cybercoma]

There's tons of examples of localized knowledge being better for certain applications, where centralized power has tried to force them into less-than-ideal situations.

Agriculture is another major area. Multinationals often try to force farmers in developing nations to adopt monocropping, rather than the mixed-crop systems that they sometimes locally. Instead of relying on pesticides and genetically modified crops to reduce pest and weather damage, planting a variety of things can reduce these effects and provide greater total yields over time. The land is also typically viable for much longer.

[cybercoma]

There was an irrigation debacle in the Peruvian Highlands. There was a german company that built irrigation for the farmers there, hoping to help with development. The problem was that the locals couldn't maintain the irrigation system after it was installed because it was all technology they were unfamiliar with. Moreover, it didn't work properly. The spots where water had to fall in the concrete troughs began wearing away quickly. It was local indigenous knowledge that solved these problems. They put large moss-covered rocks where water would drop. The moss-covered rocks prevented erosion of the irrigation system.

[cybercoma]

Another example is the way the AIDS epidemic was combated in the early 1990s. Centralized programs were bound by politics, so they were unable to speak in a language that was accessible in the communities that were most heavily affected. It was local gay groups that didn't have their hands tied by the political games played in Ottawa that were able to release literature in a language that was more colloquial and accessible to the people most affected by the epidemic. They were able to put the funding to better use than a centralized agency. Where the central agency could only communicate the facts, this is not enough to get people to change their lifestyles. Reading cold facts doesn't convince people they need to stop sharing needles or having unprotected sex. It was the art, literature, plays, music, and other productions that were created that touched people in a way that they could feel the effects of not taking the appropriate precautions. The cold facts are meaningless until it's too late. This is another case where localized knowledge was better.

[cybercoma]

Ok, one last thing. Buying local food. These massive outbreaks of salmonella and listeria are a result of huge multinational corporations controlling the food supply and production. If there's a problem, it affects potentially millions of people. If all food had to be supplied locally, when a problem arises it would only affect a small area and could be pinpointed much more quickly. It also limits the number of people exposed.

[TimG]

Environmentalists where I live proposed to build a salmon hatchery to sustain our commercial fishing industry.

A salmon hatchery? Small beer considering the massive efforts to block the development of the salmon farming industry in BC.

So your example further highlights my point about how environmentalists hate industry and won't be happy until it is all gone.

What I was looking for was an example where environmentalists actually agreed that making a permanent change to the environment in order to allow industry to develop was best for society. Your example simply uses technology to restore the environment the 'no-human ideal' which environmentalists are obsessed with so it is not really the example I was looking for. I do acknowledge that I was not that clear about the distinction earlier.

Edited August 19, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

Budget cuts delay research for Enbridge pipeline approval

The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

“He (Harper) says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Mr. Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”

Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.

David Anderson...

I remember the Nestucca oil spill in 1988 and the huge pancakes of thick oil that washed up on Long Beach. The weather was very cold and the seas very calm and the Federal Environment Minister at the time, David Anderson was told by locals that the immediate thing he should do is get some excavators and dump-trucks and start gathering up these pancakes before the more typically stormy weather returned and made such work impossible.

I guess he was paralyzed at the thought of excavators and dump-trucks on the sacred sands of a brand new national park and it took 10 days or so to get over the shock before the government acted. Of course it howled a gale the next day and every single pancake was reduced to millions of pancakes the size of a dime which you can still find to this day.

[eyeball]

A salmon hatchery? Small beer considering the massive efforts to block the development of the salmon farming industry in BC.

I guess it never occurred to you to consider that massive effort represented a massive opposition to them.

So your example further highlights my point about how environmentalists hate industry and won't be happy until it is all gone.

Actually what it really highlights is how so many environmentalists hate the undemocratic way local industries are blown away to make way for distant industries by officials that live thousands of miles distant from the effects of their decisions.

In light of how fish farmers are now blaming the diseases and deaths occurring in their pens on wild fish it makes more sense why things like our hatchery and commercial fishery were neglected and sacrificed. I guess our wild fish were like rats that needed to be eradicated.

What I was looking for was an example where environmentalists actually agreed that making a permanent change to the environment in order to allow industry to develop was best for society. Your example simply uses technology to restore the environment the 'no-human ideal' which environmentalists are obsessed with so it is not really the example I was looking for. I do acknowledge that I was not that clear about the distinction earlier.

Hold that thought and maybe consider for a moment that what you need to do is start recognizing that there are many distinctions within your catch all term environmentalists.

In the meantime you need look no farther than a farmer for your example.

Edited August 19, 2012 by eyeball

[TimG]

Hold that thought and maybe consider for a moment that what you need to do is start recognizing that there are many distinctions within your catch all term environmentalists.

That cuts both ways. The social discourse today is such that any yahoo can oppose something on 'environmental grounds' and claim the people who support are 'anti-environment' - all with the tacit support of others who call themselves 'environmentalists'. I will group all environmentalists as one until I see some self styled environmental groups actively opposing each other. Edited August 19, 2012 by TimG