Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas

[ReeferMadness]

Yin and Yang, Right wing and left wing, environmentalist and economist. If one of these dominate then all goes sideways. As long as both sides are in play then you get the balance you need. As such I think both need to be in the equation even the fuzzy headed ones from both sides.

I don't subscribe to this point of view. Money is an abstraction that can be created and destroyed with the stroke of a pen. Ecosystems are real and once destroyed, even with dedicated effort take decades or centuries to recover. You don't create balance by sacrificing real things for abstractions - you only create fantasy.

A healthy environment can exist without an economy. An economy will not exist with an environment that can support healthy living.

[TimG]

A healthy environment can exist without an economy.

Not true. The "environment" as you define it is a pure abstraction that is centered on what humans need. i.e. an ecosystem that is less hospitable to humans is still an ecosystem. But humans can survive in an unfavorable ecosystems because humans have evolved an interdependence that is essential to our society today. 7 billion hunter gatherers could not live on this planet but 7 billion specialists can. The economy is the ecosystem that allows this specialization to work - a broken economy would kill off more people than a broken "environment". Edited April 2, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

This is what happens when a belief has a person. We need look no further than the influence of religion and supernatural thinking for this capacity to suspend disbelief to the extent that the real world becomes unreal.

Easter Island in the middle of an ocean is analogous to Earth in space. Human beings basically denuded the place of it's natural capital, the vast surplus of which was dedicated to the pursuit and furtherance of a belief system that was as delusional as the day is long. It may have taken as little as 800 years for the people of Rapa Nui to pull it off and it may be taking only a little bit longer for the rest of us to catch up but soon everywhere will be like Easter Island and for pretty much the same reason.

[ReeferMadness]

Assuming the population keeps growing at the current rate, and immigration stays at the current rate, where in your circular paragraph above would you suggest placing the stopper?

That's the wrong question. There can't be a single stopper. Contrary to what economists imply when they jumble everything into the GDP, not all economic development is equal. Growing food for starving people cannot be on the same moral plane as creating nuclear weapons. Creating new software is much more environmentally benign than making tires to be used in monster truck races. We don't need a single stopper but we do need limits defined by scientific consensus.

What do you mean by realist and fuzzy headed? It seems to me that those who think we can support 7 billion people with only one planet without having some pretty devastating effects on it are the fuzzy headed ones.

Well, too late. There are already 7 billion people. However, we can (and must) agree to limit the effects by changing the way we live and setting reasonable limits.

Understand, the above statement does not mean I dump waste paint down the drain, or toss litter from my car window, or eat shark's fin soup, or subscribe to any theory that involves rhino horn and libido. Just because someone does not see a way to achieve the (to me) fuzzy headed environmental goals you seek does not make them any less an environmentalist. In fact, I would put my footprint up against anyone who lives in a similar location.

I'm sure you do what you can. Individually, most people can do better - live closer to work, drive less, drive smaller vehicles, live in a smaller house, buy less stuff, take fewer long-distance vacations.. However, I think that individual action will only take us so far. Political leadership is necessary. Policies of unlimited growth need to be replaced with policies of smart growth and morally defensible growth.

It's very easy to write this:

I don't disagree. But with all due respect, so what? We will wait for a global catastrophe and even then we won't do anything about it. Environmentalism on a planetary scale is, above all else, about co-operation. You see the problem?

Of course I see the problem. As I said earlier, we all do what we can. I think if the global catastophe is large enough to scare people but no so large to cause breakdown of society, we still have a chance.

[RNG]

Just for the record, this, according to Wikipedia is what GDP is.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

[Accountability Now]

I don't subscribe to this point of view. Money is an abstraction that can be created and destroyed with the stroke of a pen. Ecosystems are real and once destroyed, even with dedicated effort take decades or centuries to recover. You don't create balance by sacrificing real things for abstractions - you only create fantasy.

A healthy environment can exist without an economy. An economy will not exist with an environment that can support healthy living.

I never thought you would subscribe to this point of view because you are so far to the environmental side that could never see reality. Reality of course being the fact that economny has exisited since ancient times when people used to trade objects rather than money. Perhaps I would have agreed with you if you would have said a healthy environment can exist without modern day economics but to say without an ecomony at all is absolutely ridiculous.

Economy is more than just making money. Its a way for people to interact and trade services so that as a group we can survive and thrive. Imagine for just one second that all economic trade stopped today. Are you going to do everything for yourself? Make your own knives and spears? Then go out and hunt or harvest all your food? Make your own clothes? Chop down trees and make your own house. Even ancient societies traded with each other which of course is long before the ozone layer, global warming and other environmental issues that you say econonmy has created. Economy has been around A LOT longer than our so called catasrophic environmental issues have.

Don't worry though....for every person like you who doesn't think economy matters, there are peope that think environment doesn't matter. It balances out to the way it should be where both matter.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Accountability Now

[eyeball]

Don't worry though....for every person like you who doesn't think economy matters, there are peope that think environment doesn't matter. It balances out to the way it should be where both matter.

If our economy is in balance with the environment then why are there not just as many species around today as there were in ancient times?

[Accountability Now]

If our economy is in balance with the environment then why are there not just as many species around today as there were in ancient times?

I don't know. Why are the dinasaurs extinct? Does everything have to do with humans. More to this conversation, do these exctinctions have everything to do with economy?

I guess if you subsribe to survival of the fittest then it would suggest that human evoluation was deemed more fit than these other species. That is of course assuming it was humans who made these animals go extinct in the first place.

[PIK]

If our economy is in balance with the environment then why are there not just as many species around today as there were in ancient times?

Species come and go. They are still finding new ones.

[Wilber]

About the best recharging time I'm aware of is 8 hours. OK for commuting and shopping trips, but visiting Grannie in the next province would require many long stops or a hell of an extension cord.

Yes, electric cars are a good step, but they are not a solution to all need for oil and it's products.

Not really. High voltage charging systems greatly reduce charging times. The Nissan Leaf can be charged from just about dead to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. We are only into the first generation of electric cars so they will get much better. Even so, this will be an issue with pure electrics for the foreseeable future and for now, electric cars with a internal combustion backup like the Volt and plug in hybrids are a better compromise. The biggest problem with them right now is cost, not technology. At the Vancouver Auto Show the other day, I asked a Ford rep why the plug in hybrid Fusion was so much more than the regular hybrid version. He said it was mostly battery cost. The large Li batteries used in the plug in version are quite a bit more expensive.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Wilber

[Canuckistani]

a healthy environment can exist without modern day economics

A healthy environment can exist without humans at all. With 7 billion of us, not so much. Primarily because carbon fuels have allowed us to temporarily far exceed the earth's carrying capicity for humans. I doubt that can condinue indefinitely. Especially with more and more people coming on stream who what the materially wasteful lifestyle that we have.

[Wilber]

There is the big problem of electric and hybrid cars in the winter months. The hybrids are using more fuel in the winter months negating the benefits of owning a hybrid vehicle.

Battery performance is reduced but conventional cars also use more fuel in cold weather.

[Accountability Now]

Not really. High voltage charging systems greatly reduce charging times. The Nissan Leaf can be charged from just about dead to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. We are only into the first generation of electric cars so they will get much better. Even so, this will be an issue with pure electrics for the foreseeable future and for now, electric cars with a internal combustion backup like the Volt and plug in hybrids are a better compromise. The biggest problem with them right now is cost, not technology. At the Vancouver Auto Show the other day, I asked a Ford rep why the plug in hybrid Fusion was so much more than the regular hybrid version. He said it was mostly battery cost. The large Li batteries used in the plug in version are quite a bit more expensive.

I'm not sure if its relative to this thread as my comment is more related to home related batteries but I think one day it may transfer over to cars. Anyway...two Calgary chemists have found a way to make hydrogen fuel batteries 1,000 times cheaper. Funny thing is that I used to play hockey against one of the guys who invented this!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/29/technology-water-electrolysis-calalyst-calgary.html

[Accountability Now]

A healthy environment can exist without humans at all. With 7 billion of us, not so much. Primarily because carbon fuels have allowed us to temporarily far exceed the earth's carrying capicity for humans. I doubt that can condinue indefinitely. Especially with more and more people coming on stream who what the materially wasteful lifestyle that we have.

Of course it can exist without humans! So does that mean we should eliminate humans to solve the problem? I suggested that there needs to be a balance between environment and economy. Perhaps not a 50/50 balance but I scoff at anyone that says economy is not needed at all in this balance.

[Canuckistani]

Of course it can exist without humans! So does that mean we should eliminate humans to solve the problem? I suggested that there needs to be a balance between environment and economy. Perhaps not a 50/50 balance but I scoff at anyone that says economy is not needed at all in this balance.

No, I agree. We've got the tiger by the tail, and can't let go. Too many people would die. No way to revert back to some primitive, low impact way of living, and we don't have the will and foresight to really try to work out a sustainable solution for the population density we've got. The will for the kind of co-operation needed to bring the world to a sustainable economy just isn't there. Ther world's poor are still trying to raise their material standard of living to ours, the rest of us are desperately trying to hang onto it aftert the mess we've made, and the economic ellite is partying likes it's 1999.

[Accountability Now]

No, I agree. We've got the tiger by the tail, and can't let go. Too many people would die. No way to revert back to some primitive, low impact way of living, and we don't have the will and foresight to really try to work out a sustainable solution for the population density we've got. The will for the kind of co-operation needed to bring the world to a sustainable economy just isn't there. Ther world's poor are still trying to raise their material standard of living to ours, the rest of us are desperately trying to hang onto it aftert the mess we've made, and the economic ellite is partying likes it's 1999.

Unfortunately we don't deal well with planning unless there is refutable evidence that something is wrong. So it will most likely take a major event to occur before emphasis is shifted towards a sustainable economy. When will that happen? Not sure...most scientists think the world can hold up to 10 billion people. That really isn't that far away. I don't know if it will be obvious things like death that make us shift. For example, I look at the increase in the number of auto-immune diseases in industrialized countries. No one can prove it but its generally beleived our pollution is causing this. Perhaps when the numbers reach 1 in 10 then we will start shifting!

[Canuckistani]

Unfortunately we don't deal well with planning unless there is refutable evidence that something is wrong. So it will most likely take a major event to occur before emphasis is shifted towards a sustainable economy. When will that happen? Not sure...most scientists think the world can hold up to 10 billion people. That really isn't that far away. I don't know if it will be obvious things like death that make us shift. For example, I look at the increase in the number of auto-immune diseases in industrialized countries. No one can prove it but its generally beleived our pollution is causing this. Perhaps when the numbers reach 1 in 10 then we will start shifting!

You probably are more optimistic than I am. I think we're more ,like the frog in gradually heating water. But you're right, we deal better with a sharp, immediate catastrophe. One good world wide pandemic, and problem solved for number of people anyway, and maybe it will wake us up. The black plague in Europe killed 25% of the population, and had all sorts of postivie effects: no more cyclical starvation, lack of labor meant serfs were more valuable and paid more, dignity of the individual came out of this, as well as higher standard of living for everybody.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Canuckistani

[eyeball]

I'm even less optimistic. We're more like a frog who felt the heat, climbed up to the edge of the pot and is now struck with the realization that what's been described as a pot on a stove is actually a frying-pan on a fire.

As for the kick in the ass we all imagine will smarten us up, that's where we're more like some humongous dull-witted beast to whom the signal a swift boot sends takes a long time for the brain to receive, process and resolve. I doubt sticking our heads even farther up our asses is going to help.

[Mighty AC]

We're humongous, dull-witted beasts wearing the padded, protective shorts of misinformation campaigns.

[Mighty AC]

What we really need are governments dedicated to the removal of pesky environmental protections and a commitment to keeping the fine structure and cleanup requirements for spills lower than the cost of proper engineering, maintenance and monitoring.

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." - Fight Club

Edited April 2, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Topaz]

When one looks at the pictures of th spill and it being in subdivisons,one has to feel sorry for those people and now in Canada, the feds are talking more about the pipeline going East-West, which means this could happen in Ontario and Quebec, which is closer to the Great Lakes, if there was a spill and there will be sometime, as always http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/us/arkansas-pipeline-spill/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews .

[eyeball]

Maybe the solution is to manufacture as many goods as possible where the energy is located rather than the other way around. It would mean one less thing to move.

I can't for the life of me imagine Alberta objecting.

[Guest American Woman]

I think everyone who opposes pipelines should be prohibited from driving a car.

They should be required to walk/bike everywhere no matter what the weather.

Or they could drive electric cars ...

[RNG]

Or they could drive electric cars ...

The electricity magically appears how? You are just moving the location the pollution spews forth from. And given that NA still has the majority of it's electrical power coming from coal fired plants, that's just bad news.

[GostHacked]

This is what happens when a belief has a person. We need look no further than the influence of religion and supernatural thinking for this capacity to suspend disbelief to the extent that the real world becomes unreal.

Easter Island in the middle of an ocean is analogous to Earth in space. Human beings basically denuded the place of it's natural capital, the vast surplus of which was dedicated to the pursuit and furtherance of a belief system that was as delusional as the day is long. It may have taken as little as 800 years for the people of Rapa Nui to pull it off and it may be taking only a little bit longer for the rest of us to catch up but soon everywhere will be like Easter Island and for pretty much the same reason.

The Easter Island analogy is one I have used a few times as well. Over 10,000 people at one time living on that island and the trees were literally destroyed while the 3 factions warred with each other. Without the trees to support their way of life, there was really only one conclusion that could come about.

The result was they completely disappeared. A lot can be learned from their mistakes.