Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas

[Canuckistani]

Or they could drive electric cars ...

As long as the electricity is made from hydro power and there's no plastic or rubber on the car. - those come from oil too.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

An oil spill such as this is in a different category than "pollution," but wind can be utilized to create electricity.

[GostHacked]

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!

This is why I keep saying about how toxic we have made our environment. Pollution is one factor among many. Reduce that alone and we can make some real difference in how the planet can recover.

[Canuckistani]

I've

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.

Me too. But there's somebody on this forum who claims that Easter Island was not destroyed by human activity. Not sure what he claims the cause is. Anyway, we're much smarter and technologically advanced over those Islanders, so we'll figure out technological fixes no problem.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Canuckistani]

An oil spill such as this is in a different category than "pollution," but wind can be utilized to create electricity.

Why go the circuitious route. Just put sails on cars and go with windpower. No transmission or storage losses.

[GostHacked]

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.

Prevention of a spill should not cost more than the clean up. Larger fines for these companies that have these kinds of misshaps. Look at the damage from the DeepWater Horizon, and the cost to BP was a slap on the wrist. A simple half a million dollar blow out preventer valve could have saved BP about 7 billion.

Why would we want to remove environmental protections? But it is calculated in their business model. They expect to pay X amount if something goes wrong. Other than that, very little accountability to these corporations when the cost of clean up is quite low. Jack that cost way up, and you can bet these companies will make the effort to make sure their stuff is safe for people and the environment.

[TimG]

But there's somebody on this forum who claims that Easter Island was not destroyed by human activity.

As with most history, the facts are usually warped to match the narrative desired by whoever is writing the history:

The first colonists may not have arrived until centuries later than has been thought, and they did not travel alone. They brought along chickens and rats, both of which served as sources of food. More important, however, was what the rats ate. These prolific rodents may have been the primary cause of the island's environmental degradation. Using Rapa Nui as an example of "ecocide," as Diamond has called it, makes for a compelling narrative, but the reality of the island's tragic history is no less meaningful.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island/1 Edited April 2, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

I've

Me too. But there's somebody on this forum who claims that Easter Island was not destroyed by human activity. Not sure what he claims the cause is. Anyway, we're much smarter and technologically advanced over those Islanders, so we'll figure out technological fixes no problem.

Easter Island inhabitants demise was definitely from their own doing. The island first could not sustain their growth. But maybe that is not accurate either. More to say that they could have survived if they were not warring with each other and raping the island to continue the battles. When the last few trees were cut down, that sealed their fate. The resources ran dry.

Trees were important to them in the fact that boats could be made. No trees, no boats, making fishing a lot harder. It's got a cascading effect that people either are not willing to entertain, or are willingly ignoring it.

There are no technological fixes to replace what the planet can do naturally. That would be fine if we have the technology now, but do we? Or are we going to wait for that tipping point to happen before action takes place?

What we are getting at here is a notion of preventing a disaster BEFORE it happens.

The saying goes "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

[Canuckistani]

We're hopeless as prevention, always about the cure. just look at our medical system.

[Guest American Woman]

Why go the circuitious route. Just put sails on cars and go with windpower. No transmission or storage losses.

So you've got nothing relevant to say in response? That's kind of telling in itself; perhaps you best say nothing in such circumstances.

[eyeball]

I've

Me too. But there's somebody on this forum who claims that Easter Island was not destroyed by human activity. Not sure what he claims the cause is.

To properly destroy Easter Island you'd have to disassemble the place down to the seabed. To comparably destroy the Earth is likely also beyond our technical ability. The real lesson of Easter Island is that once the diversity and productivity of the land, it's natural capital that is, was consumed by human economic activity the place became largely uninhabitable because of the reduced number of opportunities to live or thrive there.

Anyway, we're much smarter and technologically advanced over those Islanders, so we'll figure out technological fixes no problem.

We're also more spiritually advanced so we can expect real results when we pray to our sky god.

[eyeball]

As with most history, the facts are usually warped to match the narrative desired by whoever is writing the history:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island/1

This possibility doesn't change the summary of Easter Island's original biogeography, it only adds to it in fact. Human introduction of invasive species is as high on the list of causes of extinction and loss of diversity as the human destruction of habitat which also clearly occurred.

Edited April 2, 2013 by eyeball

[Mighty AC]

Prevention of a spill should not cost more than the clean up. Larger fines for these companies that have these kinds of misshaps. Look at the damage from the DeepWater Horizon, and the cost to BP was a slap on the wrist. A simple half a million dollar blow out preventer valve could have saved BP about 7 billion.

Why would we want to remove environmental protections? But it is calculated in their business model. They expect to pay X amount if something goes wrong. Other than that, very little accountability to these corporations when the cost of clean up is quite low. Jack that cost way up, and you can bet these companies will make the effort to make sure their stuff is safe for people and the environment.

I was being sarcastic. We need Sartalics damn it!

[GostHacked]

I was being sarcastic. We need Sartalics damn it!

I kind of thought so. Did not seem to fit into your usual posting style. But I can agree and get behind sartalics!!

[GostHacked]

To properly destroy Easter Island you'd have to disassemble the place down to the seabed. To comparably destroy the Earth is likely also beyond our technical ability.

We are well within the technical ability to destroy the earth, more specifically destroying it to the point where sustaining life is not naturally possible anymore.

[eyeball]

Not So Easy

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.

So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer: Do not think this will be easy.

http://www.livescience.com/17875-destroy-earth-doomsday.html

[RNG]

To properly destroy Easter Island you'd have to disassemble the place down to the seabed. To comparably destroy the Earth is likely also beyond our technical ability. The real lesson of Easter Island is that once the diversity and productivity of the land, it's natural capital that is, was consumed by human economic activity the place became largely uninhabitable because of the reduced number of opportunities to live or thrive there.

We're also more spiritually advanced so we can expect real results when we pray to our sky god.

I'm not so sure. Basically Haiti is ecologically destroyed and still hasn't sunk. And it looks like the Voodoo sky gods weren't much help.

[GostHacked]

Not So Easy

Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.

So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer: Do not think this will be easy.

http://www.livescience.com/17875-destroy-earth-doomsday.html

Only a fool would believe man could not destroy the earth. Sure the earth will still be around after we are gone, but will it be able to sustain life?

We could send all the nuclear weapons to the deepest sea trench and set them all off at once. Cracking the planet in two. We can and definitely have the technology to void the planet of life or destroy it completely.

[The_Squid]

We don't just "clean up" oil spills. Their effects can have serious consequences on the environment for years.

[Accountability Now]

We don't just "clean up" oil spills. Their effects can have serious consequences on the environment for years.

That depends on where the spill is. If its in the ocean then yes you are right. If the spill happens on land with low water tables then you do clean it up. That's why the Keystone pipeline got rerouted in Nebraska in order to avoid the aquifer under the ground.

Oilfield drilling sites spew oil on the ground all the time and are restored to pre-drilling state once the drilling is done.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

It isn't ridiculous in the least. The environment existed before we were here and will exist after we're gone. And if we continue present behaviour, we will be gone sooner rather than later.

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.

Yes, the economy does make real things that we need. And there is nothing wrong with it, in moderation. However, when you add up nuclear weapons and basketballs and sugar cubes and private yachts and investment banking and pedicures into this one big thing called a GDP, you lose track of what's needed. And then when you prioritize this one big thing over everything else, including the biosphere on which we all rely, that's a very bad trade.

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.

I'm sure it's much easier to debate with someone when you invent what they say rather than actually reading what they wrote. I never said the economy doesn't matter.

[Mighty AC]

The way we view the economy has to change. We only value growth which is not sustainable on a finite planet with finite resources.

Additionally, our resource use has to become cyclical, just like natural nutrient cycles. Systems have to be designed so that the waste products of one process become the inputs for another. Currently, our resource use is linear, typically beginning at a mine and ending in waste. This thread is about one of three North American pipeline leaks that occurred in one week. Focusing on that, we already have the knowledge, technology and funds to almost completely eliminate fossil fuel use by replacing the energy and various end products with renewable, cyclical options. All we're missing is awareness and the political will.

[Accountability Now]

It isn't ridiculous in the least. The environment existed before we were here and will exist after we're gone. And if we continue present behaviour, we will be gone sooner rather than later.

So I take it your arguement was a simplistic one.....saying that the environment doesn't need economy to exist. Is that right? So that would be equivalent to saying the environment doesn't need health care or education or anything else that humans do?

Yes, the economy does make real things that we need. And there is nothing wrong with it, in moderation. However, when you add up nuclear weapons and basketballs and sugar cubes and private yachts and investment banking and pedicures into this one big thing called a GDP, you lose track of what's needed. And then when you prioritize this one big thing over everything else, including the biosphere on which we all rely, that's a very bad trade.

Ok...so you do agree with my statement about economy being part of the equation.

I'm sure it's much easier to debate with someone when you invent what they say rather than actually reading what they wrote. I never said the economy doesn't matter.

It actually has been fairly easy to debate with you because you have already gone against what you originally said. Let me quote you:

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.

Money is a symbol of our economy which you said is real. Therefore money is real. You also go on to say that an economy will not exist with an environment that can support healthy living. Again....I have already shown you that economy has been around way before we had environmental issues. So this is not true.

I didn't invent things. These are your words. You can easily end this arguement by saying that you posed a simplistic argument that the environment doesn't need economy. However, the fact is that humans do. And quite frankly what should we care about the environment if humans aren't on it. Do you worry about the moon or Jupiter. Our only reason to care for the environment is to ensure that we can continue to thrive. I agree that we need the environment but we also need the ecomony. Not having ecomony is flat out ridiculous.

[Accountability Now]

The way we view the economy has to change. We only value growth which is not sustainable on a finite planet with finite resources.

Yes...I can agree with that.

[GostHacked]

So I take it your arguement was a simplistic one.....saying that the environment doesn't need economy to exist.

The environment was there before the economy. So yes, the environment does not need an economy to exist.

Is that right? So that would be equivalent to saying the environment doesn't need health care or education or anything else that humans do?

What you stated is no equivalent.

The proper thing to say is the economy could not exist without the environment. The economy was essentially built on natural resources aka the environment. Take the environment away, and what do you have?

Edited April 3, 2013 by GostHacked