BF2S Forums oil spill

Spark wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Eh, I can dig up a few articles containing environmentalists bitching and moaning about wind farms disrupting bat migrations if you want. There's always something.

So what if there's always something? Sure why shouldn't bat migration be a factor in deciding where to put up windmills? Certainly doesn't imply the whole idea/tecnology/benefits are wrong does it? What's your point then?

his point is that environmentalists are often very, er, one sided and many can only look at one thing at once. they'll lobby and hassle for wind powers and block coal mines and shit and then complain about wind farms chopping off the odd bird, or solar panels forcing a few turtles to migrate.

he's right about it too...

He's right about it if you consider 'environmentalists' to be in any way one homogenous group. However, like lowing and his banding of Muslims together, or indeed any other very large group, it's a false idea. I consider myself an 'environmentalist' in the sense that I think we should care for the environment (obviously there's more to it than that but surely that's the basic belief). beyond that you have a few billion people, most of whom will have differing ways of understanding how best to achieve that goal. Some think that building wind farms should take into account the local environment, including bat migration routes. Others might think it's more important to get the windmills up any old where. And let's not forget that wind farms are a business like any other which still have a otentially negative effect on the enironment (again, especially locally). Obviously many people, including perhaps galt and you, just consider 'environmentalist' to be some kind of insult, and have some weird hippy tree hugger image in mind. It's just ignorant labelling innit?

By the way although Galt made it sound trivial - possibly because he doesn't know anything about it - the issue of bat migration is important enough for those noted environmentalists the U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/) and, er, Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 132107.htm) to report on it. The bat issue is simply one of location, and has nothing to do with the effeectivemess of wind power. So using bat migration as an example of how ridiculous 'environmentalists' are and to rubbish the need for alternative energy, in this case wind power, is itself ridiculous.

Spark wrote:

Obviously many people, including perhaps galt and you, just consider 'environmentalist' to be some kind of insult, and have some weird hippy tree hugger image in mind. It's just ignorant labelling innit?

i don't think you've been around here long enough.

meaning what?

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Spark wrote:

his point is that environmentalists are often very, er, one sided and many can only look at one thing at once. they'll lobby and hassle for wind powers and block coal mines and shit and then complain about wind farms chopping off the odd bird, or solar panels forcing a few turtles to migrate.

he's right about it too...

He's right about it if you consider 'environmentalists' to be in any way one homogenous group. However, like lowing and his banding of Muslims together, or indeed any other very large group, it's a false idea. I consider myself an 'environmentalist' in the sense that I think we should care for the environment (obviously there's more to it than that but surely that's the basic belief). beyond that you have a few billion people, most of whom will have differing ways of understanding how best to achieve that goal. Some think that building wind farms should take into account the local environment, including bat migration routes. Others might think it's more important to get the windmills up any old where. And let's not forget that wind farms are a business like any other which still have a otentially negative effect on the enironment (again, especially locally). Obviously many people, including perhaps galt and you, just consider 'environmentalist' to be some kind of insult, and have some weird hippy tree hugger image in mind. It's just ignorant labelling innit?

By the way although Galt made it sound trivial - possibly because he doesn't know anything about it - the issue of bat migration is important enough for those noted environmentalists the U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.fort.usgs.gov/BatsWindmills/) and, er, Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 132107.htm) to report on it. The bat issue is simply one of location, and has nothing to do with the effeectivemess of wind power. So using bat migration as an example of how ridiculous 'environmentalists' are and to rubbish the need for alternative energy, in this case wind power, is itself ridiculous.

Yes, do you know where the bats migrate to and from? They cross the US from Mexico to Canada and back again. Every single part of the continental United States is on the path of bat migration. My point is that you're never going to please everyone and in most cases you have to sacrifice one groups goals in order to do anything at all. If people are sounding the alarm saying oil consumption will be the death knell of the world within 20 years... and we try to build a wind farm to stop using oil... but are protested by someone complaining about bat migrations... when they will also say the world will end in 20 years anyway from the oil... aren't the bats fucked either way...? There's no logic to the environmental movement. They each have their own pet thing. Save the Whales. Save the Dolphins. Save the Tuna. Save the Whateverflavorofthemonthcausewecanthinkupnext.

I suppose that's still better than the standard "save our profits" agenda of big business.

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose that's still better than the standard "save our profits" agenda of big business.

It's actually identical. NIMBYism has to do with nothing more than protecting home values

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyone else see the irony of Obama turning out to see the oil spill in his personal 747?

I guess his cape was in the shop.

Kmarion wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyone else see the irony of Obama turning out to see the oil spill in his personal 747?

I guess his cape was in the shop.

lol

lol, all these louisiana fishermen on TV whining about losing their way of life.  "Who's gunna help me?"  I bet every last one of them is a lifelong candyassed liberal.   

DRILL BABY DRILL!

Harmor wrote:

Changing topics slightly for a conspiracy theory for ya:  Anyone consider that another country sabotaged or missiled the oil rig?  I mean the Chinese are drilling for oil in the area...or perhaps the North Koreans with China's OK?  Just putting this out there until this is investigated fully.

Well, Trotskygrad or however it's spelled made a thread in EE about conspiracy but didn't get much attention.

JohnG@lt wrote:

There's no logic to the environmental movement. They each have their own pet thing. Save the Whales. Save the Dolphins. Save the Tuna. Save the Whateverflavorofthemonthcausewecanthinkupnext.

Of course we all have our own pet things in every area of life. That's not a criticism. So friggin what? Of course people focus on certain things. Big fuckin deal.

Only reason you think there's no logic is because you consider 'the environmental movement' one single entity, which is a stupid way of thinking about it. And even if you were right, then so what? How does that affect the need to care for our planet? You have no interest in doing that, or..?

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-02 22:56:59)

ruisleipa wrote:

Only reason you think there's no logic is because you consider 'the environmental movement' one single entity, which is a stupid way of thinking about it. And even if you were right, then so what? How does that affect the need to care for our planet? You have no interest in doing that, or..?

I suppose you've never lumped conservatives into a single entity, have you? Or Republicans, for that matter, have you? You're just as guilty of what you're railing against G@lt for, ruisleipa. It's called generalizing, and it happens all the time in D&ST. The problem is that G@lt's generalization is--in general--correct. At least about environmentalists in the US. He's not referring to the same group of environmentalists when he's talking about the wind farm issue. He's talking about multiple groups within the environmental movement that are working at odds to each other, ultimately not achieving any environmental goals because they can't achieve unity of effort because each group's pet rock is deemed the most important one. So you end up with no wind farm because it poses some theoretical danger to bat migration (not thinking that bats might just change their migration path or something crazy like that). It's not even an all or nothing thing--it's nothing or nothing--because they can't get their feces co-located.

ruisleipa wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyone else see the irony of Obama turning out to see the oil spill in his personal 747?

No.

Katrina much?

Kmarion wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyone else see the irony of Obama turning out to see the oil spill in his personal 747?

I guess his cape was in the shop.

yes to first and lol to second.

however, it really doesn't matter... at all

Fuck this shit, i get to watch my home be destroyed.

Last edited by .:ronin:.|Patton (2010-05-04 14:12:08)