Did environmentalism kill science?

[Capt Worley PE]

To prevent this from getting reclassified under the political thread... (although it may end up there if anyone continues it)... I will say... as a country, we really need to get politics out our crap.

100% agree.

But....here's the deal. making it a political issue takes it out of the realm of logical discussion. That's what some groups, not necessarily political ones, want. They want people to react to stimulus, not think about the truth behind the stimulus or the end result of their reactions.

You're not old enough to remember this, but you can confirm this through research: Both global cooling in the 70s and global warming were blamed on fossil fuels. Tell me there isn't an agenda there.

I suspect it is to control power and transportation, but I admit I have the tinfoil hat on.

 

[engineergurl]

I have issues with any and all of the "research", papers, documentaries, and well, anything to do in general with the nature of global cooling/warming... until they can actually PROVE to me that it is not a cyclic trend and that the ONLY reason why whatever is happening is due to human impacts, I think that they should keep their mouths shut and and their heads down crunching numbers and collecting data.

For real, how long do we actually have accurate records of the temperture trends for the earth. However there is in theory evidence that suggests that the earth has long been experiencing cyclic trends prior to any major human fossil fuel usage/impacts. (Think 20,000 to 25,000 years back.... glaciers covering portions of the North Eastern part of our country... last time I checked, it was said that plate techtonics, the earths orbit and tilt, solar variations... and others... could all be feasible theories of contributing factors in historical climate change.

All that said, the earth is a self clensing and self balancing place usually. By chance or design, if left alone, just as a small ecosystem will undergo it's own recovery phases following impacts (human or natural), the earth probably will too. Since we can't just leave the earth alone, we have to hope that it will adapt to the changes our influence is creating and acknowledge the POTENTIAL that we have to make alterations.

Do I think everyone should say "there is no such thing as global warming" and ignore their carbon foot print totally.... not really, we can't deny that SOMETHING is happening... but am I going to go buy a prius? nope.

Honestly, the regulations that are in place in many locations may actually hurt the environment. If our expectations of a business are to abide to a set of standards that they don't have to meet elsewhere, whey would they establish themselves here. So many people say that the big bad companies move to other countries for the cheap labor, and I'm sure that's true, but is our government making it any easier for them to operate profitably here? So now, the factory is someplace else who is more concerned with their countries economy that they do not have the regulations and awareness that we have here, and they get cheap labor with out having to follow our rules... and they are impacting the "GLOBAL" environment someplace where we can't do anything about it.

So while China, the United States and the European Union aim to reduce our emmisions (I checked and those three alone contributed over 40% of the emmisions in 2005)...and I will say, to my understanding China is just NOW starting to put caps on things. Places like South Korea producing nearly 2% to our 16% that year, comparing the population and land area... I just don't understand why we are in a tizzy to tighten up OUR reglations other than the politicians want to make it look like everyone cares and is warm and fuzzy.

I'm pretty sure we just said the same thing though Capt. I just backed the conspiracy theory up with statistics and data.

 

[engineergurl]

by the way, I have no issues with environmentally friendly cars... they get great gas milage and are nice to peoples pocket books I've heard...

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I'm pretty sure we just said the same thing though Capt. I just backed the conspiracy theory up with statistics and data.

Concur.

 

[guitarjamman]

I am okay with people not being for the environment if they aren't of the "not in my backyard" attitude. If you are okay that we destroy the wetlands in order to put in walmart 20 miles away, you have to be just as okay with it next door to your house. If you don't care if the factory downstream is exceeding their TMDL of lets say mecury pollution, well then you have to be just okay with it if it were upstream.

I understand the exceedance of TMDL for hazardous materials as it may find it's way into drinking water, and I am all for trying to curb the environmental impacts of large site design projects, but when I have had projects get stopped because the wetland scientists and the Town Con-Com agent are in the bed together, I have an issue. The Wetland Scientist keeps blue spotted salamanders and will carry them to the site and drop in a standing pool of water - now we have a vernal pool with an endangered species. Raise the white flags and blow the budget folks, this project is now dead in the water!

When we develop sites for the betterment of the public (schools, hospitals, access roads for highways) and the project runs near a wetland, unless the client has a good amount of money reserved for these issues, they have the potential to go belly up fighting. Local and state NOI fees can easily exceed $5,000 (In fees alone!), lets not factor in our time at nightly meetings (we have been fighting a specific project for over a year now). Walmart may be an eye sore, but when you talk about how much everyone will benefit from the jobs and services, the local enviromentalist con-com agencies need to get off their high horses and listen. While I understand they are follow state codes, they all have the power to push for lieniency.

Hell, if a pilgrim pissed in the woods, it is considered a wetland. How many wetlands have been created due to highways and railroads being constructed? We have a site that was worked on in 1986, the detention pond for the parking lot and building has elevetated the existing wetlands table and they have crept to take more land. Now we are within 100' and cannot expand the parking lot without fighting for an NOI. Maybe we could be within 25' after flagging has been completed. Something does not add up and while I understand these rules and regs are in place to protect the environment, there comes a point when being ridiculous is the norm.

 

[engineergurl]

I am okay with people not being for the environment if they aren't of the "not in my backyard" attitude. If you are okay that we destroy the wetlands in order to put in walmart 20 miles away, you have to be just as okay with it next door to your house. If you don't care if the factory downstream is exceeding their TMDL of lets say mecury pollution, well then you have to be just okay with it if it were upstream.

I understand the exceedance of TMDL for hazardous materials as it may find it's way into drinking water, and I am all for trying to curb the environmental impacts of large site design projects, but when I have had projects get stopped because the wetland scientists and the Town Con-Com agent are in the bed together, I have an issue. The Wetland Scientist keeps blue spotted salamanders and will carry them to the site and drop in a standing pool of water - now we have a vernal pool with an endangered species. Raise the white flags and blow the budget folks, this project is now dead in the water!

When we develop sites for the betterment of the public (schools, hospitals, access roads for highways) and the project runs near a wetland, unless the client has a good amount of money reserved for these issues, they have the potential to go belly up fighting. Local and state NOI fees can easily exceed $5,000 (In fees alone!), lets not factor in our time at nightly meetings (we have been fighting a specific project for over a year now). Walmart may be an eye sore, but when you talk about how much everyone will benefit from the jobs and services, the local enviromentalist con-com agencies need to get off their high horses and listen. While I understand they are follow state codes, they all have the power to push for lieniency.

Hell, if a pilgrim pissed in the woods, it is considered a wetland. How many wetlands have been created due to highways and railroads being constructed? We have a site that was worked on in 1986, the detention pond for the parking lot and building has elevetated the existing wetlands table and they have crept to take more land. Now we are within 100' and cannot expand the parking lot without fighting for an NOI. Maybe we could be within 25' after flagging has been completed. Something does not add up and while I understand these rules and regs are in place to protect the environment, there comes a point when being ridiculous is the norm.

I am interested in what state you are in, since you are correct, something does not add up. To my knowledge the Blue Spotted Salamander is not on the Federal T&E Species list, it's a regional concern, only listed on the state T&E lists for some of the north eastern states. Addtionally, just because a few are found on a site, does not mean that it has to create a head ache for the project.

Who does this Wetland Scientist work for? Most initial studies can be conducted at the cost of the developing entity by a firm hired by them. While on occasion you may run into issues further into the process but it is usually only during an extreme change of conditions. If you are saying that a regulator is bringing a state T&E on site, there are plenty of checks and balances in place that you can implement, I have yet to find a situation where any regulator is the end all, be all of anything. Granted, you have to challenge them respectfully and intelligently, but it is most definitly an option.

I am also not exactly sure what issues people are fighting and ending up belly up... do they not want to pay the permit fees? are you discussing mitigation costs associated with the project?

As far as wetlands being created due to highways and rail roads... if the project was properly engineered in the first place, then a wetland wouldn't have been created. Are you saying that you have a 100' buffer or 25' buffer you are dealing with? Stream and Wetland deliniation isn't exactly an art form, you should be able to know what you have based off of on survey.

Honestly, your post is so all over the place and lacking information, I can't even figure out what your point was other then to whine about a supposedly corrupt local system and how much everything costs.

I conclude that your argument is invalid.