a reply to: lakenheath24
You'll have to cut me a little slack on my tone. I'm just pretty frustrated at how badly I see my country faltering right now, and to seemingly great
applause. I'm not intending to direct anything at you personally.
It's just hard to really get all worked up over an issue that no one seems to really care about when it comes to being an inconvenience. People,
society, requires energy to thrive; that's just a fact. We are killing off our primary sources of energy; that is also a fact. And the worst fact of
all? No one listens when I point it out.
I'll agree there is no perfectly safe method of transporting fuels and oil. Deepwater Horizon affected my own state immensely, and I'm pretty sure it
actually shifted weather patterns for a few years due to disruption of the Gulf Stream. But it wasn't so much of an "accident" as it was incompetence
and poor oversight; the owners of the rig used surplus parts in critical areas that led to the rupture. They should all be thrown under
somewhere and left there until they're dust.
One can love and preserve nature and still take advantage of the benefits it offers. I'm living proof; I have cared for this place since I was a
child, and have also used this place I live on. It is as pristine and natural as it was the day I was born, and yet I manage to live in it and benefit
from it financially. Don't go thinking I hate nature; I love it. I just do something concrete about loving it.
5% may not sound like a lot, but in an area already dependent on stretched reserves, it can mean the difference between low fuel prices and a thriving
economy as opposed to fuel shortages and abject poverty. That abject poverty is more often than not the cause of ecological devastation when it
happens. Do you think the Amazon Basin is undergoing deforestation at such a high rate because people want
to destroy it? No, the people who
are allowing that deforestation are simply trying to survive and thrive with what they have. The loggers? They are doing their job. The logging
companies? They are trying to keep business good so they can profit.
I made a thread once about the "Captain Planet Syndrome" as I called it. Media has painted these villains as evil people whose only goal in life is to
destroy nature, and that's simply not the way it works. More often than not, people are just trying to either get out of poverty or at least not go
into poverty. So the very idea that allowing people to suffer poverty to save the environment is actually absurd. A better way is to help people
thrive without resorting to envoronmental devastation.
Right now, I have a hired team of loggers that are actively logging my mountain... something that hasn't been done in about 80 years, based on what we
can see. Every winter, they take out several loads of trees, mostly cedar and red oak. The result? Every winter I get a nice chunk of additional
income; the loggers make money; people have lumber available to build with; the mountain itself has never looked better; the younger trees are growing
again to replace the older ones; there's much less brush and debris to start a wildfire; the number of naturally fallen tress is much less. There's no
downside to anyone, including nature, but you'd be surprised at the ignorant statements I have have heard about my "reckless" treatment of nature.
Oil is no different. We can remove oil from the planet, use it to power our society, and the planet will simply make more. It's composed of two of the
most abundant elements in the planet: carbon and hydrogen. We can transport it safely, as long as we do not force people to take financial shortcuts.
Governor Witless is doing just that: she is forcing all these concessions from the owners of the pipeline, concessions that cost money, and thereby
forcing them to take shortcuts elsewhere... "I wish we could afford new valves, but we have to pay all these environmental fees. Maybe we can get
surplus valves and make up the difference?" In the meantime, what is Witless herself doing about improving oil transportation safety? Do you really,
for one moment, think a fleet of tanker ships is safer than a pipeline?
Just look at traffic the next time you step outside: that mass of jumbled vehicles moving in all directions is exactly what you are claiming is the
best way to transport fuels!
Are you beginning to get a sense of why I am frustrated right now? And even if, by some miracle, I manage to convince you that this is not about
saving the environment, within 5 minutes there will be someone else, someone who, ostensibly like you, has become accustomed to trusting an
untrustworthy media, who immediately expects me to do it again.
Face it: we are getting what we deserve. I don't want to see the Great Lakes devastated, of course not! But what do you want me to do about it? Spend
36 hours a day, 9 days a week doing nothing but trying to convince people who have already made up their mind of the truth?
Not gonna happen. Can't happen. That's what I mean when I say you got a "win." I gave up. I grew too cynical. Do it your way. Enjoy the
I am also a great advocate of our soldiers; if you knew me at all, you wouldn't even entertain any idea otherwise. I don't want you to have
go into dangerous areas! How is that disparaging anyone? The true enemies of our soldiers are those who would send them to die for selfish reasons,
not those who want them safe! Are you seriously claiming that the safest place for our military is a sandbox filled with flying bullets and IEDs from
people that already hate our guts for being us? Are you claiming that we are somehow helping our soldiers by sending them into those crapholes?
My God, man, think about what you are advocating here! I pray I just misunderstood you.