Disgusted

Timbow

Active Member
What was the carbon footprint of your extravagant trip?

How much carbon based fuel was used on your trip? ( plane, your car, fishing lodge)

Did you confront the gas and oil people at your fish lodge and tell them how evil they are?

You can stay local and catch salmon and have a much less negative impact on the environment

I think Europe has the right idea in flight shaming


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europes-flight-shame-movement-has-travelers-taking-trains-to-save-the-planet/2019/08/02/1bd38486-ac96-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html
That's almost as funny as the "climate change experts" attending the Google Camp Conference on Climate change that are arriving in private jets and yachts. Do as I say, not as I do mentality at its finest!

The truth of the matter is that those evil oil & gas/mining folks made it possible for you to travel to Alaska and have a jolly good time yourself.

While I am 100% against the Pebble Mine Project, I also realize that my view on the matter is partially skewed because of my love of fishing. I think a lot of people who criticize others for their views fail to realize that their opinion/stance on a particular issue is usually biased and based on some factor that benefits them.
 

Driftless Dan

Active Member
The problem I have with mining, and other large-scale industries, is that you cannot trust them to do the right thing. There are likely safe(r) ways to pull metal from ore than the one likely to be used at the Pebble Mine site, but they don't yield maximum profit. Add to that the fact that they'll never in a million years be truly taken to task for past, present, or future misdeeds, means they can do what the hell they want with impunity. There are myriad examples of this in the extraction industries.

It is a incorrect argument to say folks are biased or hypocritical because they drive cars or take flights. It is a common right-wing ploy, but is in fact a fallacy. You're equating the travel of some fishermen and women to the area with the immense devastation that will inevitably occur with this mine. That is a false equivalency, but right wingers love to use it anyway. That argument should be understood to be the garbage that it is. People can live well in the modern age even with restrictions on corporate rapacity.
 

Timbow

Active Member
It is a incorrect argument to say folks are biased or hypocritical because they drive cars or take flights. It is a common right-wing ploy, but is in fact a fallacy. You're equating the travel of some fishermen and women to the area with the immense devastation that will inevitably occur with this mine. That is a false equivalency, but right wingers love to use it anyway. That argument should be understood to be the garbage that it is. People can live well in the modern age even with restrictions on corporate rapacity.
So just to be clear, you are fine with bashing guys that work in the Oil & Gas or Mining industries while you yourself gladly use the commodities that they produce to travel to destinations that wouldn't be possible without the products that they produce?

Your other point about maximizing profit is also flawed, especially when applied to companies that are engaged in strict commodities. The amount of capital that is needed to extract most of these commodities is massive and without the chance of massive profit, no company in their right mind is going to lay out billions in capital for a low ROI. Add to that that commodity prices fluctuate so much that downturns need to be built into the profit models over the life of the project. Sometimes prices stay high and huge profits are made, but just as often prices crash and huge losses occur.
 

Driftless Dan

Active Member
Again, a false argument. I am not "bashing guys that work in the Oil & Gas or Mining industries. I AM bashing their bosses, who feel that it is okay to despoil a watershed, by mining, to cause your drinking water to be flammable or otherwise undrinkable because of fracking, to render sterile thousands of square miles of ocean from offshore mining.

All of these can be avoided if those corporations would use the same precept as Hippocrates: "Primum nil nocere." First, do no harm. In fact, they just don't care. As much as you would like to defend those who would shit in your home, they are indefensible.

My argument about maximizing profit is 100% accurate. Again, yours is a false argument that those insane profits (at the expense of the environment) are needed so I can drive to work. It's a house of cards, and I'm more than happy to knock it down.
 

2kayaker

Active Member
So just to be clear, you are fine with bashing guys that work in the Oil & Gas or Mining industries while you yourself gladly use the commodities that they produce to travel to destinations that wouldn't be possible without the products that they produce?

Your other point about maximizing profit is also flawed, especially when applied to companies that are engaged in strict commodities. The amount of capital that is needed to extract most of these commodities is massive and without the chance of massive profit, no company in their right mind is going to lay out billions in capital for a low ROI. Add to that that commodity prices fluctuate so much that downturns need to be built into the profit models over the life of the project. Sometimes prices stay high and huge profits are made, but just as often prices crash and huge losses occur.
Interesting and probably telling that in your defense of a Return on Investment model for business decisions, you omitted environmental concerns specific to the site.(Iliamna water shed- including the Nushagak
River) Unfortunately, regardless of their PR, Mining companies previously earned a sloppy reputation. Wrong place to gamble on contamination.
 

FinLuver

Active Member
It is a incorrect argument to say folks are biased or hypocritical because they drive cars or take flights. It is a common right-wing ploy, but is in fact a fallacy. You're equating the travel of some fishermen and women to the area with the immense devastation that will inevitably occur with this mine. That is a false equivalency, but right wingers love to use it anyway. That argument should be understood to be the garbage that it is. People can live well in the modern age even with restrictions on corporate rapacity.
^^^THIS^^^ too is pretty heavy in fallacy and heavy on opinion...
For if it wasn't for your needs being met, driving the increases in market commodities, there would be no value in the "mean ol' nasty corporate giants" to pursue their activities that will most certainly harm the environment, such as the Pebble Mine will surely do.
It's not a matter of if, but rather when... ;)
 

wetswinger

Active Member
when I run instead of a tax credit per kid you will get a tax credit for no kids
Some people seem to have kids just to have more tax credits, I suggest another idea. Do just the opposite. Raise your taxes for every child you have. Have all the children you want but take the responsibility for them and their impact on the planet. Overcrowded schools? Pay up. Let's not reward people for having a billion kids.....
 

Driftless Dan

Active Member
Some people seem to have kids just to have more tax credits, I suggest another idea. Do just the opposite. Raise your taxes for every child you have. Have all the children you want but take the responsibility for them and their impact on the planet. Overcrowded schools? Pay up. Let's not reward people for having a billion kids.....
That's the same logic that has people saying they should not pay for schools because they don't have kids. Children are, or should be, considered an investment in our community's, our nation's, future. And they will pay for your Social Security, since Congress has raided those otherwise secure coffers.
 

Craig Pablo

Active Member
You that believe that conservation of public lands should not be political are naive. When the federal government controls the land and special interest lobbies pay big money to your representatives, their going to get what they want. Democrats seem to be less aggressive towards devlopment of the resources but they're no angels. Money rules the world. Until our lame government changes the laws to deflect the influence of special interest, it will be a challenge to protect any public lands that holds resources that some for profit company lust for.
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately our government can do nothing to overturn Citizens United, which was probably the biggest nexus to the influence of special interests. There are some campaign finance laws they can change which will be a step in the right direction, unfortunately, with a GOP president, the SCOTUS will align this way for some time to come....
 

girlfisher

Active Member
I'll just chime in to remind the overpopulation theorists that you, yourselves were once but a twinkle in your own daddy's eye, and had he and your mother not acted on it, you would not be here to write posts implying that other people shouldn't be having kids... But at least your mom would have a few thousand more dollars invested in consumer crap.
"Implying that other people shouldn't be having kids" My apologies if that implication wore through. If you look closely at Noel Perin's plan it was a choice and never implied that women should not have children. The plan simply said that the monthly allotment would stop when the woman decided to conceive. The allotment would restart when that same woman decided to not have children. Dr. Perinn's plan predicted that the money spent on his plan would be far less than the welfare payments we are now paying for fatherless families in dispair.
 

Jamie Dow

Active Member
"Implying that other people shouldn't be having kids" My apologies if that implication wore through. If you look closely at Noel Perin's plan it was a choice and never implied that women should not have children. The plan simply said that the monthly allotment would stop when the woman decided to conceive. The allotment would restart when that same woman decided to not have children. Dr. Perinn's plan predicted that the money spent on his plan would be far less than the welfare payments we are now paying for fatherless families in dispair.
You know the fine folks of Sweden tried this with societal instead of economic pressure, and so far it hasn't worked out as expected. No fewer people, just different demographics with resulting instability of their economic model.

Or, just institute the Junior Anti-sex League from 1984, somewhat based on the China model.
 

BullerRiver1

Active Member
What was the carbon footprint of your extravagant trip?

How much carbon based fuel was used on your trip? ( plane, your car, fishing lodge)

Did you confront the gas and oil people at your fish lodge and tell them how evil they are?

You can stay local and catch salmon and have a much less negative impact on the environment

I think Europe has the right idea in flight shaming


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europes-flight-shame-movement-has-travelers-taking-trains-to-save-the-planet/2019/08/02/1bd38486-ac96-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3
If you want to have a pissing contest about relative carbon footprints or environmental bona fides you'll have to look elsewhere. But if your hostility actually has motivated you to take constructive actions - other than internet rants - then good on you. And make sure you walk to the water when you next go fishing - that is, if you're not a hypocrite.
 

GeorgeV

Active Member
Mining industry doesn't have a very good record protecting the environment. Remember the tailing dam on the upper Fraser River that broke just a few years ago or the one that broke on the San Poil River. Some of those beautiful little trout streams in Montana have had so much damage done by miners using steam shovels. The companies in the mineral extraction business have never paid enough to 'we the people' that own the public land. Like the Pebble Mine, much of the mining here in the U.S. is done by foreign companies.
 
Top