Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Supports Offshore Drilling?????? (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  please post source (0+ / 0-)

    for your overly broad claim that 'environmentalists' object to the Cape Cod wild farm and SD Solar farm.  Which environmentalists?  All of them? Some of them? One group? A coalition?  Environmentalists are not a monolithic block, and wealthy landowners in big homes on Cape Cod might not really be 'environmentalists.'  Who exactly are opposing these projects?

    •  for instance... (0+ / 0-)

      From Grist:

      A long-simmering disagreement within the environmental community over a plan to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass., is now boiling over into a highly public quarrel.

      The four-year-old battle started heating up last summer when Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal, a shallow portion of Nantucket Sound south of Cape Cod. ...

      In mid-December, Kennedy, wanting to explain his position to critics and the public at large, published an impassioned op-ed in The New York Times in which he argued that the wind farm would mar a precious seascape, privatize a publicly owned commons, and damage the local economy.

      That, in turn, prompted about 150 environmental advocates -- including global-warming authors and activists Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan, Bluewater Network founder Russell Long, and youth leader Billy Parish -- to circulate a letter asking Kennedy to reconsider his position. "We are, simply put, in a state of ecological emergency," it read. "Constructing windmills six miles from Cape Cod, where they will be visible as half-inch dots on the horizon, is the least that we can do."

      •  re: (0+ / 0-)

        The Sierra Club in SD is for Solar Farms - except for the SD Solar Farm which they are steadfast against.  The Kennedy's are for offshore wind, except when it's in Cape Cod - which they have done a wonderful job of blocking.

        It's great how that works out - then we can bitch about Big Oil blocking a transition to alternative energy - even though it's those on the left - local environmentalists who continue to block these projects.

    •  Links And Stuff (0+ / 0-)

      Both of these projects are being blocked by the Left.

      The SDSF is opposed by the Sierra Club, among others.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... (if you want more sources, let me know)
      http://www.signonsandiego.com/...

      Cape Wind was blocked by the Kennedy family (although, admittedly, many environmentalist are for this project).

      http://www.boston.com/...
      http://query.nytimes.com/...

      •  All energy has trade offs, including wind/solar (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina

        Sometimes they are not appropriate for some places even where it blows and shines.  

        For instance in this case you fail to mention that the transmission line would carve through a state park, known for its important natural qualities.

        You're doing better, providing some links, but your first statement basically said "I support clean air which is why I oppose environmentalists."  

        Still, you don't even bother to mention the trade offs inherent in this specific project or that the groups you sleight do in fact offer alternatives--rooftop solar in this case, produced locally and not needing to be transmitted so far.  

        Of course San Diego Power doesn't like that, because it goes to homes before it gets fed into the grid, whereas putting it on the grid first means they make the cash.

        Again, there are trade offs to all of this. And the issues are more complex than your simplistic statement paraphrased above. Your position sounds more like GOP talking points than very substantive in my opinion.  

        •  You Have No Idea What You're Talking About (0+ / 0-)

          It's clear you didn't even know what the San Diego Wind Farm was, much less who was for it or against it - which is why you needed to resort to insulting when you googled that my statement was right.

          Or maybe you're just a geniune all around asshat - seeing as this started with you accusing me of not caring about children - yippee.

          I didn't go into details - positive or negative - about these projects because I assumed you had some basic level of understanding of what they were - given that you had such a strong take on the issue.  I won't do that again.

          The SDWF opponents oppose it because they don't want a set of power lines going through a park.  There is no (or very minor) environmental damage that would be done - or than aesthetics.  

          The environmental left wants to block wind power to over a half million homes over aesthetics.  And you're okay with this?  Do you not care about the children?

          There's another wind project 30 miles from me in upstate NY that's attempted to be blocked by environmentalists because of migrating bats.  Similiar projects were blocked in the southeast and elsewhere.

          It's always something isn't it?  Block wind, solar or nuclear because of some aesthetics or relatively minor environmental issue while throwing out some unrealistic hypotheticals to save face.  Meanwhile, while we're protecting bats and the aesthetics of parks, we're destroying everything else.

          •  asshat? (0+ / 0-)

            Or maybe you're just a geniune all around asshat - seeing as this started with you accusing me of not caring about children - yippee.

            I didn't go into details - positive or negative - about these projects because I assumed you had some basic level of understanding of what they were - given that you had such a strong take on the issue.  I won't do that again.

            Pay attention.  You are having problems following posts and confusing me with another, apparently.  Did I accuse you of "not caring about children"?  No.

            I did know about Cape Cod--and I showed that while Robert Kennedy is opposed to a wind farm there, many other environmentalists support it, contrary to the implications of the post of yours I first responded to.  I did not know abut the project in San Diego, nor did I have a strong position.  My point is that there are trade offs and you present it in black and white.  Where energy is concerned, whether fossil fuel or renewables, I often see shades of grey.  That is my only point.  As for being an asshat, maybe you're just getting some reflection off that screen of yours?

             

          •  and what was insulting in my last post? (0+ / 0-)

            that I disagreed with you?  a bit thin-skinned are we? I imagine there are lots of energy issues that you don't know about.  I certainly don't know about them all, and California isn't my turf.  Here are the insults you have lobbed at me:

            Or maybe you're just a geniune all around asshat - seeing as this started with you accusing me of not caring about children - yippee.

            I assumed you had some basic level of understanding of what they were - given that you had such a strong take on the issue.  I won't do that again.

            Here was my post that set you off, I bolded those parts that you might have imagined to be insults, noting that in the first I said that you are doing better by providing links (rather than assuming everyone shares your knowledge base) but that I still thought your comment--to which I was responding--was overly broad and general.  In the second I even added that it was my opinion, which kind of tempers the :insult" I would think, kind of like..."in my opinion I still think you are mistaken."

            All energy has trade offs, including wind/solar  

            Sometimes they are not appropriate for some places even where it blows and shines.  

            For instance in this case you fail to mention that the transmission line would carve through a state park, known for its important natural qualities.

            You're doing better, providing some links, but your first statement basically said "I support clean air which is why I oppose environmentalists."  

            Still, you don't even bother to mention the trade offs inherent in this specific project or that the groups you sleight do in fact offer alternatives--rooftop solar in this case, produced locally and not needing to be transmitted so far.  

            Of course San Diego Power doesn't like that, because it goes to homes before it gets fed into the grid, whereas putting it on the grid first means they make the cash.

            Again, there are trade offs to all of this. And the issues are more complex than your simplistic statement paraphrased above. Your position sounds more like GOP talking points than very substantive in my opinion.  

            •  You're Entire Post Was Belittling And Strawmen (0+ / 0-)

              which wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't from someone who had to use google just to see what the conversation was about.  Somehow in less than an hour you've found out enough about the San Diego project to know I'm dishing out GOP talking points on it.  That's remarkable.

              Personality conflicts aside, you can't put up anything defending the Sierra Club on this, or the Kennedy's on Cape Cod, or a dozen wind farms across the country that are either blocked, shut down, or sued by environmentalists.  

              It's not Big Oil and their offshore drilling that is keeping this transition from happening.  That's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.  It's the Left even more than the Right that keeps setting us back and the "cut off the nose to spite the face" mentality has to stop.  

              •  I didn't google (0+ / 0-)

                I used the link that you finally posted.  The reason I wanted the link was not to see if the Sierra Club really blocked it but to see what their reasons were.

                Its not straw man argument, and I sketch it out in more detail below, again, in case you might take the time to try and understand it, which I am doubting.  

                You are thin-skinned and can't deal with someone challenging you.  

                Where I live the environmental groups are actively pushing alternatives, winning at the ballot measures that require investments in wind, etc.    

                My point is--regardless of the SD project which I readily admitted I did not know about--is that there are trade offs in energy production even renewables, and yes those should be considered.  

                Just as drilling is appropriate in some places, renewables are not appropriate in all.  

                I pointed out that the opponents to the SD project had reasons for their position, I never said I agreed with their position, merely that there are trade offs and that they had reasons.  Like I said, and this is the third time now, I do not know the particulars of the project, I don't have an opinion, good or bad.  

                But I do know, for instance, that lots of bats are great pollinators and that with the rapid decline in bees we need pollinators.  Other bats eat 700-1,000 mosquitoes a night.  Where I live mosquitoes carry West Nile and when there are too many they spray pesticides.  Integrated pest management is a better approach and it includes things like encouraging bats and other insect-predators.  Again, I am not saying 'save the bats-stop wind farms.'  I am saying all these issues include trade offs, its not as simple and black and white as it seems that you are portraying it as.  

                If you find that demeaning, fine.  Its not meant to be demeaning, its just that I find your arguments weak and simplistic.

                You still have not really addressed my issue, continuing to make up your own, calling me an asshat because you thought I was an earlier poster, etc.  

                I think makes you both the insulter and the one constructing strawmen arguments.  But again, that's just me and I'm just some random person posting on a blog, so you might not let it get to you so much.

                Its a political blog.  Its all about back and forth and people challenging you when they disagree.  

                •  You Challenged Me At What Exactly? (0+ / 0-)
                  You seem to be saying we should weigh the plusses and minuses of each project.  Fine, I've done that and come to a conclusion.  A slightly less aesthetically pleasing park/harbor/random rural area is worth the trade off for ridding ourselves of oil.  

                  The entire offshore drilling/importing of oil/etc becomes moot if we push these type of projects into fruition instead of suing them to block it.

                  Your position is that you don't seem to have one - you just disagree with mine of supporting Green Energy (which is a GOP talking point!).  

                  •  I have one. But I wasn't aware (0+ / 0-)

                    that you are so thin-skinned.  Sorry to have pushed your buttons.  

                    Like I said, where I live environmental groups have been leading the charge to develop more renewables, but I do think that in some cases they don't make sense.  

                    Location matters and there are competing values that should be considered, some of those are aesthetic, and some are environmental (like species that will be impacted).  As you point out, fossil fuels are a really problem, so on balance wind and solar are generally less impactful and a better choice, but not necessarily appropriate everywhere someone wants to build a large array or wind farm.  That has been my point all along.  

                    I am glad that you have weighed the costs and benefits.  The initial post to which I was responding was framed in the broadest of terms, and I think misleading.  Maybe I read it wrong, maybe you meant "and against the objections of [a few] environmentlists [like Rebert Kennedy] that oppose them..."  You'll notice in my initial post I didn't defend Robert Kennedy writing

                    Environmentalists are not a monolithic block, and wealthy landowners in big homes on Cape Cod might not really be 'environmentalists.'

                    Have a nice day. Over. Lefty "asshat" Wingnut

                    •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

                      Define few how you want, but the Sierra Club has hundreds of thousands of members - that is a fact.  RFK Jr opposed and Teddy blocked Cape Wind (and many enviro's support Cape Wind).  My original one sentence posting could've went in more detail, but the point is that it's our side blocking these projects.  It is the work of liberals that is helping to feed Big Oil and the Climate Crisis by blocking these projects, not this ridiculous offshore drilling chatter.

                      Your argument has finally boiled down to putting out vague statements (not necessarily appropriate everywhere? - is it possible to make that more vague?) - and having no opinion whatsoever on anything specific (that's how problems get solved!).  

                      Sincerly,

                      omgisparishiltonthinskinned

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site