Industrial waste spill--Frankstown branch Juniata

No one is saying it's not an issue. Fortunately it's not a bigger issue then it really is. We live in a modern society. There is a price for that and we are all willing to pay that price. Some just don't like to admit it so they talk about how recycling a plastic bag makes them a bigger friend of the earth. Although driving a Kia and wearing wool does absolutely nothing towards saving the environment, if it makes you feel better then have at it. Just don't force all of us to drive a Kia so a few can merely feel good.

Then why did you pose the question in the first place and imply that unless one is making responsible choices, then they have no right to complain about these pipelines and these inevitable accidents?

How have you guys reduced your dependencies on oil, plastics and other synthetics? Sounds to me you like to use what modern society offers but complain about the delivery.

You asked the question and I answered it, no one here is 'forcing' you do anything. I drove my old CR-V into the ground, traded it for a more efficient, used Outback. I choose to purchase clothing made from responsibly sourced natural fibers instead of petro based products where possible. I avoid single use items as much as possible and buy local when possible to have less of in impact on transport needs. I walk around town when running errands if possible, I also turn out the lights when I leave a room, etc, etc, etc.

To say that none of these choices "does absolutely nothing towards saving the environment" is selfish, foolish and mistaken, imho. I do what I can do have less of an impact, be less dependent and thus reduce the need to construct these pipelines that do little to benefit my locality at perhaps irreparable expense. These are my choices and the balance I'm trying to achieve, but to each their own I guess.
 
troutbert wrote:
FarmerDave wrote:
tomgamber wrote:

I wouldn't say conservationist is 100% synonymous with environmentalist, ecologist, nature lover, and especially preservationist, but there is a lot of overlap... meaning sometimes they are synonymous.

Why is this such a big deal?

The idea is to portray those who care about the environment as extremists who are out to ban sport fishing.

Oh, that idea does exist, but in this case was it just your idea that it was the other guys idea?

BTW, The previous question was rhetorical, as is this one.
 
tomgamber wrote:

brookie chaser must be referring to the politically rhetorical definition. :-D

The fact that you disagree with me reassures me that I am correct.




 
SurfCowboyXX wrote:
Why would it matter if you drove the car to 300k miles or someone else did? The whole carbon footprint thing is a joke imo. You can manipulate the data to prove whatever you want. Is there a such thing as "mpg shaming"?

Supply and demand, that's why. Math. If I keep my car longer, then the overall demand for new cars drops a tiny bit. If everyone does, overall demand drops significantly. Overall demand for cars dropping means less need for raw materials, which means less environmental impact. Leasing cars and trading them in every few years DRIVES demand and production of vehicles, and when you see how many sit unused in lots over time, you realize that a lot of environmental impact was wasted on the assembly of vehicles that are unused. Just a poor allocation of resources, based entirely upon consumer ego. That, and I think it's a lot smarter financially to get the maximum use of durable goods.

Makes sense. But what I'm saying is if every car was driven until 300k miles it doesn't matter who is driving it. Most cars are driven by someone until they die (even if it's not the original owner). Junkyards arent full of cars that run or need minor repairs - used car lots are. The only vehicles I can really think of that weren't were pulled off of the road during the cash for clunkers program. Either way I follow your point and this is getting way off topic.
 
Then why did you pose the question in the first place and imply that unless one is making responsible choices, then they have no right to complain about these pipelines and these inevitable accidents?

"How have you guys reduced your dependencies on oil, plastics and other synthetics? Sounds to me you like to use what modern society offers but complain about the delivery."

The question was posed because I know you, like me, enjoy driving a car, air conditioning, heat, modern fishing rods, etc... and I knew someone would say they reuse plastic bags to save the planet rather then say they got rid of their car, AC, heat and modern conveniences. There's walking the walk but reusing a plastic bag is nothing more then talking the walk.

You asked the question and I answered it, no one here is 'forcing' you do anything. I drove my old CR-V into the ground, traded it for a more efficient, used Outback. I choose to purchase clothing made from responsibly sourced natural fibers instead of petro based products where possible. I avoid single use items as much as possible and buy local when possible to have less of in impact on transport needs. I walk around town when running errands if possible, I also turn out the lights when I leave a room, etc, etc, etc.

To say that none of these choices "does absolutely nothing towards saving the environment" is selfish, foolish and mistaken, imho. I do what I can do have less of an impact, be less dependent and thus reduce the need to construct these pipelines that do little to benefit my locality at perhaps irreparable expense. These are my choices and the balance I'm trying to achieve, but to each their own I guess.

The earth is a over 4 billion years old. In another 4 billion years the earth will explode into a giant fireball. By you avoiding single use items "as much as possible" will not save or lengthen the inevitable. Not using petroleum based products "where possible," walking "if possible," and turning lights out when you leave a room is not doing anything more then making you feel better.

My point, and you proved it, is you can give up all those things if you really mean what your saying, but you don't. Instead you use and enjoy everything I do and then say "where possible, if possible, as much as possible, I turn lights out and I reuse plastic bags" to make you feel like your sacrificing for the sake of the planet.
 
If one consumes less, they consume less, period.

Less consumption lessens one's impact and need to rely on extractive industries. That's just simple math. I say 'where possible' because if I made the claim that I do something 100% of the time, you'd tell me that's impossible to do, so why bother trying.

Just because you're not willing to make the effort and these small sacrifices of your personal, selfish, creature comforts, doesn't mean they don't have an effect. So please don't belittle other's efforts to have a positive effect just because you're not willing to. I don't have to go live off the grid in a tree house or a cave in order to have a positive impact.
 
tomitrout wrote:
I don't have to go live off the grid in a tree house or a cave in order to have a positive impact.

You mean have less of a negative impact, consumption is not a net positive no matter how responsible you see yourself. I'm all for doing the best I can to lower my impact on the environment, does it help...it definitely wont hurt. Sometimes I feel it's like a putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound though. It's easy to forget just how much one consumes on a monthly basis.
 
ryansheehan wrote:
tomitrout wrote:
I don't have to go live off the grid in a tree house or a cave in order to have a positive impact.

You mean have less of a negative impact, consumption is not a net positive no matter how responsible you see yourself. I'm all for doing the best I can to lower my impact on the environment, does it help...it definitely wont hurt. Sometimes I feel it's like a putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound though. It's easy to forget just how much one consumes on a monthly basis.

You are only "one" Ryan, but there are 350,000,000 "ones" just in the US. If everyone does a little, it ends up being a lot.

Correction, there's Poop so > 349,999,999.....:roll:

The thing about Poop's attitude seems to be 180 from his other posts. He constantly talks about not wasting money and saving for the future. If you drive a more fuel efficient vehicle, you save money, same for using or installing a more efficient AC or heat unit, turning off the lights, car pooling, combining trips to drive less, better insulating your house, reusing and/or recycling.

All these things help save energy as well as saving money. Good for the environment as well as good for your wallet. Can't see who loses or why anyone would be against such things..:-?
 
2018 Toyota Camry hybrids are rated at 52 mpg.

That's amazing. And they are comfortable cars, not cramped.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=alts&path=3&year1=2017&year2=2018&vtype=Hybrid&srchtyp=newAfv#

 
ryansheehan wrote:
You mean have less of a negative impact.

Was gonna type the exact same sentence.

(This is clearly still a good thing...err, less of a bad thing. You get my point.)
 
troutbert wrote:
2018 Toyota Camry hybrids are rated at 52 mpg.

That's amazing. And they are comfortable cars, not cramped.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=alts&path=3&year1=2017&year2=2018&vtype=Hybrid&srchtyp=newAfv#
. Sorry I cancel your " sacrifice " out ........ "98" F350 dually w/ Powerstroke pre-emission diesel ........ 10-12 mpg and tuned to " roll coal "........🙂🙂🙂
 
SmoothOperator wrote:
troutbert wrote:
2018 Toyota Camry hybrids are rated at 52 mpg.

That's amazing. And they are comfortable cars, not cramped.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=alts&path=3&year1=2017&year2=2018&vtype=Hybrid&srchtyp=newAfv#
. Sorry I cancel your " sacrifice " out ........ "98" F350 dually w/ Powerstroke pre-emission diesel ........ 10-12 mpg and tuned to " roll coal "........🙂🙂🙂

My "sacrifice?"




 
Wow, I had to Google "roll coal" to find out what it was....you're a true Hilljack just know about such things

Yeah, "rolling coal" rates right up there with dumping your old refrigerator in the creek, wearing a confederate battle flag belt buckle, and skinny-dipping with your sister. Good times.
 
SurfCowboyXX wrote:
Yeah, "rolling coal" rates right up there with dumping your old refrigerator in the creek, wearing a confederate battle flag belt buckle, and skinny-dipping with your sister. Good times.

And only marginally better than catching fish on spinning tackle or kayaking.
 
/\ That right there is funny, I don't care who you are! LOL!
 
"Roll coal"

You must be one of those profoundly unenlightened inbred folks who pride themselves in being ignorant...
 
Top