Journal pudge's Journal: Councilman Dave Somers And Enviro-Extremism 22
In a guest commentary in the Herald, Snohomish County Councilman Dave Somers is telling us that because "vehicle emissions comprise half of the state's greenhouse gases that fuel global warming," that therefore we should "devise ways that allow us to live prosperously while driving less."
Somers' main point is that we should reduce "car-dependent sprawl," that is, that we should all live in cities so we can reduce resource consumption.
The message is clear: your quality of life doesn't matter nearly as much as slavish belief in unsubstantiated claims about anthropogenic global warming.
We shouldn't try to come up with solutions to problems that will improve our quality of life; instead, we should solve problems by reducing our quality of life. Make no mistake: the point here is opposition to all change, except change that reverses our positive direction. Forward is backward. Up is down. Progress is regress.
Somers wants HB 2797 to pass, an ignorantly written bill that proffers the false claim that "the effects of global warming are becoming evident in Washington, adversely affecting its residents, economy, and environment."
That's a claim that even the UN's IPCC dismisses, as it has not been able to link events or effects to global warming: in their words, "[i]t is likely [i.e., greater than 66% probability] that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems." They continue: "Limitations and gaps prevent more complete attribution of the causes of observed system responses to anthropogenic warming. First, the available analyses are limited in the number of systems and locations considered. Second, natural temperature variability is larger at the regional than the global scale, thus affecting identification of changes due to external forcing."
In other words, the IPCC is basically saying: "what we see in the evironment is mostly consistent with the theory of man-made-CO2-caused global warming, but we don't have nearly enough data, or understanding, to come to a serious conclusion."
How can the legislature be certain of something that our world's top group of pro-global warming scientists say cannot be certain? Simple: truth does not matter to the regressives. It's the ends, not the means. If the argument works, it is right, whether it is true or not.
This is Washington State. No one here wants to destroy our beautiful forests, and everyone wants to decrease pollution. But we also want to live well, not just "prosperously." I can't enjoy the forest if I live in the city, both because I won't see it very much, and because even when I do, I'll be so completely stressed and depressed by my living conditions that it will provide little solace.
I don't like cars much. I work at home in large part because I hate being on the road. But it is necessary, because I'll be damned if I am going to live in, or near, a city. You think us gun-toting rural individualistic citizens are scary now? Wait until we all go crazy from having to live in an urban area.
That's not meant as a threat, of course, but just a reminder that the colonies went to war over significantly less than the right to own and improve land. And they weren't driven mad by living in a duplex or townhouse.
If you like living in the city, great. If that is for you, then that is for you. The point is not that you shouldn't live in the city, but that each of us makes our own choices, and the government doesn't make those choices for us. That's what liberty means. It's astonishing to me that people out there still insist that it's Republicans that want to control people's lives, when the Democrats prove every day with bills like this that they want to completely control our lives right down to what we are allowed to buy, drive, eat, and live in.
Maybe it won't be so bad; the Democrats will probably just force us to take antidepressants to address our "anti-social" behavior. And I wish that sounded a lot more like hyperbole than it does.
Now Playing: Jonathan Coulton - Christmas Is Interesting
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Politics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841 [amazon.com]
I'm about halfway through.
From TFA:
This will hold t
Re: (Score:1)
Which is a meaningless sentence, but to be fully expected if you're currently hip-deep in Jonah's book.
Re: (Score:2)
My biases are in Goldberg's direction, making good feedback even more important.
Re: (Score:1)
Mind you, any political blog (regardless of leaning) worth its salt will have a post or two and attendant attached discussions on the book, although some digging might be required, as the 'peak' was a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
His arguments moving into the '60s seem strained.
You also have to keep a weather eye on any of these political/historical books, as they easily slip into a mode of "one hand clapping" due to their focus on half the argument.
Bruce Thornton [amazon.com] seems a little more scholarly, and my German wife grudgingly admits that his arguments are sound. A couple years ago, when newlywed, we had spoken of moving across the pond, but her zest for Old
Re: (Score:2)
!car dependent sprawl!=cities (Score:1)
Don't know what Somers wants, but those of us opposed to sprawl do not advocate concentrating everything in urban landscapes, that generalization is false. What we're opposed to is the desert/oasis model of acres of tract homes with a nucleus of big box stores that make life virtually impossible without a car. Simply put, more granularity during the zonin
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know what Somers wants, but those of us opposed to sprawl do not advocate concentrating everything in urban landscapes, that generalization is false. What we're opposed to is the desert/oasis model of acres of tract homes with a nucleus of big box stores that make life virtually impossible without a car.
And the alternative is ... what?
The current housing crisis and the upcoming oil crunch will deliver the lesson much better than any of us could.
What lesson?
Re: (Score:1)
Mentioned it just where you snipped. As I said, it's a capsule description, but this being 2008, I trust you know how to use Google to learn more on the subject.
What lesson?
That these types of developments are unsustainable for much longer, at least in the form they've enjoyed since the 1950's. Like I said, go read up on the subject. Fascinating stuff that's only going to become more and more relevant, especially for those of us in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You said this: Simply put, more granularity during the zoning process is the goal.
I still don't see how "granularity during zoning process" answers the question of "how". And how is google [google.com] going to help us "learn more" about your "how"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. You've linked to descrptions of Urban Sprawl! And IM being "lazy" and "clever"?
You made a claim. Back it up.
Perhaps where you went to school you could make claims which the only "back up" and references you needed were to attached a picture of your local library, but that doesn't fly with me. It's sloppy, lazy and displays poor critical thinking skills. When you are called on it you resort to a personal attack calling me "lazy" which reinfo
Re: (Score:2)
And the alternative is ... what?
Mentioned it just where you snipped. As I said, it's a capsule description, but this being 2008, I trust you know how to use Google to learn more on the subject.
Nope. As Jhon said, this is not helpful. Increased granularity in zoning is a MEANS to accomplish various goals. It does not tell us what the goal IS.
What lesson?
That these types of developments are unsustainable for much longer, at least in the form they've enjoyed since the 1950's.
Sure, where "much longer" is "many decades into the future," and "unsustainable" means "no less sustainable than cities are."
Like I said, go read up on the subject.
You first.
Re: (Score:2)
It means, we know what's better for you. (Of course, you already knew this.)
Why would you want to go to the store occasionally and buy lots of stuff, when you could walk to the store every day to pick out what to have for dinner? What are you, some kind of facist?
Who knows how sustainable anything is, until it fails? Things continue or fail for lots of reasons, many of which are quite unpredictable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And the alternative is ... what?
The village/small town model. Not a city but not as spread-out and car dependent. By way of example say instead of allowing 1 house per 5 acres in a 100 acre plot you allow a cluster of 20 houses at one spot in the plot.
Not sure what the real answer is as I don't feel zoning laws in most places produce good results, but the counter-examples with little to no zoning seem to do even worse (Houston TX anyone?).
What lesson?
That the current pattern of suburban and exurban sprawl is unsustainable. In some parts of the coun
Re: (Score:2)
What lesson?
That the current pattern of suburban and exurban sprawl is unsustainable.
No less sustainable than anything else.
Personally I'm not so sure. While I'm no free market fundamentalist it seems to me that currently unoccupied residential and commercial space will find a level that the market will bear. Similarly with energy people and the market will find their own solutions be that more fuel efficient vehicles, public transit, bicycles, electric golf carts or telecommuting/driving less.
Yep.
Nothing to see here, move along!
Re: (Score:2)
They have an official name for it (around here, San Diego, at least) it's called a "city of villages." Whatever.
Because I'm on my local neighborhood planning group board I've been privy to tons of talk on this stuff, and one local project is being touted as a prime example. They have their own web site [quarryfalls.com] if you want to see. I personally like the project. Not because of any of the sustainability type stuff, but because it just looks like a pretty nice development. It has a lo
Re: (Score:2)