Oil spill on east side.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/incidents/SulphurCreekSpill/index.html

It isn't either/or.

They said it was used motor oil, so how many here are going to stop driving, or using any form of transportation that needs lubrication or fuel.

So if I keep driving you don't care if I dump my oil change in the the crik?

One more product of a greed/profit driven culture!

I will reread my post, because from what I recall this wasn't even hinted at.

I realize that 99% of what I do on this planet has a negative affect
(I'm giving myself the benefit of the doubt in saying 1% may not be harmful). If you drive or do anything else that requires chemicals or some manufactured product you are contributing to the problem, you aren't innocent. Then factor in that you want that activity or product at as low of a cost as possible, which increases the risk of something like this happening.

The oil or fuel could be spilled either on it's way to or from you, plus you burn the gas or diesel. No part of that is clean.

I always chuckle when I see people on here complain about everybody else's activities being a problem and not their own, population growth, crowded rivers, pollution, etc.

I have no argument with what you just wrote. I just get irritated by the line of thinking that is if you use any product that has varying degrees of negative effects on the environment you have no right to complain about the irresponsible excesses. I would like to see all environmental degradation stopped but that's unrealistic. I think we should do everything possible to prevent oil spills like this and not disperse the responsibility by implying if you drive a car you are directly connected to an irresponsible spill like the one in the article. Beyond this,I'm all for moving toward carbon free clean energy ASAP.

Everything possible? From a statistical viewpoint how many standard deviations is that??? Throw the word "reasonably" in there and you have my support for what its worth.

And since I'm in my Doubting Thomas mode please enlighten us with specifics for carbon free clean energy and particularly for vehicles and boats.

"Moving toward" was a general and unspecific statement but more solar ,wind and any other clean renewable technologies should be top priority. People living close to their work would help. As for boats, just changing from 2 to 4 cycle engines help. In the big picture boats are minor concern when compared to things like commuter traffic and coal fire power plants. I'm sure that if we applied the same effort to creating the atom bomb or landing man on the moon we could come up with some good alternatives to dirty finite carbon energy.

Live closer to work? Why not just build 50 story, 500 sq. ft. apartment buildings*

That would be one tall, skinny, apartment building.

Or quite a few of them.

If we want to maintain wildlands, hunting, and fishing and continue reproducing we are going to have to live in areas with significantly higher population densities. We have the choice to make...................

Perhaps.

No. If we choose not to "lock up" lands from conversion to homes, factories, etc. we have decided not to have much wildlife

Don't we have 'locked up' land?

That is my point. Unless we have lands that will not be developed, and these tracts are large enough and connected enough to support naturally reproducing populations of animals and plants, we will lose our wildlife.

Not suggesting "locking up" in the sense that some use it such as make it all National Parks or Wilderness with only hiking, no hunting or fishing, etc. The lands can and should be used in manner that sustains the ecological function.

Save it or lose it.

We have lands dedicated to not being be developed, perhaps not enough to please you.

Limits on the types of uses in which that land could be used could very possibly help. I just don't think that the solution to our problem is nearly as easy as the solution of a very complex equation.




Just replace a few of the constants with question marks and check your results.

The solution is certainly not easy because it requires that we actually answer the question of how many people will live not only on earth but also in each location. Further, limiting population will significantly affect government services. Fewer people would mean less taxes collected to support services.

It is a very complex issue and i don't pretend to have all the answers. But if we simply ignore the question because it is too difficult and (probably) too unpleasant to solve we have decided not to deal with it.

The answer is...have as much fun as you can possibly have and say f@ck it.