Sunday, August 28, 2005
Urban sprawl is a hoax
Worries about urban sprawl are a "valiant marketing effort," says writer Christopher Falvey, but "humans still take up a minuscule amount of the planet." Even if our population grew to fifteen times its current size, it would still be "basically infinitesimal."
Falvey has a web site that endorses, among other things, free-market environmentalism. But his article on urban sprawl was picked up in the August 28th Sunday Oregonian, which is pretty amazing since the paper usually endorses the war on sprawl. In fact, it gave the article the entire top half of section B, Commentary.
Curiously, the Oregonian did not see fit to post the article on its web site. Instead, the site just mentioned that Falvey was reviewing a "new book, 'One Planet Many People,' with stunning satellite images showing 'before' and 'after' photos of man's impact on the world -- logging, farming, cities -- (that) is sadly revealing. Writer Christopher J. Falvey says environmentalists dwell on the miniscule rather than take a global view" (scroll down to "Commentary").
In other words, the web page obscured and almost completely turned around Falvey's message. But at least the print version is out there.
Falvey has a web site that endorses, among other things, free-market environmentalism. But his article on urban sprawl was picked up in the August 28th Sunday Oregonian, which is pretty amazing since the paper usually endorses the war on sprawl. In fact, it gave the article the entire top half of section B, Commentary.
Curiously, the Oregonian did not see fit to post the article on its web site. Instead, the site just mentioned that Falvey was reviewing a "new book, 'One Planet Many People,' with stunning satellite images showing 'before' and 'after' photos of man's impact on the world -- logging, farming, cities -- (that) is sadly revealing. Writer Christopher J. Falvey says environmentalists dwell on the miniscule rather than take a global view" (scroll down to "Commentary").
In other words, the web page obscured and almost completely turned around Falvey's message. But at least the print version is out there.
Comments:
This happens to be one of the most ignorant article I've read in a long time. The writer does not have a case and argues on the point of the ignorant. Since he has no supporting facts or knowlege on the distruction of urban sprawl, it therefore does not exist.
From the article:
>>>>Carbon dioxide emissions for the decade were X tons. Great, that seems like a lot, but what specific events are honestly going to happen because of this?<<<<<<<
This is ignorance.
Since he does not understand the ramifications of carbon dioxide, he disregards the damage completely. Pure Ignorance.
From the article:
>>>>Carbon dioxide emissions for the decade were X tons. Great, that seems like a lot, but what specific events are honestly going to happen because of this?<<<<<<<
This is ignorance.
Since he does not understand the ramifications of carbon dioxide, he disregards the damage completely. Pure Ignorance.
OK, so how many acres of farmland are needed to support a typical person living at the American standard, e.g., allowing for heavy consumption of red meat? Even in the U.S., you'll run out of suitable arable land rather quickly. It helps Los Angeles and Phoenix, for example two locations in a desert that otherwise could not support 20 million+ people, that there are large mountains in both states that captures large amounts of water that in turn supports intensive agriculture in California's great Central Vally and the Salt River Valley of Arizona. Otherwise the population density would be closer to Somalia or Chad.
This happens to be one of the most ignorant article I've read in a long time. The writer does not have a case and argues on the point of the ignorant.
Pure Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well fallacious arguments.
Since he has no supporting facts or knowlege on the distruction of urban sprawl, it therefore does not exist.
Assertion Without Proof that there is any "destruction" due to urban sprawl. That there is destruction is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are other trade offs that may be preferable to being crammed like lemmings in urban centers.
This is ignorance.
Merely opinion, which has already been expressed, and saying doesn't make it so.
Since he does not understand the ramifications of carbon dioxide, he disregards the damage completely. Pure Ignorance.
Begs the Question that there are "ramifications of carbon dioxide" - which hasn't been proven yet. Assuming what someone else "understands" is the mark of immature argument. Not everyone buys into the Global Warming Orthodoxy.
OK, so how many acres of farmland are needed to support a typical person living at the American standard, e.g., allowing for heavy consumption of red meat?
Less and less all the time as farming, genetic engineering and other advances make farming more efficient. Despite all those evil "red meat" eaters.
It helps Los Angeles and Phoenix, for example two locations in a desert that otherwise could not support 20 million+ people, that there are large mountains in both states that captures large amounts of water that in turn supports intensive agriculture in California's great Central Vally and the Salt River Valley of Arizona. Otherwise the population density would be closer to Somalia or Chad.
If pigs flew we'd all carry very heavy duty umbrellas around. The fact is those mountains do exist and thus the argument is utterly without merit. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. Even if there were no such mountains human beings could have, would likely have, found other ways to inhabit such useful areas.
Now, who is ignorant?
Pure Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well fallacious arguments.
Since he has no supporting facts or knowlege on the distruction of urban sprawl, it therefore does not exist.
Assertion Without Proof that there is any "destruction" due to urban sprawl. That there is destruction is a matter of opinion, not fact. There are other trade offs that may be preferable to being crammed like lemmings in urban centers.
This is ignorance.
Merely opinion, which has already been expressed, and saying doesn't make it so.
Since he does not understand the ramifications of carbon dioxide, he disregards the damage completely. Pure Ignorance.
Begs the Question that there are "ramifications of carbon dioxide" - which hasn't been proven yet. Assuming what someone else "understands" is the mark of immature argument. Not everyone buys into the Global Warming Orthodoxy.
OK, so how many acres of farmland are needed to support a typical person living at the American standard, e.g., allowing for heavy consumption of red meat?
Less and less all the time as farming, genetic engineering and other advances make farming more efficient. Despite all those evil "red meat" eaters.
It helps Los Angeles and Phoenix, for example two locations in a desert that otherwise could not support 20 million+ people, that there are large mountains in both states that captures large amounts of water that in turn supports intensive agriculture in California's great Central Vally and the Salt River Valley of Arizona. Otherwise the population density would be closer to Somalia or Chad.
If pigs flew we'd all carry very heavy duty umbrellas around. The fact is those mountains do exist and thus the argument is utterly without merit. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. Even if there were no such mountains human beings could have, would likely have, found other ways to inhabit such useful areas.
Now, who is ignorant?
Falvey says that environmentalists like to say how many acres are covered with urban development without saying how many acres there are in total. That is not ignorant. That is perfectly true. I once reviewed an environmental publication that talked about urban development in Oregon in terms of the number of football fields that were being developed. This made it seem like development was huge when in fact it was only a tiny proportion of the state.
Falvey also says that urban development really covers only a small percentage of the world, and even if our population were much greater, it will still be a miniscule percentage. This is also true.
The number of acres of ag land needed to support people is continually declining because agricultural yields are growing. We have a billion acres of arable land in the U.S. and less than a third of those are used for growing crops. So you will not run out quickly or, for that matter, ever, because per acre yields are growing faster than our population.
Falvey is not ignorant, but the anonymous writers of the above comments are.
Falvey also says that urban development really covers only a small percentage of the world, and even if our population were much greater, it will still be a miniscule percentage. This is also true.
The number of acres of ag land needed to support people is continually declining because agricultural yields are growing. We have a billion acres of arable land in the U.S. and less than a third of those are used for growing crops. So you will not run out quickly or, for that matter, ever, because per acre yields are growing faster than our population.
Falvey is not ignorant, but the anonymous writers of the above comments are.
Who is ignorant?
Source of "billion arable acres," please. Most of this "arable" acres is in the West, which lacks the water, unless you want to spend hundreds of billions and divert the Columbia River to the dry Great Plains, I suppose. A techno fix and just a litle will save our butts? Yeah, right. Never mind you can only grow hay in large quantities in wide swaths of the Rocky Mountain West due to altitude.
It is truly amazing how you ignore the simple facts of geology and climatology, Randal.
Post a Comment
Source of "billion arable acres," please. Most of this "arable" acres is in the West, which lacks the water, unless you want to spend hundreds of billions and divert the Columbia River to the dry Great Plains, I suppose. A techno fix and just a litle will save our butts? Yeah, right. Never mind you can only grow hay in large quantities in wide swaths of the Rocky Mountain West due to altitude.
It is truly amazing how you ignore the simple facts of geology and climatology, Randal.
