Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#111

Post by ako »

ThomPete wrote: post #106
ako wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s my point exactly, people don’t see a problem as they can’t compare our current situation with what it was like in the past. We’ve completely and utterly destroyed nature, seas are empty, air was unbreathsble at some point, all oyster banks completely gone, most wildlife going extinct and people are asking “what problem”? Thank you for proving my point.

I am assuming you consider yourself part of "people" which means that you are subject to the same problem unless you believe yourself to be enlightened. So the question still is what is the actual problem and how do you know it's correctly defined?

Wow, this makes me really sad. If you are so unable to see the problem I have no hope we'll ever fix this problem.

As I wrote in the top comment, I'm often surprised when reading articles which compare our current state with the past, the amount of life we've destroyed, the amount of pollution we're producing. So yes, subject to the same problem, but open to learning the facts...

You sound like the person that gets invited to a party, brings 100s of uninvited friends, completely trashes the house, kills a lot of the other invitees, and then is surprised when somebody thinks it's a problem:" you still have something resembling a roof, you can still sort of live here, what is the problem?"

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#112

Post by ThomPete »

ako wrote: post #111
ThomPete wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am assuming you consider yourself part of "people" which means that you are subject to the same problem unless you believe yourself to be enlightened. So the question still is what is the actual problem and how do you know it's correctly defined?

Wow, this makes me really sad. If you are so unable to see the problem I have no hope we'll ever fix this problem. As I wrote in the top comment, I'm often surprised when reading articles which compare our current state with the past, the amount of life we've destroyed, the amount of pollution we're producing. So yes, subject to the same problem, but open to learning the facts... You sound like the person that gets i…

So in other words words you considder yourself enlightened and not part of the people. Well that explains a lot.

I know the facts, thats why i am not concerned.

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#113

Post by jimkri »

yursky wrote: post #18

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/oyster-tecture/ is an excellent podcast about this project. It summarizes the history of the ecosystem and the intent behind the project very well. It's amazing how much of an oyster mecca new york used to be...

Thanks for the link, I had no idea New York was such a popular oyster city. Also led me to the Build Oyster Project on Governors Island

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#114

Post by parasubvert »

ams6110 wrote: post #96
jeffbax wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A carbon tax is really the only immediately workable and impactful solution to climate change. We can't flip a switch and have the change activists want overnight. That both parties have abandoned a revenue-neutral carbon tax (sell it to the people as a replacement for other taxes, like payroll, rather than a new tax) is of the worst policy realities we have found ourselves in. "Green New Deal" is a bunch of hysteric…

One problem is that the public "sales pitch" for a new tax is almost always a lie when compared to what the money is actually spent on and loopholes and exemptions that are never disclosed up front. Nobody believes that a carbon tax will achieve or change anything other than taking more of their money.

But see, that's a misunderstanding of what a carbon tax is for. The federal government could burn that money and the carbon tax would still be effective. It's about pricing carbon into the market for goods and services, full stop. We are otherwise subsidizing our own self-destruction (or, more specifically, the heightened risk of destruction of our coastal cities, heightened risk of extreme weather, and forced migration of a billion+ brown poeple that live closer to the equator).

In other words, it absolutely is a money grab. That's the point!

Would it be better if that money went to useful programs? Absolutely! Same as the rest of our tax dollars.

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#115

Post by ThirdFoundation »

raverbashing wrote: post #54

Zebra mussels might be up to the task as well, apparently they are an invasive species, they will live anywhere and will eat anything (But they are a freshwater species)

I grew up near Portage Lakes in NE Ohio. For much of my childhood, the water was a little murky, the seaweed wasn't too thick, and the lakes were pretty harmless (and fun) to swim in.

Sometime around 2001, zebra mussels were accidentally introduced (the common theory I've read is by attaching to a boat that had been docked in Lake Erie prior to being brought back to Portage Lakes). The zebra mussels spread very fast and the lake noticeably changed. The water became much clearer. As a result, more sunlight could penetrate the water, and it could penetrate deeper, so much more seaweed grew.

Personally, I hated them because they made swimming at our local park more dangerous. Their shells are sharp and will cut human feet pretty easily.

That being said, in hindsight they did appear to clean up the water a lot. I wonder if they actually made the lake healthier for humans to swim in and live near as a result?

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#116

Post by coldtea »

skybrian wrote: post #105
coldtea wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, etc. The Captain-Planet-Villain model of somebody literally cackling about how much pollution they're going to release into the world today is nonsense. Actually it's totally sensible and compatible with the actual actions of the various actors involved. Companies continue to plunder the ecosystem in ways that knowingly damage it (fracking, rainforest depletion, etc),…

That's different. The comment you're responding to was talking about people who want to pollute more even if they don't make any money doing it.

Does not making money, and even spending money, but polluting for the luxury it affords, count?

E.g. people wanting plastic bags, even if they have to pay $0.20 for them, over the hassle of bringing their own hard bags to the supermarket?

Or people preferring more polluting ways to commute (e.g. car with one passenger over metro/bus) because of the convenience for them?

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#117

Post by skybrian »

coldtea wrote: post #116
skybrian wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's different. The comment you're responding to was talking about people who want to pollute more even if they don't make any money doing it.

Does not making money, and even spending money, but polluting for the luxury it affords, count? E.g. people wanting plastic bags, even if they have to pay $0.20 for them, over the hassle of bringing their own hard bags to the supermarket? Or people preferring more polluting ways to commute (e.g. car with one passenger over metro/bus) because of the convenience for them?

The idea is that doing something because it benefits you (selfishness) isn't the same as doing it out of spite (to hurt someone else).

Though sometimes it can be both, or hard to tell.

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#118

Post by exitcode00 »

adrianN wrote: post #33
exitcode00 wrote: post #2

Imagine if the project was given the 5 billion tax dollars handed to Jeff Bezos instead of a measly 4.5 million... This is why the environments a disaster - not because you decide to buy an SUV

No, the environment is a disaster because we all consume way more than the planet can support.

Propaganda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koqNm_TgOZk

Re: Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters

#119

Post by jeffbax »

ams6110 wrote: post #96
jeffbax wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A carbon tax is really the only immediately workable and impactful solution to climate change. We can't flip a switch and have the change activists want overnight. That both parties have abandoned a revenue-neutral carbon tax (sell it to the people as a replacement for other taxes, like payroll, rather than a new tax) is of the worst policy realities we have found ourselves in. "Green New Deal" is a bunch of hysteric…

One problem is that the public "sales pitch" for a new tax is almost always a lie when compared to what the money is actually spent on and loopholes and exemptions that are never disclosed up front. Nobody believes that a carbon tax will achieve or change anything other than taking more of their money.

That's why you pass it with a measurable, visible reduction in other taxes -- "revenue neutral"

Which is generally what Democrats don't want to do b/c its not raising taxes, and Republicans don't want to do b/c its not lowering taxes… but it'd sure go a long way to actually incentivizing heavy CO2 producers to change their ways that multilateral, international agreements have so far failed terribly at actually accomplishing anything about.

Post reply on HN