130 comments on Desalination - Energy Down the Drain
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
130 comments on Desalination - Energy Down the Drain
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Are Marinites protesting the fact that a desalination plant may mar the landscape or obstruct views of the beach/ocean, or is it the fact that the plant will be private/for profit? Just curious, as I've noticed a powerful NIMBY tendency among Marinites to oppose practically *any* form of development, even when it might be of benefit to the general public.
Marinites seem especially vehement when opposing anything that might attract or benefit lower income families (assuming there are any left in Marin). Marinites --especially trust-fund "I got mine" Boomers seem to hate the very idea of BART extensions, new multifamily/apartment developments, new "affordable" housing (defined as anything below $2 million in Marin), etc. I mean God forbid Marin's servant class is ever able to afford to actually *live* in Marin, barring inheriting some property from a rich relative. Hate to say it, but Marin seems to be the real-world embodiment of the "limousine liberal" crowd AM talk radio loves to lampoon.
I find it most interesting this tack that HARM is taking, the deliberate use of guilting tactics to drag in hot button social issues implying that Marinites are opposed to the lower classes and thus any social agenda that actually helps the poor must be ignored.
This insidious tactic is a well-worn right wing ploy that we will, unfortunately, see more and more frequently in the coming years, if not months, as we speed towards the brick wall of collapse.
The truth is corporations could give two hoots about you, the environment, the world. They are in it for the profits, the rest of us be damned, including the right and left wing rich people.
It is precisely HARM's sort of argument that will result in nothing significant being done to prepare the planet for the upcoming catastrophe. We will not see a coordinated effort to stop the one thing that is causing the problem (development, growth, etc.) because, while the top hatters scream at the people in steerage and vice versa, the ship goes down.
It is too late. The time to get serious has passed. No amount of social, technological, economical, or ecological tinkering is going to prevent an extremely gruesome and painful crash.
Obama is tied to the status quo and speaks of restarting the growth engine, the very thing that got us in this predicament.
I know the crowd here thinks itself the cool-tempered scientific elite, that their thinking is unmarred by the emotional messiness of the liberal arts, but the truth is they are just as committed to the underlying faulty paradigm as the rest of the world.
The Marinites (lovely name--reminds me of "The Ancient Mariner" in many ways) will suffer as much or more than the hoi polloi in the flats of that desert city L.A., just as much as the S.F. intelligentsia, because there are no walls in an ecology. There are only flows.
The one thing that is certain, everyone gets to participate in the collapse.
Ain't we got fun?
Well done deconstruction and analysis.
If by "Well done deconstruction and analysis" you mean "politically biased ego projection", then we're in 100% agreement.
Maybe you should re-read Cherenkov post again with your feelings/ego in firmly in hand.
Cherenkov does not accuse you of being from the right, he simple states that the type of argument you used is typical of the right's politics of division. He also states that this sort of argument will be used to delay any action and that it is already too late. I don't think that that is an attack on you, just an analysis of your post.
You do use a lot of emotionally-laden words to describe the citizens of Marin. Is this more about your dislike of Marin?
I think allowing localities to self-govern, even if they are selfish and short-sighted, is a good thing. Besides, if you are right about their faults, then they will begin to suffer for them as poor labor they need finds it increasingly difficult to get to Marin.
Is this more about your dislike of Marin?
Yes. Beautiful landscape, but... most of the people living there, not a terribly nice or egalitarian bunch.
I never meant to write a pro-corporate broadside against sensible conservation. I suppose I'm just tired of rich, smug, Bay Arean faux leftists pretending their protests are all about the environment or the children, when it's really all about keeping *their* property values up and diverting ugly, but badly needed infrastructure projects to poorer neighborhoods.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion --Marinite rant off.
Stop assuming you know what the heck we're thinking over here. Would you like me to interpret all your actions in the worst possible way? You're not helping and you'll just get the targets of your rants angry that their commitments aren't being recognized and honored. Then we'll just shut you out of the conversation and do whatever we want because it will have become clear that there is no way to win with you.
Are you always so ungenerous as you righteously judge other people's actions?
Cherenkov,
Funny how you assumed I'm a Limbaugh/Kudlow/Cheney-loving right-winger (I'm not) and projected the entire corporatist/neo-con worldview on me, all based on one post about Marin's insufferable smugness. If you disagree with my opinion of Marinites (as you obviously do), that's fine, but please spare me the straw men and your Fox News fantasy projections.
All I was implying was that Marin is largely populated by smug, hypocritical, self-serving and largely wealthy liberals --which it is. And I'm well aware that there are also many wealthy enclaves populated by smug, greedy, and equally self serving Republicans (as others have already pointed out). I guess the only real difference is, the rich right-wing snobs usually don't pretend to be advocating "for the little people" while simultaneously promoting economic policies that screw them, the way that your typical CA limousine lib does. Of course, the right-wing rich prefer to use other forms of misdirection --such as religion, gays (culture war wedge issues) and "free trade" ideology... but that's a topic for another discussion.
Are Marinites "opposed to the lower classes" (or at least the neighboring poor)? Well, based on their opposition to anything that might lead to affordable housing and public transportation anywhere *near* their neighborhoods, not to mention their "liberal" ;-) use of and political support for illegal labor vs. American labor, frankly YES. Does any of this change the inevitability of P.O. or the need for the world to find viable energy alternatives, reduce our populations, etc. while we still can? No. And what does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China? Not much.
I would think that even those trust funds you talk about are starting to show rather significant deterioration. Benefiting lower income families may start to show some traction, even in Marin.
(speaking as a Marinite) The people I know working against the desal plant think it is a waste of money and resources and would rather the county conserve instead. Also, some towns (Mill Valley, specifically) have a very high leakage rate in their fresh water pipe system because the pipes are over a century old. Why not put the money into maintenance where it's needed (hint: not as sexy for the planners). Last, building a desal plant works against the carbon reduction goals the county has supposedly adopted since desal plants are so energy-intensive.
Everyone here is still thinking BAU...perhaps the financial crisis will stop some of this madness (I suspect it may).
Well spoken--
Aside from the corp whores into privatization of the water supply, you have the engineer types on the board who just don't see conservation and local rain capture as a sexy engineering solution, when one can build a big engineering project costing hundreds of millions of dollars, with all kinds of cool machines and tearing up of the earth involved.
Conservation and localization is just not that sexy.
Look, if the primary reason Marinities don't want the desalination plant is because there are far better, cheaper and more eco-friendly alternatives, then more power to them. On the other hand, I've noticed that Marinites have, as a group, frequently been opposed to *any* form of development or change whatsoever, even when (or is it "especially when"?) it might be beneficial to the general public, hoi polloi, etc.
Opposing a new desalination plant for sound economic and ecological reasons is perfectly understandable. I can even understand (if not relate) if some long-time Marinites are afraid it might lower the value of their hyper-expensive real estate, or because it might obstruct the lovely view from their biodynamic pot/veggie gardens. Lots of people get involved in politics for selfish reasons --nothing unique or the least bit immoral about it. Nonetheless... pretending you're protesting to "protect the environment" or "it's for the children", etc. when all you want is for the darned thing to be relocated to a poorer neighborhood --say Vallejo-- just smacks of smug hypocrisy to me.
NIMBY is not a term that was necessarily coined to describe Marinites. But it does suit them rather well, IMHO. And once again --for the record-- I'm well aware that right-wing rich people suck too.
HARM,
what you don't realize is that the commitment to low development is exactly what has preserved the Marin Headlands and retained the high degree of open space in the county -- one of the highest rates in the country. The people who lived before me here saw the beauty of the land and worked their butts off to preserve it. This much open space didn't come without work, and I for one truly respect and honor the people who put in the thousands of hours needed to fend off the growth paradigm. Developers salivate over the idea of putting homes high on the beautiful hills overlooking San Francisco, and that was stopped. (Now the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.)
So, yes, further development of all sorts is seriously opposed here. Personally, I wish the rest of the country were to do the same. I would much rather have the commitment to the environment that is here, even with the occasional hypocrisies. This is one little corner of the world where the developers haven't been able to do whatever they wanted.
Isn't that the kind of thinking most people on this site wish were more common? You are impugning the motivations of the people who live here and you don't have the whole story. Please stop.
So, yes, further development of all sorts is seriously opposed here. Personally, I wish the rest of the country were to do the same. I would much rather have the commitment to the environment that is here, even with the occasional hypocrisies. This is one little corner of the world where the developers haven't been able to do whatever they wanted.
I see your point here, and even sympathize to a some extent. Nonetheless, I have to question, would Marinites still be protesting if the same desalination plant proposed to be in, say, Vallejo? Or Richmond? Frankly, I doubt it.
Another problem I have with ideologically reflexive opposition to *all* forms of development is, where exactly are all the additional ~300,000 people who are added to the state's population each year supposed to live? Cardboard boxes on the bad side of town, I suppose? Rigidly opposing development while failing to support controls on immigration and population growth just pushes up the local cost of living and relocates the problem to other locations, IMO.
We see the same thing here in Toronto. 20 or thirty people build "country estates" on the outskirts of the city, then when normal development moves out to their area, they scream "ecologically sensitive" and lobby to have their gravel hill declared a greenbelt because its the native habitat of the Canadian thistle or something. They often do succeed in forcing development away from the northern outskirts, a lot of non-productive glacial morain gravel surfaces much closer to city centre, out to the northwest where there used to be really productive high-fertility farmland. And to get the development stopped they have to fight for revisions to the long-term official plan, so its not like they didn't know it was due for development when they built. The trick appears to be to buy land which is relatively cheap because of some future development plans, then fight through the political system to get he future development stopped, which greatly increases their property values. But you'll never hear them complain about that farmlnd development, no, if they stopped that the development might come back to their suburb. It's just more of the "I got mine, so you shove off" attitude.
Not like there's any political corruption involved, the politicians are just doing what they need to to get re-elected. What's needed is to get back to some honesty and common sense and work ethic in journalism, to properly present these things, not just reprint the protester's slogan sheets handouts.
Good question. Do we allow growth until every beautiful space is paved over or otherwise developed? Or do we make a stand somewhere and hold the line?
You have your point of view, which is valid, and we have ours, which is also valid. We're drawing the line where we want to draw it and you would draw the line elsewhere. Stop making us wrong for where we draw the line, please. Your opinion is not "the only true and correct" opinion.
I never said opposing development is *always* wrong. Where I do have a problem is when it takes the NIMBY "I got mine, so you shove off" (;-) @lengould) form I've often observed in the Bay Area, and Marin in particular. I also believe --just my opinion-- that where the lines are drawn *does* matter.
If we're talking about protecting national/state parks or other areas that have truly unique or special flora/fauna/terrain (e.g., Yosemite, Redwoods, Joshua Tree, Point Reyes, etc.) then you have my full support in halting private sector development. Thing is, I have a hard time believing that no portion of Marin can be developed further (within sensible limits) without irreparably destroying the landscape, when development evidently has not destroyed all the other areas surrounding Marin. Again, if this plant were proposed for, say Richmond, Oakland or Vallejo, would you still oppose it?
RE: the desalination plant, assuming the "right" combination of technologies and design is used (in conjunction with better conservation and water recycling), then why is it not reasonable to expect that the plant's carbon/energy footprint can be minimized to acceptable levels? I would much prefer to see CA's population reduced to levels that can be sustained with our current fresh water supply. But until the political will exists to make that happen (ha!), we still need viable alternatives to sucking our lakes and rivers dry.
Is this technological Cornucopianism or pragmatic realism on my part? Guess it all depends on your POV.
This begs the question: when California has such huge problems with water shortages, critical habitats and such, WHY are ~300,000 people being added to the population every year? Americans are leaving California; the growth is all from immigration.
Seems it's much less costly to stop immigration (and deport the illegals) than to try to meet their needs for food, water, housing, transport, medical care, education ($7 billion/year if you count "anchor babies" with non-citizen children), etc. Some counties are cutting services to non-citizens already, because the situation is unsustainable. Slashing the state's population by sending immigrants home will cost the rich folks a lot more for landscaping, but it will give everything else a reprieve.
Come now HARM, almost all of Marin has been protected, and is in the hands of either the community or the Federal Government. Marin County has half the population of Huntington Beach (someplace I have also lived, but we won't go there now), and is the richest county in the state because of its location and beauty.
I do have sympathy for your distaste for the elite in Tiburon, or Mill Valley where I live, as the Soccer Mom in SUV with the husband working in the City making 1.5 million a year, and paying the 10,000 a month mortgage, and cluelessly drifting through life.
But these people are living here because people before them fought for protecting the environment and had the insight to do this early in the game.
But I can feel your rage, I just think you need a bit more information.
This really is an issue of another bunch of elite scheming for a payoff, when simple conservation and lifestyle modification will work.
I don't see it as a left/right thing. They're self-selecting communities. Rich Republicans who settle in these kinds of areas, as opposed to say Las Vegas, want the same thing as rich liberals in Marin: open space, historical preservation, low density, and keep the riff-raff out. The Palos Verdes Peninsula in Southern California is one such place, and it's overwhelmingly Republican.