Global Warming

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
373
Points
63
My thanks to all who replied to my question. It sounds like the best way for me to go is to keep the electric system while adding the propane system. The bummer about that is that I was really, really looking forward to getting rid of those long, ugly base board heaters that I have had to look at for years.

I also want to thank all of you for not making me feel like my question was a dumb one. I tried to find the answer on my own by doing numerous searches that I worded in various ways only to come up with zilch. That surprised me because I actually thought that some investigative journalist would have looked deeper into the Green New Deal to see what the far-reaching results may be. Propane isn't the only thing I've wondered about. I've also wondered what ramifications (if any) the Green New Deal would have on petroleum-based products.

My husband would say that my problem is that I think too much. I can't disagree with him because I even drive myself nuts at time. But, I would counter by saying that there are too many people who think too little.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb665wY0Uu4
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
5,492
Reaction score
601
Points
113
Location
Michigan
My thanks to all who replied to my question. It sounds like the best way for me to go is to keep the electric system while adding the propane system. The bummer about that is that I was really, really looking forward to getting rid of those long, ugly base board heaters that I have had to look at for years.

I also want to thank all of you for not making me feel like my question was a dumb one. I tried to find the answer on my own by doing numerous searches that I worded in various ways only to come up with zilch. That surprised me because I actually thought that some investigative journalist would have looked deeper into the Green New Deal to see what the far-reaching results may be. Propane isn't the only thing I've wondered about. I've also wondered what ramifications (if any) the Green New Deal would have on petroleum-based products.

My husband would say that my problem is that I think too much. I can't disagree with him because I even drive myself nuts at time. But, I would counter by saying that there are too many people who think too little.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb665wY0Uu4
That, there are.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Environmentalism is not ultimately about making for a hospitable environment for man which would be right, just and proper, but instead how humans must sacrifice for the wilderness. There’s an international movement with some powerful members to codify “crimes against Nature.”: “Ecocide...is an idea...that no one should go unpunished for destroying the natural world.”


 
Last edited:

Big/Sky/Fly

We're All In This Psyop Together...
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
41,578
Reaction score
6,861
Points
113
Location
Moonover, Montana
My thanks to all who replied to my question. It sounds like the best way for me to go is to keep the electric system while adding the propane system. The bummer about that is that I was really, really looking forward to getting rid of those long, ugly base board heaters that I have had to look at for years.

I also want to thank all of you for not making me feel like my question was a dumb one. I tried to find the answer on my own by doing numerous searches that I worded in various ways only to come up with zilch. That surprised me because I actually thought that some investigative journalist would have looked deeper into the Green New Deal to see what the far-reaching results may be. Propane isn't the only thing I've wondered about. I've also wondered what ramifications (if any) the Green New Deal would have on petroleum-based products.

My husband would say that my problem is that I think too much. I can't disagree with him because I even drive myself nuts at time. But, I would counter by saying that there are too many people who think too little.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb665wY0Uu4
Thinking is rare these days...you're best off to always think. ;)
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
My thanks to all who replied to my question. It sounds like the best way for me to go is to keep the electric system while adding the propane system. The bummer about that is that I was really, really looking forward to getting rid of those long, ugly base board heaters that I have had to look at for years.

I also want to thank all of you for not making me feel like my question was a dumb one. I tried to find the answer on my own by doing numerous searches that I worded in various ways only to come up with zilch. That surprised me because I actually thought that some investigative journalist would have looked deeper into the Green New Deal to see what the far-reaching results may be. Propane isn't the only thing I've wondered about. I've also wondered what ramifications (if any) the Green New Deal would have on petroleum-based products.

My husband would say that my problem is that I think too much. I can't disagree with him because I even drive myself nuts at time. But, I would counter by saying that there are too many people who think too little.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb665wY0Uu4

John Stossel did.


BTW, the video is at YouTube locations but takes quite a bit of time before it loads.


Gee, I wonder why that is? :coffee:
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
I thought about putting this in the "poor CNN" thread, but it probably belongs here.

CNN is blaming shark attacks in Australia on climate change.

Here's a page that destroys that suggestion.

Jumping the shark​

11 Nov 2020 | News Roundup

According to CNN global warming is making shark attacks worse. And if you’re wondering how a shark attack could get worse, does it mean they’re becoming more frequent over time? No, CNN admits “It's not that there has been a sharp increase in shark attacks in Australia overall -- there have been 21 shark incidents this year, which is normal and consistent with previous years.” Then what changed? “The difference,” they say, “is in the fatality rate.” So the number of fatalities has been rising? Nope: “[The] average of one death per year has stayed stable for the past 50 years.” But this year there have been seven shark attack deaths. Must be climate change right? Except that “There are a number of possible explanations -- several experts have pointed out that year-by-year figures always fluctuate, and this could be simple bad luck.” But surely seven is the most ever. Again no. “The last time the country had seven shark attack deaths a year was 1934, according to a spokesperson from the Taronga Conservation Society Australia. The highest annual figure on record dates back to 1929, with nine deaths.” Undeterred, CNN concluded “But there's another possible culprit: the climate crisis.”

How does that one work? Well, “As oceans heat up, entire ecosystems are being destroyed and forced to adapt. Fish are migrating where they've never gone before. Species' behaviors are changing. And, as the marine world transforms, sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans.” See?

No. We don’t see. The story itself admits the number of shark incidents is the same as it always was. So it’s not a matter of sharks and their prey being closer to humans. And if the climate crisis is causing the sharks to be hungrier or bite harder, why is it that, as CNN notes, “there were no shark attack deaths in Australia in 2019” even though last year they said the climate crisis was so bad it was burning all the forests in Australia.

And furthermore if it’s climate change, but the number of deaths hasn’t been rising for fifty years, does that mean climate change only kicked in in 2020? If the number of shark fatalities is a proxy for climate change, and it has been constant for 50 years, does that mean there was no climate change?

Moreover global warming is global, so if in response “sharks are following their prey and moving closer to shores popular with humans” then attacks should be surging everywhere. And they’re not.

One final point should be pondered. If the number of shark attacks in Australia is rising because of sudden warming, to levels not seen since the 1930s, it could be that the late 1920s and early 1930s were as hot as it is today, saving the shark-warming link but implying today’s warming was matched in decades past. It’s a tendentious reading of the data. But a heck of a lot better than saying roughly one fatality a year for half a century then a spike in 2020 is a hockey stick proving man-made climate change is going to kill us all even if it has to swim up from beneath us to do it.

Thus the CNN story expires with one last gory upheaval: “On land, Australia's climate crisis has led to raging bush fires, extreme heatwaves, and one of the worst droughts on record. But it has also slammed the oceans with acidification and rising temperatures, which can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.”

You just never know where global warming will hit next. Cue the Jaws music.
 

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
373
Points
63
John Stossel did.


BTW, the video is at YouTube locations but takes quite a bit of time before it loads.


Gee, I wonder why that is? :coffee:

Thank you! John Stossel just gained a new follower on Facebook. I admire the reporter who doesn't just follow an agenda, but will go where others won't dare to go.

As for the topic of climate change, I'm not one who would deny it primarily because I'm not educated enough on the topic to make any decision one way or another. However, I'm someone who says . . . I will start believing that climate change is a dire issue when those who tell me how bad it is actually start living their lives as if they believed it.

I don't want to hear stories like Michelle Obama taking a separate flight to Hawaii merely because she didn't want to wait to join Barack. I don't want to hear stories about Hollywood giving out swag bags that included a 12-day cruise on a very high-end luxury yacht.

I don't want to sit here wondering what is the best way for me to be able to afford to heat my home when the rich, the powerful, the influential are the ones who cause more damage in one year than I ever could in ten or more.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
5,492
Reaction score
601
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Thank you! John Stossel just gained a new follower on Facebook. I admire the reporter who doesn't just follow an agenda, but will go where others won't dare to go.

As for the topic of climate change, I'm not one who would deny it primarily because I'm not educated enough on the topic to make any decision one way or another. However, I'm someone who says . . . I will start believing that climate change is a dire issue when those who tell me how bad it is actually start living their lives as if they believed it.

I don't want to hear stories like Michelle Obama taking a separate flight to Hawaii merely because she didn't want to wait to join Barack. I don't want to hear stories about Hollywood giving out swag bags that included a 12-day cruise on a very high-end luxury yacht.

I don't want to sit here wondering what is the best way for me to be able to afford to heat my home when the rich, the powerful, the influential are the ones who cause more damage in one year than I ever could in ten or more.
You don’t want to hear about the Obamas screeching about rising ocean levels as they buy expensive ocean island property?
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Thank you! John Stossel just gained a new follower on Facebook. I admire the reporter who doesn't just follow an agenda, but will go where others won't dare to go.

As for the topic of climate change, I'm not one who would deny it primarily because I'm not educated enough on the topic to make any decision one way or another. However, I'm someone who says . . . I will start believing that climate change is a dire issue when those who tell me how bad it is actually start living their lives as if they believed it.

I don't want to hear stories like Michelle Obama taking a separate flight to Hawaii merely because she didn't want to wait to join Barack. I don't want to hear stories about Hollywood giving out swag bags that included a 12-day cruise on a very high-end luxury yacht.

I don't want to sit here wondering what is the best way for me to be able to afford to heat my home when the rich, the powerful, the influential are the ones who cause more damage in one year than I ever could in ten or more.
Well to be clear, the question isn’t if the climate is changing or not. It is. It’s never been static in the entire history of the planet. So of course it’s changing.

the question is what’s causing the change.

is it due the natural causes that have made it change for billions of years or is it due to the release of CO2?

i don’t find the evidence for the latter compelling, as I have explained in numerous posts in this thread.

Just one new observation.

the key “evidence” for CO2 being the cause is from computer models.

remember back in the Spring when various computer models predicted millions of deaths in the US from COVID?

How accurate were they?
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Computer models are extraordinarily accurate at modelling the biases of the people who design them, but not much else.

It's not limited to Climatology, either, but Climatology is the most egregious and glaring example.

EDIT: I should add, that is partly by design, and partly just the human factor. Let me give a couple of examples...

A) If a climatologist is building a computer model, and he plugs in his climate data, and the model produces a result that shows no significant change in the climate, then that climatologist will say "this model is not working, we need to refine it", until they get the results they want or expect, because unless the model shows catastrophic global warming ahead, they won't accept it or use it. So they are really modelling their own bias and religion, not science.

B) You see some of this in other fields, such as cosmology, also. First, I must divulge that I have a personal bias here, in that I do not believe dark matter exists, so that is something to keep in mind here..but I think the point I am about to make will hold water, regardless.
Observations in space show unexplainable actions in heavenly bodies, in that they are attracted to one another more strongly than Newtonian or General Relativity would allow. Therefore, scientists have determined that there is a massive amount of invisible stuff making it all stick together, and call it Dark Matter...which is on the order of 10 times as much of that as there is all the other matter in the universe, supposedly. Since they think in terms of gravity, and only gravity, they need to explain these interactions through the lens of gravitational attraction. There is not enough matter there to generate that gravity, so they invent this invisible stuff that doesn't interact with anything except gravitationally...it doesn't bump into anything, it doesn't generate, reflect, or interact with light at all...it just sits there and makes gravity.
So, cosmology computer models generate imaginary big bangs, and add invisible stuff with lots of gravity, to replicate the modern universe that agrees with observations. No problem, right?
Here is the problem. What if there really is no such thing as dark matter at all/ What if there is some other explanation...a new field of physics regarding how spacetime behaves? You always see on TV how they put a big ball like the sun on a rubbery flat surface, which deforms, and then a smaller ball like the earth which deforms the rubber a little itself, and whirls around the deformation caused by the big ball...as how they explain gravity, right? Well....what about the area in between the little ball and the big ball? Is it flat with the rest of the sheet, or is it actually deformed itself? How can the area in between the two balls be deformed if there is nothing there, it's just a stretching caused by the balls adjacent to it? If all a cosmologist saw was that section, they would call it "dark matter", because they would see gravity there, but no matter. See?
I'm not saying that's what dark matter is, I am only pointing out how pre-concieved notions and unexplainable phenomena can lead to false assumptions.
Now, here is the question....would you be able to make a model that replicates what you see if you assume there is an invisible planet there? Of course you could! You just keep tweaking your model until it shows what you need it to show and incorporating your assumptions and biases. It's easy...the model "doesn't work" until it does what you want it to do in the first place! The model doesn't actually tell you anything because if it tells you anything you don't believe, or want to believe, you reject it! See?

..or attraction through plasma (think static cling on a galactic scale). What if the attraction and cosmic strings aren't massive structures made of invisible matter, but electromagnetic attraction? What if the galaxies and the universe are essentially a giant plasma lamp? The stuff in plasma lamps sticks together and makes stringy web like structures just like you see in the universe, but it sure as Hell isn't gravitational, is it?

Again, I'm not saying this is an explanation for the real world. I am simply pointing out the how and why computer models are clumsy and inaccurate tools, that model personal biases of the people who use them. Only if those biases are correct and true, will the models be correct and true. No climatologist or cosmologist will ever design a computer model that will produce somethign unexpected, or a revelation of truth, and if it did, they would reject it as broken.
 
Last edited:

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
5,492
Reaction score
601
Points
113
Location
Michigan
I can pay to have a computer model tell us that I am about to re-grow my old full head of dark curly brown hair.

But I am not about to do either of those things.
 

subroc

Interested Observer
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,276
Reaction score
241
Points
63
Location
New Hampshire
I am with you on computer models. Just a statistic of a different kind. "lies, damned lies and statistics."

Anyway, as far as cosmology is concerned I am a big fan of all the Universe shows from all the networks. I believe the telescope programs are great. There are so many theories it is hard to get to the facts. There are several theories that are current mainstream thought on where our moon came from! I just read an article that purports to have found a lonely planet roaming through our galaxy yet there is a theory of planet nine and they can't seem to locate that. Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. BTW, I don't hate the dark matter/dark energy theory. Not accepting it as a given to be sure but willing to listen.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Well, computer models can be quite effective, at some applications.

I do know a thing or two about computer modeling.

I did two semesters of independent studies in the late 70's that was to develop a computer model of a star.

The first semester it was just to model the Sun.

Calculate 5 parameters with 5 different differential equations: Pressure, Density, Luminosity, Mass, and Temperature.

The second semester was to generalize it to work for any Main Sequence star.

That's what got me my job when I graduated in '81, since the economy then made 2008 look wonderful.

I did computer modeling for my company regarding the radioactive inventory for various components in the NSSS system that would be used to figure out how thick they had to make the concrete on the walls to keep the dose rate acceptable in the corridor outside various components.

I was also the representative for my company at the NRC initiative to do the first mechanistic modeling of just what would happen in the event of a meltdown and the contents of the reactor were released into the containment building.

Prior to that, they had very conservative, simplistic estimations, that, since they were done by hand had results only for time 0, 1 hour, 10 hours, 100 hours, and 1000 hours, after the accident. It was assumed things remained constant between these discrete points.

That of course is nonsense, since some of the isotopes released from the core had half life's of minutes or hours.

The mechanistic modeling process was being done by various universities and national labs. They had to break it up in pieces, because in the early 80's we still used stone knives and bearskins for computers.

The mechanistic process was quite complex. It had to look at things like what chemical form any given isotope would be in when it as released, how would it interact with any of the materials inside containment, would it adhere to any given surface, or stay airborne. The latter was strongly affected by the geometry of any given component, and a host of other factors.

At the various meetings, the presenters would clearly state what they knew, and what they assumed in any given model, they also said what level of confidence they had about any given result, and what the limitations of the model was.

The bit in bold is the key.

A model, in a sense, is just like a scientific theory. It is something to describe an aspect of physical reality and make predictions about what will happen. When considering a theory, one must understand where the limits of it's applicability lie, and know when you get near them.

Consider Newton's law of gravity vs general relativity.

The former works just fine to make predictions with the exception of very high gravitational fields. General Relativity is required for those.

So does that mean you can never use Newton's laws?

No, you just have to know where the limits are, and make sure you're on the right side of them.

So how does one know the limits?

Experimentation/observation.

You test the theory/model in the real world to see if it's predictions pan out.

If they don't, you fix or reject the theory/model.

So there are plenty of computer models out there that have been tested and shown to be accurate, within their limits.

One I can think of off the top of my head is stealth aircraft both the F-117 and the B-2 were designed using computer models to predict how small a radar cross section they would have, and the tests validated the model results.

But what about the climate models?

How do you test them?

You can't. There's no experiment you can run to verify it.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
I am with you on computer models. Just a statistic of a different kind. "lies, damned lies and statistics."

Anyway, as far as cosmology is concerned I am a big fan of all the Universe shows from all the networks. I believe the telescope programs are great. There are so many theories it is hard to get to the facts. There are several theories that are current mainstream thought on where our moon came from! I just read an article that purports to have found a lonely planet roaming through our galaxy yet there is a theory of planet nine and they can't seem to locate that. Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. BTW, I don't hate the dark matter/dark energy theory. Not accepting it as a given to be sure but willing to listen.

Theories aren't about "facts", they're about making predictions.

If a theory makes a prediction, and an experiment matches the prediction, then the theory is "good".

And a theory should not be thought to say that this is exactly how the universe works.

Consider the epicycle and deferent theory for the earth centered cosmology that was common before Copernicus, et al.

It made quite accurate predictions about the movement of the planets, and so was a "good" theory.

Was reality actually like that? No, but that's not relevant if you are only on planet earth and can't get into orbit.

One of my physics professors beat that idea into our heads. Don't get hung up on the model, its a tool, and treat it as such. Of course, this was my Quantum Mechanics course, so the advice was warranted.

One could think that QM presents an absolute nonsensical view of reality, and when compared to our common view of the world, you'd be right.

Yet it is one of the most tested and validated theories mankind has ever produced.

It's also another good example of knowing the limits. QM "normally" only manifests at the very very small scale, i.e., atomic scale. In the macroscopic world we all live in, normally you don't see those effects.
 

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
373
Points
63

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From Hawaii’s Environmental Laws​

Honolulu officials have granted an exception to the state’s beach protections, clearing the way for a controversial multimillion dollar renovation of a century-old seawall at a property owned by the chair of the Obama Foundation.

The shoreline permit, issued by Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting on Monday, clears the way for the controversial multimillion dollar renovation of a century-old seawall in the heavily Native Hawaiian community of Waimanalo.

Under state and county laws, such projects are typically banned. Scientists and environmental experts say seawalls are the primary cause of beach loss throughout the state, and officials expect older ones to fall into obsolescence.

But the property owners, including Marty Nesbitt, chair of the Obama Foundation, argued they needed an exemption to protect the sprawling compound they are building in eastern Oahu. State officials and community members say the former president, who was born and raised in Hawaii, is expected to be among the property’s future occupants. Representatives for Nesbitt and Obama did not return requests seeking comment for this story.

As the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and ProPublica reported this summer, the so-called shoreline setback variance is just one of several loopholes that developers have exploited across the islands over the past two decades to get around policies that are supposed to protect the state’s treasured beaches and sensitive coastlines.

The consequences are stark. Oahu has already lost about a quarter of its beaches to seawalls, which essentially cause beaches to drown. Future projections are more dire, with scientists warning that most of Hawaii’s beaches could be lost if hundreds of homes, condos, hotels and roads that line the coasts aren’t moved inland.

Beach advocates and some community leaders in Waimanalo had urged government officials to require Nesbitt to take down the crumbling wall, or at least move it farther inland to restore a portion of the public shoreline. The beach there is virtually gone. The turquoise ocean now slams up against the seawall most of the time, leaving no room for the public to fish or sit along the coast.

Opponents also cited a Honolulu County ordinance, which stresses that it’s the “primary policy of the city to protect and preserve the natural shoreline, especially sandy beaches,” as well as to maintain public access and open space along the shoreline. Secondary to these priorities is the protection of private property from coastal hazards and flooding.

But on Monday, Kathy Sokugawa, the director of the Department of Planning and Permitting, sided with the property owners, approving their request to revamp and expand the seawall. She agreed with the owners that not allowing them to renovate the structure would create a hardship, depriving them of “reasonable use of the land.”

In her decision, Sokugawa noted the seawall fronting the property is at risk of failing and said it was important to repair the wall so that its collapse wouldn’t endanger coastal homes, the nearshore water and public safety.

At the same time, the department is also requiring the property owners to participate in plans to restore a beach right beside the estate.

Critics, however, blasted the decision, saying it was an extraordinary departure from county policy.

Hardship exemptions are typically given out to property owners seeking to protect existing homes. In this case, the owners of the property bulldozed the structures on the site and started construction of new homes before applying for the shoreline setback permit.

Doorae Shin, coordinator for the local Surfrider Foundation, said she’s concerned that the approval sets a “dangerous precedent” for the expansion of many old seawalls, noting similar arguments could be made in their favor.

Sokugawa, who declined an interview request, didn’t address the issue in her final written decision.

The permit marks the last significant regulatory hurdle for developers of the Waimanalo property, which according to building permits will include three new single-family homes, two pools and a guard post. Construction has been underway for the past year.

As the Star-Advertiser and ProPublica reported this summer, the property was purchased by Nesbitt, co-CEO of a Chicago-based private-equity firm, and his wife for $8.7 million in 2015, and they subsequently subdivided the site into two lots. The overall development triggered the state’s Shoreline Protection Act, which requires coastal projects to get an environmental permit from the local government. But the owners skirted the requirement by building homes on each lot just under 7,500 square feet — the threshold under the law.

Consultants for Nesbitt later argued the $3.2 million seawall renovation was necessary in order to protect the property from erosion and ocean-related hazards. The plan will increase the height of some sections of the wall, while two new walls totaling 70 feet in length will be built behind it for support.

During a public hearing last month, the Oahu Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club testified in opposition to the renovations, as did neighbors concerned about the potential impact of the project on the beach fronting their properties.

A Native Hawaiian community group restoring a historic turtle pond that fronts the property also registered opposition to the project, worried that it will cut off freshwater flowing into the ocean that’s needed for limu, or seaweed.

Honolulu Councilwoman Heidi Tsuneyoshi told county officials that she was gravely concerned that the primary purpose of the seawall repair project was to protect the private estate, as opposed to environmental and cultural resources. She urged planning officials to require the owners to go back and obtain the environmental permit they had skirted. She said that exemption violated the spirit of the law. The county declined.


Sounds to me like another case of where protecting the environment doesn't apply to the rich, famous, and influental.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From Hawaii’s Environmental Laws​

Honolulu officials have granted an exception to the state’s beach protections, clearing the way for a controversial multimillion dollar renovation of a century-old seawall at a property owned by the chair of the Obama Foundation.

The shoreline permit, issued by Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting on Monday, clears the way for the controversial multimillion dollar renovation of a century-old seawall in the heavily Native Hawaiian community of Waimanalo.

Under state and county laws, such projects are typically banned. Scientists and environmental experts say seawalls are the primary cause of beach loss throughout the state, and officials expect older ones to fall into obsolescence.

But the property owners, including Marty Nesbitt, chair of the Obama Foundation, argued they needed an exemption to protect the sprawling compound they are building in eastern Oahu. State officials and community members say the former president, who was born and raised in Hawaii, is expected to be among the property’s future occupants. Representatives for Nesbitt and Obama did not return requests seeking comment for this story.

As the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and ProPublica reported this summer, the so-called shoreline setback variance is just one of several loopholes that developers have exploited across the islands over the past two decades to get around policies that are supposed to protect the state’s treasured beaches and sensitive coastlines.

The consequences are stark. Oahu has already lost about a quarter of its beaches to seawalls, which essentially cause beaches to drown. Future projections are more dire, with scientists warning that most of Hawaii’s beaches could be lost if hundreds of homes, condos, hotels and roads that line the coasts aren’t moved inland.

Beach advocates and some community leaders in Waimanalo had urged government officials to require Nesbitt to take down the crumbling wall, or at least move it farther inland to restore a portion of the public shoreline. The beach there is virtually gone. The turquoise ocean now slams up against the seawall most of the time, leaving no room for the public to fish or sit along the coast.

Opponents also cited a Honolulu County ordinance, which stresses that it’s the “primary policy of the city to protect and preserve the natural shoreline, especially sandy beaches,” as well as to maintain public access and open space along the shoreline. Secondary to these priorities is the protection of private property from coastal hazards and flooding.

But on Monday, Kathy Sokugawa, the director of the Department of Planning and Permitting, sided with the property owners, approving their request to revamp and expand the seawall. She agreed with the owners that not allowing them to renovate the structure would create a hardship, depriving them of “reasonable use of the land.”

In her decision, Sokugawa noted the seawall fronting the property is at risk of failing and said it was important to repair the wall so that its collapse wouldn’t endanger coastal homes, the nearshore water and public safety.

At the same time, the department is also requiring the property owners to participate in plans to restore a beach right beside the estate.

Critics, however, blasted the decision, saying it was an extraordinary departure from county policy.

Hardship exemptions are typically given out to property owners seeking to protect existing homes. In this case, the owners of the property bulldozed the structures on the site and started construction of new homes before applying for the shoreline setback permit.

Doorae Shin, coordinator for the local Surfrider Foundation, said she’s concerned that the approval sets a “dangerous precedent” for the expansion of many old seawalls, noting similar arguments could be made in their favor.

Sokugawa, who declined an interview request, didn’t address the issue in her final written decision.

The permit marks the last significant regulatory hurdle for developers of the Waimanalo property, which according to building permits will include three new single-family homes, two pools and a guard post. Construction has been underway for the past year.

As the Star-Advertiser and ProPublica reported this summer, the property was purchased by Nesbitt, co-CEO of a Chicago-based private-equity firm, and his wife for $8.7 million in 2015, and they subsequently subdivided the site into two lots. The overall development triggered the state’s Shoreline Protection Act, which requires coastal projects to get an environmental permit from the local government. But the owners skirted the requirement by building homes on each lot just under 7,500 square feet — the threshold under the law.

Consultants for Nesbitt later argued the $3.2 million seawall renovation was necessary in order to protect the property from erosion and ocean-related hazards. The plan will increase the height of some sections of the wall, while two new walls totaling 70 feet in length will be built behind it for support.

During a public hearing last month, the Oahu Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club testified in opposition to the renovations, as did neighbors concerned about the potential impact of the project on the beach fronting their properties.

A Native Hawaiian community group restoring a historic turtle pond that fronts the property also registered opposition to the project, worried that it will cut off freshwater flowing into the ocean that’s needed for limu, or seaweed.

Honolulu Councilwoman Heidi Tsuneyoshi told county officials that she was gravely concerned that the primary purpose of the seawall repair project was to protect the private estate, as opposed to environmental and cultural resources. She urged planning officials to require the owners to go back and obtain the environmental permit they had skirted. She said that exemption violated the spirit of the law. The county declined.


Sounds to me like another case of where protecting the environment doesn't apply to the rich, famous, and influental.
Will they be neighbors to Zuckerberg. He is buying up somewhere in Hawaii.
 

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
373
Points
63
Will they be neighbors to Zuckerberg. He is buying up somewhere in Hawaii.
IDK, could be that they will be close neighbors. I wouldn't have even known about this story if it weren't for a friend who lives in Hawaii. She was very angry about the rules not applying to all.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,972
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Communists are among the worst hypocrites... :coffee:

Yes, socialism and her brother-in-arms communism are all about power and wealth for the elite ruling class all the while posing as defenders of the every guy, who get slaughtered, starve and and just are destroyed in general. They have no such interest and use the abomination of a moral philosophy that is altruism to get to get people to cave to there rule.

ie: If you don't sacrifice for your neighbor you are selfish and evil.

Only the top level profits from such a system.
 
Last edited:

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
I'm not posting in this thread to create any turmoil. I merely have a question that I am posting out of ignorance because I don't understand the Green New Deal or Biden's version of that deal or even how the two may differ.

Specifically, I am asking about propane. My husband and I were planning on converting from electric heat to propane. Now, I'm wondering if that is a good idea. Will propane be something that will rapidly increase in price or even be eliminated under the Green New Deal or is it something that doesn't fit into the category of being a danger in regards to climate change?

ok, i took a look at Biden’s Green Nude Eel plan and it’s ludicrous.

one of the things is to have 100% of electricity generation in the US using renewables by 2035.

I’m posting on my iPad so providing links is a PIA. I’ll update this post with the links when I get home.

so if you use solar and wind for your power generation, you’ll need battery backup since they don’t work 24/7, 365

so lets use a Tesla electric car as our representative “battery”

how many of them would you need to store one hour of electricity consumption.

Tesla has a storage capacity of 85Kw-hrs.

The US used over 3,000 billion Kw-hrs of electricity in 2019. Note, I’m going from memory here, my subsequent post will have the exact figure.

if you calculate the hourly average for the year and divide that by 85 you get about 2.5 million.

so we’d need the battery packs from 2.5M Tesla’s to store one hour of electricit.

you’ll obviously need much more than one hour of storage.

clearly this won’t work
 
Top