Democrats are trashing the place.

[Gulo Blue]

There is a strong correlation between higher population density and voting democrat.

http://davetroy.com/posts/the-real-republican-adversary-population-density

Urban dwellers generate 4 times as much trash per person than rural dwellers. Twice as much if you compare people of equal wealth.

http://www.nature.com/news/environment-waste-production-must-peak-this-century-1.14032

 

[Michchamp]

not everyone in Chicago is that one guy who composts his own crap and lives 99% on renewable energy.

meh. "Democrats" in chicago are sometimes indistinguishable from Republicans elsewhere... they push school privatisation, are anti-union, and give handouts to big businesses.

 

[KAWDUP]

not everyone in Chicago is that one guy who composts his own crap and lives 99% on renewable energy.

meh. "Democrats" in chicago are sometimes indistinguishable from Republicans elsewhere... they push school privatisation, are anti-union, and give handouts to big businesses.

. . then how did they ever elect Obama a senator? :*)

 

[Michchamp]

. . then how did they ever elect Obama a senator? :*)

maybe because he's a center-right guy who merely posed as a progressive/liberal, and has governed that way.

 

[jswain]

Obama.. Ranked the most liberal senator while in the senate

 

[Michchamp]

Obama.. Ranked the most liberal senator while in the senate

this is such an idiotic comment, I don't even know what to say.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That's quite a spin. Dems create more trash? Well, Dems in Chicago act like Rebublicans anyway. So there.

 

[Michchamp]

That's quite a spin. Dems create more trash? Well, Dems in Chicago act like Rebublicans anyway. So there.

well, it's important to parse these things out, or else we just end up spewing "us vs. them" nonsense like we were on Fox News, because where else would you go with an assertion like that...?

I do wonder how urban dwellers generate more trash, assuming there is something to that. is it packaging? urban dwellers have to eat and purchase a lot more packaged goods, whereas farm folk don't. and I guess if we're talking about rural, non-farming folks, well, they don't do much more than sit around and abuse drugs (meth and oxycotin), so there's probably not much consumer consumption going on there. I guess that's good for the planet.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, it's important to parse these things out, or else we just end up spewing "us vs. them" nonsense like we were on Fox News, because where else would you go with an assertion like that...?

I do wonder how urban dwellers generate more trash, assuming there is something to that. is it packaging? urban dwellers have to eat and purchase a lot more packaged goods, whereas farm folk don't. and I guess if we're talking about rural, non-farming folks, well, they don't do much more than sit around and abuse drugs (meth and oxycotin), so there's probably not much consumer consumption going on there. I guess that's good for the planet.

I'm proud of you for dividing people that live in rural places into farmers and non-farmers. Normally, you just slap your stereotypes on everyone.

It's the comparison of people of equal wealth that's the kicker. I'm guessing that it has more to do with people buying individually wrapped everything vs packages with multiple servings than the few people out there that eat much directly from farming. Whatever % of people are farmers, they don't use half the trash because half their diet is soybeans, or corn, or whatever it is they happen to grow.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm proud of you for dividing people that live in rural places into farmers and non-farmers. Normally, you just slap your stereotypes on everyone.

It's the comparison of people of equal wealth that's the kicker. I'm guessing that it has more to do with people buying individually wrapped everything vs packages with multiple servings than the few people out there that eat much directly from farming. Whatever % of people are farmers, they don't use half the trash because half their diet is soybeans, or corn, or whatever it is they happen to grow.

one question: did they take into account suburbs? because that's typically the most wasteful American lifestyle, no? Family of 4-5, two or three cars, no mass transit use, totally automobile dependent... I think that's fair to say those aren't typical "big city democrats" but the article doesn't really make this clear.

it's almost an apples to oranges comparison in a way. there is probably a better way you could measure the environmental impact of people, rather than the amount of trash they generate.

the thing I mentioned in my first post was a contest they had in Chicago to see who had the smallest environmental footprint, taking into account everything they did: trash they generated, fuel/gasoline they used, carbon emissions to heat/cool their property, etc. that's probably a better way to look at it.

there was a guy who lived in some weird energy efficient house on the South Side he designed himself... and composted his own waste, rode his bike everywhere, and rarely threw anything away. he won. I can't find a link to it though

 

[Thumb]

well, it's important to parse these things out, or else we just end up spewing "us vs. Them" nonsense like we were on fox news, because where else would you go with an assertion like that...?

I do wonder how urban dwellers generate more trash, assuming there is something to that. Is it packaging? Urban dwellers have to eat and purchase a lot more packaged goods, whereas farm folk don't. and i guess if we're talking about rural, non-farming folks, well, they don't do much more than sit around and abuse drugs (meth and oxycotin), so there's probably not much consumer consumption going on there. I guess that's good for the planet.

fuck you!

 

[Michchamp]

fuck you!

I thought it was understood that I am aware there are always exceptions to my rules.

so I know that in addition to your rural activities, you also post here (and yell at the Jehovah's Witnesses that come on your property)

 

[Gulo Blue]

one question: did they take into account suburbs? because that's typically the most wasteful American lifestyle, no? Family of 4-5, two or three cars, no mass transit use, totally automobile dependent... I think that's fair to say those aren't typical "big city democrats" but the article doesn't really make this clear.

That's a pretty good question. Suburbs are where the political battles are really held and both Republicans and Democrats live.

This plus the issue of charity fits to the idea that people that vote for government to fix problems already feel like they did their part so they feel less obligated to act personally.

 

[Sbee]

That's quite a spin. Dems create more trash? Well, Dems in Chicago act like Rebublicans anyway. So there.

Dems make more money and are better educated too.

the more money you make the more you consume, the more trash you create.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Dems make more money and are better educated too.

the more money you make the more you consume, the more trash you create.

Yeah, but as stated previously, even accounting for wealth, this holds.

 

[Michchamp]

Yeah, but as stated previously, even accounting for wealth, this holds.

reading the article, it's pretty clear you made a couple huge logical leaps to get to the conclusion in the thread title.

is "urban" Detroit, Chicago, NYC, etc. alone, or does it include their suburbs, which are often pretty conservative?

do conservative voters in big cities generate equal amounts of trash to their rural counterparts?

does "trashing the place" include their total environmental impact, or just the trash they generate?

cause it sure seems like people living in cities, more likely to be single & eating packaged store or restaurant bought food would by necessity generate more trash, but maybe they don't drive nearly as much & walk or take mass transit, so they don't consume as much gasoline.

you've disgraced your reputation here with this thread. I'd go so far to say this is a permanent blemish on you. no longer will anyone see "Red_and_Guilty" or "Gulo_Blue" and think "well, I'm sure he has something fair and balanced to say, and I don't mean that in the Fox News sense of the phrase." now they will mean that in the Fox News sense of the phrase.

 

[Gulo Blue]

reading the article, it's pretty clear you made a couple huge logical leaps to get to the conclusion in the thread title.

Yup. There are leaps. Sometimes you can make leaps when the numbers aren't remotely close. It's not like we're talking a difference of 20-30%. It's 2-4 times as much trash. I know why you want to bring other things into it, but I didn't make any claims about carbon footprint. Different lifestyles require different types of consumption and you're making assumptions about that hoping it will somehow balance out this negative aspect of urban life. But that misses the point. I'm not surprised one bit that urban living generates more trash, but how much is shocking. Four times as much. Double for people of equal wealth. I think you realize that doesn't fit the narrative. If there was someway to explain it away, I think you'd stick with actual arguments instead of trying to throw a Fox News label at me.

 

[Michchamp]

No, I'm throwing labels:

 

[TheVictors]

that's because we city dwellers can't burn it..... at least a'now, by ordinance and all.

never impacted my making 'Shine or nothing, so whatevs....


and FWIW, the geographically-gigantic Scottsdale, AZ and affluent suburb cut "recycling" during budget cuts. people working in Scottsdale offices are actually taking paper and other recycling home.

really?

Is recycling so cost-ineffective or evil that it warrants cancelling...?!

 

[TheVictors]

Obama.. Ranked the most liberal senator while in the senate

2008 called and wants it's Guiliani soundbite back...

Love,
"The Morning of Nine-Eee-yeven"