Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

PORT ARTHUR, Texas (AP) — As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile “spine” of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.

The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world’s largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas’ 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation’s refining capacity.

Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities.

https://apnews.com/4adc5a2a2e6b45df953e ... ate-change

You sure that's not just an extension of "the wall"?

AZGrizFan wrote:You sure that's not just an extension of "the wall"?

Don't give Trump any ideas. Lord knows the drug smugglers have never used boats, or planes to get drugs into the US...

Isn't this kind of misleading? Isn't Texas asking the federal government for this infrastructure? And if the earlier $3.9B project that was specifically supposed to protect the oil-related industries is already protecting those industries, isn't the new $12B request largely to protect other things?

This is why journalism these days is so poor - plenty of details that are missed so that a fancy headline can try to get as many clicks as possible. Heck, I'm sure plenty of the people in the houses that are being protected by virtue of this wall are also to blame for climate change - don't they drive cars, don't they have families that might be contributing to an increase in population, didn't they vote for a President who withdrew from a climate change treaty (although in fairness a treaty that really amounted to very little tangible improvements)? Plenty of blame to go around.

GannonFan wrote:Isn't this kind of misleading? Isn't Texas asking the federal government for this infrastructure? And if the earlier $3.9B project that was specifically supposed to protect the oil-related industries is already protecting those industries, isn't the new $12B request largely to protect other things?

This is why journalism these days is so poor - plenty of details that are missed so that a fancy headline can try to get as many clicks as possible. Heck, I'm sure plenty of the people in the houses that are being protected by virtue of this wall are also to blame for climate change - don't they drive cars, don't they have families that might be contributing to an increase in population, didn't they vote for a President who withdrew from a climate change treaty (although in fairness a treaty that really amounted to very little tangible improvements)? Plenty of blame to go around.

I guarantee those folks are using tons of air conditioning, with the swampy conditions of the Gulf Coast...

Col Hogan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Isn't this kind of misleading? Isn't Texas asking the federal government for this infrastructure? And if the earlier $3.9B project that was specifically supposed to protect the oil-related industries is already protecting those industries, isn't the new $12B request largely to protect other things?

This is why journalism these days is so poor - plenty of details that are missed so that a fancy headline can try to get as many clicks as possible. Heck, I'm sure plenty of the people in the houses that are being protected by virtue of this wall are also to blame for climate change - don't they drive cars, don't they have families that might be contributing to an increase in population, didn't they vote for a President who withdrew from a climate change treaty (although in fairness a treaty that really amounted to very little tangible improvements)? Plenty of blame to go around.

I guarantee those folks are using tons of air conditioning, with the swampy conditions of the Gulf Coast...

Not to mention even living there, and covering a vast majority of the ground there with asphalt and concrete, both causing more heat to reflect back into the air as well as inhibiting the recharge of water to the water table below. People have to remember, Big Oil didn't demand that we drive cars and cool our homes and demand that Amazon deliver packages in two days or that we need tons of consumer goods that either contain or use oil in their manufacture. Where's that "I have seen the enemy and it is us" meme when you need it?

It's not protecting "Big Oil" from climate change. It's protecting refining capacity from tropical storm impacts. People can talk about how much more likely tropical storms are as a result of climate change. But whether there were climate change or not there would be tropical storm impacts on that area. And if a tropical storm/hurricane has significant impact on refining capacity that's going to impact the entire nation.

GannonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
I guarantee those folks are using tons of air conditioning, with the swampy conditions of the Gulf Coast...

Not to mention even living there, and covering a vast majority of the ground there with asphalt and concrete, both causing more heat to reflect back into the air as well as inhibiting the recharge of water to the water table below. People have to remember, Big Oil didn't demand that we drive cars and cool our homes and demand that Amazon deliver packages in two days or that we need tons of consumer goods that either contain or use oil in their manufacture. Where's that "I have seen the enemy and it is us" meme when you need it?

Where’s the Reputation button when you need one???

GannonFan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
I guarantee those folks are using tons of air conditioning, with the swampy conditions of the Gulf Coast...

Not to mention even living there, and covering a vast majority of the ground there with asphalt and concrete, both causing more heat to reflect back into the air as well as inhibiting the recharge of water to the water table below. People have to remember, Big Oil didn't demand that we drive cars and cool our homes and demand that Amazon deliver packages in two days or that we need tons of consumer goods that either contain or use oil in their manufacture. Where's that "I have seen the enemy and it is us" meme when you need it?

Very valid critique which leads to a much larger and more complicated discussion concerning free market economics and government regulation.

Big oil got a huge leg up through government support for much of the last century. Meanwhile their power became entrenched preventing positive regulations and innovations in alternative energy and materials from developing faster.

The enemy is us indeed but political corruption, manipulation of markets play a role.

Or did you expect people in the 50’s to be prescient to the point of avoiding paving paradise?

Or substitute oil products for opioids.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Not to mention even living there, and covering a vast majority of the ground there with asphalt and concrete, both causing more heat to reflect back into the air as well as inhibiting the recharge of water to the water table below. People have to remember, Big Oil didn't demand that we drive cars and cool our homes and demand that Amazon deliver packages in two days or that we need tons of consumer goods that either contain or use oil in their manufacture. Where's that "I have seen the enemy and it is us" meme when you need it?

Very valid critique which leads to a much larger and more complicated discussion concerning free market economics and government regulation.

Big oil got a huge leg up through government support for much of the last century. Meanwhile their power became entrenched preventing positive regulations and innovations in alternative energy and materials from developing faster.

The enemy is us indeed but political corruption, manipulation of markets play a role.

Or did you expect people in the 50’s to be prescient to the point of avoiding paving paradise?

Or substitute oil products for opioids.

Of course it plays a role, but, as I said before, I think you vastly overestimate that role. We've gone over this before - Big Oil doesn't get much more in terms of government support or protection than most any other industry do - getting to depreciate manufacturing equipment over a long time period is common to all industries, as are most of the other accounting practices allowed to Big Oil that people like to decry. That's why folks like you have resorted to trying to use externalities (wars, defense budgets, bridges and roads) as things exclusive to oil and therefore should be counted as support for Big Oil. But the thing is, we use bridges and roads and ports and other infrastructure for everything else too, so why is it exclusive to oil? And I think you'll find the vast majority of military conflicts in the world in the past 100 years have very little to do with oil (some conflict, sure, but a decided minority).

Alternative energy and alternative materials got a later jump than oil simply because oil was already here and it was cheap enough that we didn't need anything else. And it was cheap because we had so much more than we needed. Once oil became more scarce (relatively speaking) and the price increased, then there was motivation to look for alternatives. It wasn't nearly as artificially contrived as you think it was.

Federal Gas Tax Revenue 2014: $35.2 billion
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... 4/fe10.cfm

Oil Subsidies: $4 billion
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th- ... timony.pdf

Couldn't find more recent numbers, but you get the idea. It's a myth that subsidies are distorting the price.

Pwns wrote:Federal Gas Tax Revenue 2014: $35.2 billion
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... 4/fe10.cfm

Oil Subsidies: $4 billion
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th- ... timony.pdf

Couldn't find more recent numbers, but you get the idea. It's a myth that subsidies are distorting the price.

If you want to call being able to keep more of YOUR money a subsidy....

But, it's not.

Baldy wrote:

Pwns wrote:Federal Gas Tax Revenue 2014: $35.2 billion
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... 4/fe10.cfm

Oil Subsidies: $4 billion
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th- ... timony.pdf

Couldn't find more recent numbers, but you get the idea. It's a myth that subsidies are distorting the price.

If you want to call being able to keep more of YOUR money a subsidy....

But, it's not.

If only my small business were honored with the same benefits...



Picking the tax loophole winners and losers
was a road our Federal Government should have never stumbled down