US Midterm Elections

[Jacob]

So... 36 days to the US midterms. Most polls say the GOP are likely to pick up 6+ senators and take the Senate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/29/the-odds-of-republicans-winning-the-senate-are-growing/

If so, what will we see happen in the US? What are you thoughts?

[LaCroix]

down with measure 5!

honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?

[alfred russel]

honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?

Wetlands are critical for the environment, but if we exclude ecology what is left?

[Barrister]

down with measure 5!

honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?

That's a pretty big "aside".

Wetlands are huge for flood control.

[Jacob]

honest question: do wetlands actually provide anything for the environment, aside from ecological reasons?

What does this sentence mean?

[alfred russel]

If so, what will we see happen in the US? What are you thoughts?

I think the US system is rather dysfunctional. I was recently reading how the Philippines has for some time been considering constitutional changes to move toward a parliamentary system (they basically have the US system).

I doubt any good will come from a republican led senate, but at least then congress might be able to pass laws, maybe even some that can get signed into law after working with the president. In the current environment it seems a republican house and democratic senate can't come together to do much of anything.

[derspiess]

If so, what will we see happen in the US? What are you thoughts?

Not much will change in the big picture.  It'd be a nice moral victory for the GOP but in truth it will be a bit hollow.  Dems would lose some face and should be encouraged to make some changes (cough, cough, replace DNC chair) looking towards 2016. 

[LaCroix]

What does this sentence mean?

i mean, i don't know what wetlands do. completely ignorant of it. are there massive downsides to removing all or some to make way for actual development?

Wetlands are critical for the environment, but if we exclude ecology what is left?

what is the effect on the environment? X creatures or species are wiped out due to removal of wetlands, but what impact does that have on, say, farmland in the region? creatures die, aside from that is there an actual environmental impact? what's the (realistic) butterfly effect?

Wetlands are huge for flood control.

okay, this is what i mean. thank you. but can't human ingenuity (dikes, dams, whatever) offset the loss of wetlands? for example, if we can increase the profitability of a parcel of land by $50,000, but we have to pay $10,000 to offset environmental changes (changes, not permanent damage -- though i don't know if removing wetlands causes permanent environmental damage), then isn't it worth it?

[Ed Anger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/fumbled-bid-for-governor-imperils-ohio-democrats.html?_r=0

Lolz

[mongers]

What does this sentence mean?

i mean, i don't know what wetlands do. completely ignorant of it. are there massive downsides to removing all or some to make way for actual development?

Wetlands are critical for the environment, but if we exclude ecology what is left?

what is the effect on the environment? X creatures or species are wiped out due to removal of wetlands, but what impact does that have on, say, farmland in the region? creatures die, aside from that is there an actual environmental impact? what's the (realistic) butterfly effect?

Wetlands are huge for flood control.

okay, this is what i mean. thank you. but can't human ingenuity (dikes, dams, whatever) offset the loss of wetlands? for example, if we can increase the profitability of a parcel of land by $50,000, but we have to pay $10,000 to offset environmental changes (changes, not permanent damage -- though i don't know if removing wetlands causes permanent environmental damage), then isn't it worth it?

Environments don't seem to exist in your world, it's just land waiting to be concreted over or ploughed under.

[Barrister]

[

Wetlands are huge for flood control.

okay, this is what i mean. thank you. but can't human ingenuity (dikes, dams, whatever) offset the loss of wetlands? for example, if we can increase the profitability of a parcel of land by $50,000, but we have to pay $10,000 to offset environmental changes (changes, not permanent damage -- though i don't know if removing wetlands causes permanent environmental damage), then isn't it worth it?

You can't just "offset" wetlands.  The trouble with flooding is that you have more water than the existing drainage system can handle at a given point in time.

Wetlands help because thay are an area where the water level can rise, and then slowly be absorbed back into the water table.

There's no real "whatever" besides dikes and dams (and diversions - I'll get to those) - those are the two options.  Dikes are problematic - they increase the volume of water than can flow through a river, but it just transfers the problem downstream.  And if downstream just builds more dikes, the problem just jeeps getting magnified.

Dams and diversions are similar - if there's too much water in one area, either store the water, or divert it somewhere else.  But the problem with these options is that they also require land - lots of it.  If you want to use wetlands as for development, you're not really any further ahead if you then have to convert another area into a dam or drainage basin.

[LaCroix]

Environments don't seem to exist in your world, it's just land waiting to be concreted over or ploughed under.

not necessarily. it's hard to farm on concrete. but, provided there's no permanent lasting damage to the planet that might threaten habitability, then i can't support saving a parcel of land from economic development (i don't just mean factories). i approve of designated conservation areas that everyone can enjoy, but i don't think people can enjoy wetlands in the same sense.

in the U.S., there's lots of rural areas. tons. there's no fear it'll all get swallowed up by exponentially expanding population centers.

[LaCroix]

You can't just "offset" wetlands.  The trouble with flooding is that you have more water than the existing drainage system can handle at a given point in time.

Wetlands help because thay are an area where the water level can rise, and then slowly be absorbed back into the water table.

There's no real "whatever" besides dikes and dams (and diversions - I'll get to those) - those are the two options.  Dikes are problematic - they increase the volume of water than can flow through a river, but it just transfers the problem downstream.  And if downstream just builds more dikes, the problem just jeeps getting magnified.

Dams and diversions are similar - if there's too much water in one area, either store the water, or divert it somewhere else.  But the problem with these options is that they also require land - lots of it.  If you want to use wetlands as for development, you're not really any further ahead if you then have to convert another area into a dam or drainage basin.

very informative. again, thank you!

then isn't the question -- what's more effective, wetlands or man-made diversionary/storage plans? if it's a 1:1 ratio... then if the wetlands could be drained because that good ol' NODAK soil is under it, and less fertile land is "destroyed" to make up for it, wouldn't that be the a more efficient use of land?

[Barrister]

You can't just "offset" wetlands.  The trouble with flooding is that you have more water than the existing drainage system can handle at a given point in time.

Wetlands help because thay are an area where the water level can rise, and then slowly be absorbed back into the water table.

There's no real "whatever" besides dikes and dams (and diversions - I'll get to those) - those are the two options.  Dikes are problematic - they increase the volume of water than can flow through a river, but it just transfers the problem downstream.  And if downstream just builds more dikes, the problem just jeeps getting magnified.

Dams and diversions are similar - if there's too much water in one area, either store the water, or divert it somewhere else.  But the problem with these options is that they also require land - lots of it.  If you want to use wetlands as for development, you're not really any further ahead if you then have to convert another area into a dam or drainage basin.

very informative. again, thank you!

then isn't the question -- what's more effective, wetlands or man-made diversionary/storage plans? if it's a 1:1 ratio... then if the wetlands could be drained because that good ol' NODAK soil is under it, and less fertile land is "destroyed" to make up for it, wouldn't that be the a more efficient use of land?

Dude - Winnipeg has a very nice diversion that goes around the city to protect it from floods.  Unfortunately though it's all excellent and fertile soil, which is now very dubious for farming (since in any year there's a possible flood the land gets flooded).

You don't get to choose where you build a damn or a diversion - geography dictates it.  And unfortunately there is no place in North Dakota or southern Manitoba that isn't good farm land.

So rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe we'll just let the nice ducks live in their existing wetlands?

[Valmy]

Millions for dikes not a penny for ducks!