Anonymous
By the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department
Due to the increased flooding risk to adjacent properties and the City of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County will begin an emergency dredging operation at the Carpinteria Salt Marsh approximately April 3.
Operations will continue until June. Dredging equipment may be delivered to the marsh through Carpinteria area streets and beach access points. The beach area within 400 feet of the marsh mouth will be closed to public access. Some trails in the marsh will also be closed intermittently.
The Santa Barbara County Flood Control District is working with the Santa Barbara Land Trust, UC Santa Barbara, the City of Carpinteria, and the community to ensure the safety of the community and wildlife and minimize disruption to the community.
After the creek flows receded following the extreme rains from January and following the storms over the past two months, the Carpinteria Salt Marsh revealed an extreme amount of sedimentation. This sedimentation obstructs Santa Monica Creek and Franklin Creeks.
When these channels are obstructed, the community is at increased risk for flooding throughout the City of Carpinteria. Obstructed channels also interrupt the tidal cycle in the marsh, which reduces habitat for fish and wildlife that rely on open water channels for habitat and foraging.
The County will use hydraulic dredge vessels to remove sediment from the drainage channels in the marsh. The hydraulic dredge vessel exports water and sediment through a discharge pipe into the surf zone at a designated location near the mouth of the Salt Marsh.
The dredge will operate up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to expedite the operation. The marsh was dredged similarly following the 1/9/18 Debris Flow.
On Monday, January 9, 2023, Santa Barbara County proclaimed a local emergency due to the January 2023 storm impacts. Dredging operations are conducted through emergency permits from state and federal agencies. Sediment within the marsh has been sampled and tested.
Flood Control and Environmental Health staff will perform ocean water samples twice per week during operations. Weekly reports with information on sampling results are sent to regulatory agencies. Sampling results are posted at https://www.countyofsb.org/emergencybeachops.
So the “green” protect the environment people are silent?
Right, government & people interfere with nature when it suits them.
Just like they’re silent when you bring up where the lithium and other rare earth minerals come from, how their mined, and how they’re processed into usable materials for their “green” EV battery.
Just like the oilies are silent about the order of magnitude more damage that comes from fossil fuel extraction and delivery.
Oh, “they” again.
So sad that you live in a world where you are surrounded by a mass of “they”.
Battery technology is moving a lot faster that fossil fuel tech, don’t worry, smarter people than you are solving the problem.
5:11 – WRONG. That’s not false at all. It’s an established fact.
“While all sources of electricity result in some GHG emissions over their lifetime, renewable energy sources have substantially fewer emissions than fossil fuel-fired power plants. One study estimates that renewable energy sources typically emit about 50g or less of CO2 emissions per kWh over their lifetime, compared to about 1000 g CO2/kWh for coal and 475 g CO2/kWh for natural gas. ” https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy
“Fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous energy sources, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner. The differences are huge.” https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Wait, you’re right….. they’re not “WAY” cleaner, they’re “substantially” and “vastly” cleaner. Hilarious.
We’re not silent about batteries, just tired of explaining it time and time again that just because it’s not perfectly, 100% green, it’s still WAY cleaner than oil and gas. Approaching the environmental crisis with your all or nothing attitude will keep us in the smog.
False, an EV needs to travel 20,000-50,000 miles, depending on how the electricity it uses is generated, before you start see a net carbon benefit. To call that “WAY cleaner” would be an exaggeration.
You called me wrong then failed to addressed how I was wrong, which I was not. It is a FACT that EV production is significantly more carbon intensive than ICE vehicles due to the battery. The carbon break even point is somewhere around 20-50,000 miles of driving before the EV becomes the “cleaner” vehicle. I’m not sure what you are trying to argue in your reply, though it is nice to see someone finally acknowledge the nuclear power being both cleaner and safer.
@6:21
You are paltering, failing to include the harm done by fossil fuel extraction and transport, mining, and processing associated with the use of internal combustion power.
Fission energy produces long-lived dangerous waste, and is hugely expensive and slow to come on line, which is why it is promoted by oilies. And yet, it is still better than fossil fuels, which should really tell you something!
“t is a FACT that EV production is significantly more carbon intensive than ICE vehicles due to the battery.” – if it is, prove it. Where’s your source?
12:06 @
“Research” isn’t gobbling up BS from right-wing pro-carbon social media.
12:50 – Renewable energy is cleaner than fossil fuels. Fact. Lay off the insults, it’s pathetic and ruins your half-baked “argument.”
VOICE at 2:05 – “The fact that EV requires more resources and CO2 emissions to produce than ICE vehicles is common knowledge (and a quick google away) due to the large batteries,” – OK, then show some cites. You keep saying it;s a “fact” and a “quick google” so show your work. Stop the insults and do the work, like an adult.
SACJON 1:42 you do realize that no where am i saying renewable energy isn’t cleaner than fossil fuels, yet you continue to argue. The fact that EV requires more resources and CO2 emissions to produce than ICE vehicles is common knowledge (and a quick google away) due to the large batteries, it takes a certain amount of miles driven (which varies depending on what generated the electricity the EV is using) before the EV becomes the net “cleaner” vehicle. Again, what are you arguing and why? What about this concept is so hard to understand that you feel it’s “half baked”? This concept isn’t an argument but a fact.
VOICE – knowing you’ll never show your work, I’m doing it for you AGAIN to prove AGAIN that you’re WRONG:
“Myth #1: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of the power plant emissions. FACT: Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.” — https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
“A Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, Jessika Trancik, compared the lifetime carbon emissions of 125 EVs and gas-powered vehicles. Like the Volvo researchers, she found that lifetime carbon emissions from EVs were lower, even when battery production emissions were included. ” — https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/06/09/fact-check-electric-vehicles-emit-less-carbon-over-life-than-gas-cars/9900644002/
SBLETSGET “To make an EV is twice as much carbon footprint that if a gasoline vehicle.
Fact is you have to drive an EV almost 100,000 miles to break even.” Not true at all. That is NOT a “fact.” It’s a MYTH from a meme you saw online. HERE is your FACT:
“lifetime carbon emissions from EVs were lower, even when battery production emissions were included. ” — https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/06/09/fact-check-electric-vehicles-emit-less-carbon-over-life-than-gas-cars/9900644002/
Because of this recent study, it’s not the simple “fact” you keep proclaiming it to be. Do YOUR research.
VOICE at 4:31. Why are you hiding your name? Either way, you’re ignoring the study I cited while at the same time refusing to cite any of your own.
“lifetime carbon emissions from EVs were lower, even when battery production emissions were included. ” — https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/06/09/fact-check-electric-vehicles-emit-less-carbon-over-life-than-gas-cars/9900644002/
We’re done here. Besides, as I mentioned and flagged myself – all these EV comments are 100% off topic due to this being about dredging, not EV vs ICE cars. Do better.
SACJON, someone could say sky is blue and you’d still argue with them. It is amazing that you can avoid the specific comment I made while going off on a tangent. You are correct, over the lifetime, EV’s are cleaner, IF, they are used beyond the “breakeven point” I mention below. At mile 1 thru the break even point, ICE vehicles are net cleaner. Your constant urge to tell someone they’re wrong, when like in this case you clearly missed the point of the comment, then scold them as to why they wrong, with such self assuredness no less, when in reality your off “proving” something entirely different, accurately represents you deductive, intellectual and critical thinking capabilities.
Wrong again… you continue to argue something else, please re read the thread.
You’re wrong. EV’s are less dirty than ICEs during their ENTIRE life overall. That includes “battery production” and anything else you think you’re talking about. My God, VOICE. Grow the eff up.
True. But that’s not in the advertising or disclosures of Biden green deal.
To make an EV is twice as much carbon footprint that if a gasoline vehicle.
Fact is you have to drive an EV almost 100,000 miles to break even.
Just because there’s no tailpipe on an EV doesn’t mean it’s “green”. Between the mining for minerals & chemicals in a battery to the electricity it uses to 90% of the battery winding up in a landfill it’s nit as green as you think from inception to end.
Do your research. Learn fir yourself what it takes to build an EV & all its components.
SACJON: my comment includes the all aspects of ICE and EV vehicles. The “break even” point is where EV’s become “cleaner” that includes the gas used in the ICE vehicles, which is why after this “break even” point EV’s are cleaner because the ICE vehicles gasoline usage. Why do you continually argue against readily available facts, some that should be common knowledge, then ask for “sources” that any 8 year old can find in 10 seconds on google, or even 10 seconds of critical thinking?
True. No one wants to know about the fracking & coal burned to make solar panels either.
It takes almost 100,000 miles to break even on the carbon footprint of an EV vs a gasoline car.
How did they solve the fracking for the minerals & how have they solved burning coal to melt quartzite & how have they solved the energy storage issues?
Not yet, but they will eventually.
Until then “green” reusable is as dirty as fossil fuels. But one day we will be there with true clean energy.
That was my take too. I said as much, and immediately I got a few of the usual sour/anti/knee jerk, whatever you wanna call them type of replies that I often receive here. And apparently sometime after that it all got deleted. No problem.
Go ahead and ask anyone out at UCSB in the Bio Dept. if they think dredging ANY coastal marshland is a good. Then report back.
Dredging is horrible for the environment. As normal as they want it to sound, it destroys natural habitats. The marsh was there before they decided to build. They knew it was a terrible idea but of course, people with money and entitlement win again.
I agree, where is the green party in all this??? The environmental defense center? The EPA??
The sooner they dredge out the Carp marsh the better for that system’s health. No doubt there are a handful of folks who don’t want anyone to do anything, but then again there’s only a few folks like that. The entire ecosystem in that wetland will benefit from a good dredging. It’s not exactly the same, but there were a few folks who didn’t want to see Goleta Beach replenished. I was at Goleta Beach yesterday, and there was actually a nice right-hand break coming off the new sandbar. A guy was also catching some nice perch in that area as well. Sometimes things like dredging and replenishment need to be done…..and thank goodness our government is doing it the right way.
Very condescending post, Sac. Take a look at the article your commenting on. It’s about dredging the Carp salt marsh, kid. Do you have an opinion about the actual article at hand or not?
Condescending how? You’re the one calling me an “it.” Yeah, I’m not down with dredging either. You’re the one dragging this down into an insult fest, not me. But… I have better things to do than listen to your bs so have a fun night at the arcade, champ!
There it goes again – off on a tangent, unrelated topic. Oh well.
BASIC – We’re discussing the environment. Renewable energy is directly related to the environment. Nice try, kid. Also, wasn’t me who started that line of comments, it was one of your own.
Just re-read read your post @ 5:33pm, and also the last one you posted. That’s how. They’re both condescending. Not sure wtf you mean by the “it” thing, but this is a forum for debate and conversation, not name calling so I think let’s let this go.
see 5:28 peachy cheeks. Have a good night.
I see you like calling names and always having the last word, but what do you think about dredging the Carpinteria Salt Marsh?
Who/what are you referring to??
Even on the rare occasions when your comments make sense, it is often very difficult to relate them to any conversation in progress.
The comment at 6:06, but you’re trolling
I told you what I think. Read the words bro. Jeezwus. Let go.
Awesome, we’re seeing some opinions here. Thank god. Finally! I don’t care if we agree or disagree, but Edhats getting overwhelmed by a handful of “anti” posters who just want to chime in and start a political and/or personal fight rather than discuss what they think about the articles.
So maybe you should lead by example and stop with your name calling and political agenda.
” who just want to chime in and start a political and/or personal fight ” – Like dragging Newsom into almost every thread you comment in?
what about the California Costal Commission?
Great question. What about the Coastal Commission? Did they rubber stamp this one? They aren’t known for doing that. Heavy machinery in a sensitive coastal habitat usually is a big problem with them, and for good reason.
Thanks for the knee jerk downvote someone! Hilarious.
This is a common practice going back years and years. I don’t understand why the kerfuffle. The dredged sentiment will replenish our beaches so we can enjoy them during the summer months. The winter storms have depleted the sand far more than in normal years. And it helps the wildlife preserve their way of life using the marsh. The only ones who lose are people with political agendas.
Why are the usual characters bringing up politics in this?? Nobody cares about your anonymous internet opinions. Literally no one. Usually I chime in but it’s just getting silly. Go for a walk with your partner. Learn to cook something. Get a hobby. Watch interesting Youtube videos. Anything but this tiresome keyboard warrior diarrhea.
Once again I ask why are we meddling with nature. It’s anti green.
Just because there are excuses like moving sand to beaches that are eroded, by nature. Just because houses are in danger when they were built in a flood zone.
All man made excuses to screw with nature.
Man will screw with nature when it suits them.
Hypocrites
VOICE at 12:52 – jig is up, we all know it’s you. Please stop driving this train even more off the rails. I flagged my own off-topic responses here. Have some decency and do the same.
Just like those eco-warriors flying their private jets all over the world. Question, how many kW’s of solar energy is created by the solar panels on Obama’s (2 ocean front homes) and John Kerry’s multiple homes?