5 ms·

It's an opinion article in the WSJ.

by yareally 3y ago

SoftTalker 3y ago
Is it wrong?
- otterley 3y ago
  Opinions don’t lend themselves to being wrong or right. That’s what makes them opinions! They’re better described as agreeable or disagreeable.
  - wrs 3y ago
    Of course they can. You don’t get a pass on correctness just because you call your incorrect statement an opinion. E.g., “in my opinion, the Earth is a torus.”
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 3y ago
      I agree with you - your example is not an opinion statement, regardless of the first clause. But that’s not what we’re talking about. The actual article is an opinion piece.
      - wrs 3y ago
        “I don’t like broccoli” is an opinion that is neither right nor wrong. “California could solve the problem for every member of the Colorado River Compact by developing infrastructure to use untapped sources of water” is an opinion that is certainly right or wrong, even though nobody knows which it is.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    It's called an opinion piece, but since it is proposing solutions to problems it would be better called a policy piece. Policies lend themselves to being right or wrong with respect to the issues the policies are meant to address.
- lostdog 3y ago
  The obvious bias in the article suggests that it's probably wrong. It would take a ton of research to know for sure.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nverno 3y ago
    It's strange though, cause the potential solutions proposed, especially the first, seem like they would be goals of environmental lobbyists, whoever or whatever those are.
    - lostdog 3y ago
      This one? > But upgrading the urban wastewater-treatment facilities surrounding the bay would eliminate nutrient pollution, permitting more delta water to be directed to California’s farms and cities—a lot more water. The main reason for "flushing" fresh water into the delta is to preserve the delta ecosystem. Without putting fresh water in the river, the salt water from the Bay works its way up the delta. I tried a few searches to understand whether this wastewater issue is real or not, and the main "nutrient pollution" issue that comes up is not human waste, but instead fertilizer runoff from agriculture [1,2]. Upgrading wastewater treatment sounds great, but overall this author just doesn't seem to be honest. [1] https://ucanr.edu/sites/DRAAWP/files/358402.pdf https://ucanr.edu/sites/DRAAWP/files/358402.pdf [2] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2845 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2845
      - nverno 3y ago
        I hadn't thought about the saltwater creep. But fertilizer runoff from agriculture is a big deal, and can have serious implications. If it's too concentrated, it can kill entire ecosystems after algal blooms. I actually did my undergrad thesis on looking into using mushrooms to reduce fertilizer runoff. I guess it's probably pretty complicated to decide what solution would have the least environmental impact/or the one with the most desired outcome in this case.

It's an opinion article in the WSJ.

SoftTalker 3y ago

Is it wrong?

otterley 3y ago
Opinions don’t lend themselves to being wrong or right. That’s what makes them opinions! They’re better described as agreeable or disagreeable.
- wrs 3y ago
  Of course they can. You don’t get a pass on correctness just because you call your incorrect statement an opinion. E.g., “in my opinion, the Earth is a torus.”
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 3y ago
    I agree with you - your example is not an opinion statement, regardless of the first clause. But that’s not what we’re talking about. The actual article is an opinion piece.
    - wrs 3y ago
      “I don’t like broccoli” is an opinion that is neither right nor wrong. “California could solve the problem for every member of the Colorado River Compact by developing infrastructure to use untapped sources of water” is an opinion that is certainly right or wrong, even though nobody knows which it is.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It's called an opinion piece, but since it is proposing solutions to problems it would be better called a policy piece. Policies lend themselves to being right or wrong with respect to the issues the policies are meant to address.
lostdog 3y ago
The obvious bias in the article suggests that it's probably wrong. It would take a ton of research to know for sure.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nverno 3y ago
  It's strange though, cause the potential solutions proposed, especially the first, seem like they would be goals of environmental lobbyists, whoever or whatever those are.
  - lostdog 3y ago
    This one? > But upgrading the urban wastewater-treatment facilities surrounding the bay would eliminate nutrient pollution, permitting more delta water to be directed to California’s farms and cities—a lot more water. The main reason for "flushing" fresh water into the delta is to preserve the delta ecosystem. Without putting fresh water in the river, the salt water from the Bay works its way up the delta. I tried a few searches to understand whether this wastewater issue is real or not, and the main "nutrient pollution" issue that comes up is not human waste, but instead fertilizer runoff from agriculture [1,2]. Upgrading wastewater treatment sounds great, but overall this author just doesn't seem to be honest. [1] https://ucanr.edu/sites/DRAAWP/files/358402.pdf https://ucanr.edu/sites/DRAAWP/files/358402.pdf [2] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2845 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2845
    - nverno 3y ago
      I hadn't thought about the saltwater creep. But fertilizer runoff from agriculture is a big deal, and can have serious implications. If it's too concentrated, it can kill entire ecosystems after algal blooms. I actually did my undergrad thesis on looking into using mushrooms to reduce fertilizer runoff. I guess it's probably pretty complicated to decide what solution would have the least environmental impact/or the one with the most desired outcome in this case.