It seemed from the comments that the Toxmap is going away, but most/all of the data 5hat feeds it is still available. There are several other related datasets that were "retired" around the same time, and those seem to be truly gone.
> There are several other related datasets that were "retired" around the same time, and those seem to be truly gone.
This is bad. Another reason that we need to demand that all public data should be available in a machine-readable raw format, not just a web frontend for access, and that we need to systematically upload datasets to archive.org.
All inconvenient truths shall be wiped under the carpet. Capitalism is a great thing and has brought us very far but you have to wonder if at some point it isn't going to undo all of that progress and put us back where we started or worse.
Quite so, but (like Jacques, apparently) I've come to think that the posture of ironic disbelief expressed in that phrase is corrosive of public discourse. I suspect it's responsive to unfavorable external conditions, like the famous line from Casablanca where the police chief raiding Rick's cafe insincerely says 'I'm shocked - shocked - to find that gambling is going on here,' to offset his embarrassment at functioning as a tool of the Nazis' political strategy.
Put another way, we pretend to give people we dislike the benefit of the doubt and they pretend to believe us, to avoid the unpleasant fact of an underlying social conflict.
You can think whatever you want but riddle me this: In what other country do large businesses get to dictate the contents of government websites, in what country is the head of the environmental protection agency a lobbyist for the oil and coal industry?
The effect of money in politics is tremendous and if not for the degree to which corporate profits dictate government policy through lobbying and outright corruption has no equal other than in the one country where 'the market' is given free rein to abuse the country to whatever degree they can get away with.
I was all for harsh punishment of VW execs because of the diesel scandal, at the same time everybody was up in arms about that and this sort of thing gets a free pass without so much as a raised eyebrow.
Why do people always have to shoehorn capitalism in any argument?
Removing inconvenient truths has been done and will be done under any system. Be it tribal, religious, monarchist, communist, capitalist, or a loose band of tree huggers. It really does not matter.
Tribes, religion, monarchy and communism all failed to greater or lesser extent before they could take the planet down with them. Their built-in faults were such that they did not need to be reined in before they self destructed.
But capitalism is so successful by the one metric that matters to it - money - that it has the potential to destroy everything else whilst still maximizing for that one metric. The concentrating effects of wealth make this even more likely. After all, people will rarely bite the hand that feeds them, guaranteeing docility whilst marching them right into the abyss.
The fact that poverty exists at all when there is unfathomable amounts of wealth[1] is a glaring sign of capitalist failure. Pointing to a reduction in the rates of poverty is not proving capitalism’s success. It’s pointing out capitalism’s most damaging and least ameliorable problem: poverty!
Poverty does not have to exist. Having “only” 750million people living beneath the poverty line globally (and a similar proportion in the U.S., about 11%) is not success!!! It is a mitigation of failure!
[1] - One commenter on this site last week or so in the VC community commented there are “trillions sloshing around.”
I don't think so. Capitalism is what drives politics in the United States, the degree to which big businesses dictate the course the country charts is unparalleled. Everything revolves around the large companies that pollute and externalize where ever they can, all in the name of profits.
Essentially the United States just removed a bunch of stuff that is embarrassing to corporate interests, in order to allow them to pollute some more but this time without any accountability.
Interesting. Why wouldn't there be an opposite corporate side that would make money off the stuff being removed. For example, there are a LOT of companies in the U.S. making money from environmental and alternative energy that might benefit from information the corporate interests had removed.
Maybe that _does_ boil down to just the political parties in charge at the time. If so then does politics trump capitalism?
That's because resource extraction from the planet is - for now - still cheaper than doing it in a sustainable way. At some point that will flip but by then it may well be too late, the 'mines of tomorrow are the garbage dumps of today' was recognized long ago.
I agree with duxup to the extent that any group of people can engage in such behavior - after all there have been plenty of corrupt regimes that are ostensibly communist or democratic but in practice are anything but. On the other hand I don't think that misbehavior is evenly distributed, and you make a good point that rule of law in capitalist countries means very little when authorship of laws is essentially available via auction.
They can, but capitalism is an accelerator that allows you to engage in this behavior on a scale that is unprecedented. Maybe the Chinese will show us that it can be even worse but for now the 'West' is solidly in the lead, for whatever that is worth.
Capitalism is about increasing productivity and profitability.
There is no incentive for sustainability unless governments interfer, which would technically be against capitalism.
I think capitalism was a great system, it's just going to screw us within the next 100yrs or so. We definitely wouldn't be where we are without it though
So long as the underlying data sets are still available, this sounds like something that could be taken up by an NGO or advocacy group such as the Sierra Club. If anything it could benefit from better exposure and more funding.
This looks like an opportunity for some aspiring web developer to put together their own map. I'm sure there's a nonprofit that would be willing to host it.
Im sure that a bunch of nerds (me included) would be able to add whatever sensors needed to upgrade their diy weather stations and upload the feeds somewhere
The leaders of the govt have at least basic rights to retract lots of things that are public, unless there some specific rule requiring something to be out there. This seems pretty clearly to be bad, is there any defense of this? My older relatives insist the current us govt 'changes' with Trump are what we need to succeed in the future. They aren't aware of things like this, but is there any defense of actions like this? My dad would probably say increasing business activity is the central goal of the govt, so it's okay not to cause trouble by pointing out all these pollution sources. But I can't see any good for this kind of stuff.
The people in most governments are quite cheap,so no surprise here. However,what I don't get is that same people forget that they live in the same country, breathe the same air and their kids will continue to do so. It's like trying to burn neighbor's house without impacting your help own,even though they are both connected...
I'll bet he wouldn't like it if he discovered toxic waste was being stored/leaked just next door. But as a theoretical situation he'd probably just say that it's fine as long as it's to code. Even if it were real, people cling to being told it is okay.
There are two problems I see. First, people seem to lack empathy -- it could just as easily be them suffering through no fault of their own. Second, people subconsciously know they could be struck by any number of random bad things, and there is nothing they could do about it, and no one would help; they rationalize this as the victim somehow being at fault. Same as crops failing because of sins or inadequate sacrifices.
Maybe explain to him that these businesses are run by big Democrat donors, and they are getting a free lunch by having tax payers pay for their pollution.
US Citizen here -- some activity under the Federal umbrella can be privitized, of course, maybe with different and/or better results by some measures. BUT those sort of activity, tend to be commercially valuable. Some company is able to do the same, plus add their own marketing or efficiencies to it, and turn a profit by charging some fee to others.
Pollution is not like that. Pollution, toxic wastes and looking after industrial activity to make sure it plays by the established rules, is simply a cost center. No one wants to pay for looking after someone else's wastes, someone else cheating the rules to reduce costs or simplify an industrial process. This is a responsibility of government because the actions of a few are expensive to others with no control over it, and pollution and toxic wastes do not have value, they are a cost. So society decides to use tax revenue and the authority of government to deal with pollution, toxics and industrial regulation.
Your older relatives have probably seen a tax money used badly, and this is true. However, not many people have the time and resources to even know about pollution and toxics, let alone do anything effective about it.
Before jumping to conclusions, I have some questions that the article didn't answer.
Is there any information available about how widely this was used beyond the anecdotes provided in the article? How costly was this to maintain? Is there an alternative that makes this redundant? Are there plans to replace it which simply haven't been published yet?
It sounds like the data sources used by Toxmap are still accessible. Was the visualization provided by Toxmap useful or was it just novel? Judging by the screenshots, the visualization doesn't seem to provide any insights that couldn't be easily inferred by simply looking at a population heat map. Did many people even know what Toxmap was before reading the article?
If this is a politically-motivated play, it's not a smart one. It's very on-the-nose and will probably do more harm than good to "anti-green political movement" (for lack of a better term).
> White House officials are working on an executive order that would ... require that publicly funded science be obtainable for free immediately [1]
It would be great if that could be extended from science to also include regulatory agencies. That would include Toxmap source data. Better than an executive order would be a federal statute. It's even worth a constitutional amendment.
46 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadIt seemed from the comments that the Toxmap is going away, but most/all of the data 5hat feeds it is still available. There are several other related datasets that were "retired" around the same time, and those seem to be truly gone.
This is bad. Another reason that we need to demand that all public data should be available in a machine-readable raw format, not just a web frontend for access, and that we need to systematically upload datasets to archive.org.
Put another way, we pretend to give people we dislike the benefit of the doubt and they pretend to believe us, to avoid the unpleasant fact of an underlying social conflict.
The effect of money in politics is tremendous and if not for the degree to which corporate profits dictate government policy through lobbying and outright corruption has no equal other than in the one country where 'the market' is given free rein to abuse the country to whatever degree they can get away with.
I was all for harsh punishment of VW execs because of the diesel scandal, at the same time everybody was up in arms about that and this sort of thing gets a free pass without so much as a raised eyebrow.
Australia does that one.
Removing inconvenient truths has been done and will be done under any system. Be it tribal, religious, monarchist, communist, capitalist, or a loose band of tree huggers. It really does not matter.
But capitalism is so successful by the one metric that matters to it - money - that it has the potential to destroy everything else whilst still maximizing for that one metric. The concentrating effects of wealth make this even more likely. After all, people will rarely bite the hand that feeds them, guaranteeing docility whilst marching them right into the abyss.
Poverty does not have to exist. Having “only” 750million people living beneath the poverty line globally (and a similar proportion in the U.S., about 11%) is not success!!! It is a mitigation of failure!
[1] - One commenter on this site last week or so in the VC community commented there are “trillions sloshing around.”
That's more about the motives of people, all people, rather than a commentary on capitalism or anything else.
Essentially the United States just removed a bunch of stuff that is embarrassing to corporate interests, in order to allow them to pollute some more but this time without any accountability.
Maybe that _does_ boil down to just the political parties in charge at the time. If so then does politics trump capitalism?
Just think of all the copper in landfills.
That's just human nature.
There is no incentive for sustainability unless governments interfer, which would technically be against capitalism.
I think capitalism was a great system, it's just going to screw us within the next 100yrs or so. We definitely wouldn't be where we are without it though
Is there a system that incentivizes sustainability?
If there is any interest in producing anything... you're back to your same argument.
Meanwhile capitalist systems there are companies that produce renewable products and etc... seemingly more than ever before.
Sorry if I made it sounds as if there are any alternatives.
Capitalism is still the best system known to work, despite its incentives for pure profits at the cost of sustainability.
It's just good to keep in mind that... It's not good, despite being the best
Have you seen our budget? <wink>
There are two problems I see. First, people seem to lack empathy -- it could just as easily be them suffering through no fault of their own. Second, people subconsciously know they could be struck by any number of random bad things, and there is nothing they could do about it, and no one would help; they rationalize this as the victim somehow being at fault. Same as crops failing because of sins or inadequate sacrifices.
Maybe explain to him that these businesses are run by big Democrat donors, and they are getting a free lunch by having tax payers pay for their pollution.
Pollution is not like that. Pollution, toxic wastes and looking after industrial activity to make sure it plays by the established rules, is simply a cost center. No one wants to pay for looking after someone else's wastes, someone else cheating the rules to reduce costs or simplify an industrial process. This is a responsibility of government because the actions of a few are expensive to others with no control over it, and pollution and toxic wastes do not have value, they are a cost. So society decides to use tax revenue and the authority of government to deal with pollution, toxics and industrial regulation.
Your older relatives have probably seen a tax money used badly, and this is true. However, not many people have the time and resources to even know about pollution and toxics, let alone do anything effective about it.
That's a deeply sad, but I suspect increasingly common view of the role of government
Is there any information available about how widely this was used beyond the anecdotes provided in the article? How costly was this to maintain? Is there an alternative that makes this redundant? Are there plans to replace it which simply haven't been published yet?
It sounds like the data sources used by Toxmap are still accessible. Was the visualization provided by Toxmap useful or was it just novel? Judging by the screenshots, the visualization doesn't seem to provide any insights that couldn't be easily inferred by simply looking at a population heat map. Did many people even know what Toxmap was before reading the article?
If this is a politically-motivated play, it's not a smart one. It's very on-the-nose and will probably do more harm than good to "anti-green political movement" (for lack of a better term).
It would be great if that could be extended from science to also include regulatory agencies. That would include Toxmap source data. Better than an executive order would be a federal statute. It's even worth a constitutional amendment.
[1] https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061836761