Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Paul_D_North_Jr"] Why wouldn't the government also take similar adverse action on the use of oil = diesel fuel for the conventional locomotives, which would further increase the price of oil, and rebalance the scales ?  Diesel fuel/ oil has a substantial carbon content, too.  Meanwhile, the world's petroleum prices keep on rising . . . . I'm no expert on this, but my 'naive' opinion/ thought is that a carbon tax or 'cap and trade' kind of program, etc. will 'raise all boats' / costs more or less equally.  I dont see where that would fatally disadvantage electric production - mostly coal - with respect to diesel fuel locomotives.  Actually, if such programs are fairly implemented - a big 'if', I concede - the railroad ought to get a substantial credit for the carbon emissions that are saved or forgone by eliminating the diesel locomotives, correct ?  So perhaps that impact will be more or less neutral. Other opinions and more informed insights and correction, etc. are welcomed. - Paul North. [/quote] There certainly are a lot of tentacles to this carbon issue.  In a way, carbon taxes do raise all boats, but the core objective is to reduce CO2.  So, while diesel and coal both produce CO2, it might be more cost effective to reduce CO2 at the power plants rather than onboard each diesel locomotive—depending on the cost of new electric locomotives or new dual mode locomotives, and the cost of electrification, either at once or incrementally.  So electrification to avoid carbon taxes may be more cost effective than sticking with diesel and higher carbon taxes, even though both fuels produce CO2. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> As I understand it, the EPA announced yesterday that CO2 is a health risk, and that they will take measures to curtail CO2 emissions, based on their power to do so, which flows from the supreme court decision a couple years ago that decided that the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2.  So, under this scenario, the EPA will simply make the rules. <o:p></o:p> However, congress can pass an energy bill that would take precedence over the will of the EPA.  The administration would like a climate/energy bill to take to the Copenhagen meeting that would give the president the authority to sign onto the new world agreement.  Without such a bill from congress that basically approves our entry into the new treaty, the president cannot sign on unilaterally.   <o:p></o:p> Congress is now between a rock and a hard place.  On one hand, they would like to have a say in shaping the world agreement by imposing their own set of criteria in the form of an energy bill, so they will delay until the Copenhagen summit has passed.  But on the other hand, if congress delays too long, the EPA will simply impose what the Copenhagen treaty would require if the president were to sign it. <o:p></o:p> Senator Byrd is urging congress to quickly pass an energy bill in order to prevent the EPA from destroying the coal industry in his state, which the EPA would do if they move forward on their own: <o:p></o:p> <A href="http://www.wvnstv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=71553">http://www.wvnstv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=71553</A>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag