FM,
For once I can agree with you. The idea that industrial civilization is the cause of global warming is total fabrication.
Geologists call this the Holocene - Hot Time, a term applied long before I heard it 30 years ago. 20,000 years ago all of Canada and parts of the Northern US, say Seattle WA and Chicago were under a continuous continental ice cap. Sea level was about 300 feet lower then than now.
Global warming is very real, has been underway for at least 20,000 years and is a good thing too. How did our industrial civilization cause this???
Also in 1975 the big climate scare was global cooling! We are not in control of global temperatures. This is just another political power grab by the big government advocates.
Mac
gabe wrote: (1) If leaning to the left means I am not to the right of Attilla the Hunn, I plead guilty.
(1) If leaning to the left means I am not to the right of Attilla the Hunn, I plead guilty.
Wasn't Attila the Hun considered a precursor of Adolf Hitler, the most notorius socialist that ever existed? (Hint: "Nazi" is code for National Socialist)
(2) How is it that you are so sure of my political leanings? (for the record, I am neither a republican or a democrat, I am a monarchist--I should be King).
An educated guess - a recent poll of Republican votes revealed that 90ish% of them reject the notion of man caused global warming. The whole MMGW debate has become starkly partisanized, with most conservatives rejecting this MMGW nonsense, while most liberals whole-heartedly embrace the notion. As of yet there is no record of how monarchists generally feel about the whole debate (probably too busy flogging the servants!)
It would be statistically unlikely that you do not lean to the left in your heart of hearts, given the sincerely frightened tone of your original post. And I do believe your concern over man caused global warming is sincere. Misplaced but sincere. Al Gore owes you an apology for causing such pericombobulation.
(3) My biggest disagreement with your sylogism is that gradually moving our economy away from fossil fuels will result in an economic disaster. This is far from obvious to me, as it will keep more of our dollars in the hands of Americans rather than Middle Eastern Oil Moguls.
Oil was the primary cause of the 1970's recession. Or at least the way Nixon/Ford/Carter reacted to oil problems. And that's where the economic disaster looms - not necessarily in the price shock of disrupted energy supplies, but in the way our government tends to try to *fix* the problem instead of letting the market take care of things. Back then, oil imports were roughly 40% of our supply. Today, oil imports represent nearly 70% of our total supply. And the kicker is this - the one way, indeed the only way we can reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies (as it relates to our transportation and home heating markets) to to develop our own, and that means COAL via liquification. COAL is also 60% of our electricity supply.
At least back then the problem was tangible, unlike today's GW "problem".
Now, why would we want to take legislative action that would inject disincentives in developing our 200+ year supply of coal to make us energy independent? A CO2 tax and/or cap would be the thing prevents us from making this internal adjustment to long term energy security.
For what it's worth, the best way to keep US dollars in the US and maintain the value of those dollars is to develop our coal supplies. Forcing the adoption of more expensive alternatives will have the effect of reducing the value of those dollars - no point in keeping US dollars in the US if those dollars aren't worth Confederate money in the long run.
BTW - weren't you one of the folks complaining about rising electricity costs? Why do you think your energy bills are rising? And if such is a problem for you now, how much more will it be a problem if we cap coal development in favor of the more expensive (and less reliable) alternatives such as wind/solar/renewables?
I will ask you this: How do you envision "gradually" replacing so-called fossil fuels in our transportation network? (I say "so-called fossil fuels" because of the evidence of abiotic origins of hydrocarbons.) And if we indeed have 200+ years of coal in the ground under our soil, why do you deem it not-so-disadvantageous to forbid developing that coal under the phony guise of saving Planet Earth from global warming? The coal is there. If we don't develop it it will just sit there unused. There is really no competing use for it other than for energy, unlike corn (for ethanol) which is usually something we eat. What is happening right now to our food prices due to the recent ethanol mandates? Don't you think that problem of our basic food costs will be exponentially worsened if we start mandating greater quantities of ethanol at the pump?
Ethanol from biomass? Same problem - biomass has to be grown somewhere. So we just replace our wheat fields and corn fields with sawgrass and poplars - now we have less ground under food production, food prices go up, people starve.
Government mandated conservation? What is conservation? It is in it's simplest terms a reduction of economic activity to *save* energy- and what do we call a large scale reduction in economic activity? A recession, or worse a depression.
Is that what you want for your daughter?
As I see it, the *cure* (as promoted by GW advocates) is megatimes worse than the ostensible disease.
(4) When it is 60 degrees in January for three days in a row, in the middle of Indiana, I am not going to appologize for getting a little concerned for thinking that it is certainly possible that the burning of fossil fuels is exacerbating global warming.
It's as if you haven't heard a word we've said. The Middle Ages were much warmer than we are today. This current climate trend is naturally cyclical as have all the warming periods prior. And for the record, the burning of so-called fossil fuels over the last few centuris has contributed less than 1/10 of 1% of total atmospheric CO2. 1/10 of 1% is hardly an "exacerbating" factor in total atmospheric CO2.
In other words, you have to be able to separate the surface temperature readings you get from this Dark Ages mentality of cherry-picked cause and effect variables.
You see higher than normal temperatures in January, you see exhaust coming out of the tailpipes of passing SUV's, you make a connection between the two which leads you to conclude that eliminating the emissions will eliminate the warming. The simplest conclusion.
Middle Age folk saw the bubonic plague as being caused by cats and dogs, since incidents of plague were higher in areas populated by cats and dogs. They concluded that getting rid of the cats and dogs would eliminate the cause of the plague. The simplest conclusion.
Wrong on both counts.
gabe wrote:(1) If leaning to the left means I am not to the right of Attilla the Hunn, I plead guilty.(2) How is it that you are so sure of my political leanings? (for the record, I am neither a republican or a democrat, I am a monarchist--I should be King).(3) My biggest disagreement with your sylogism is that gradually moving our economy away from fossil fuels will result in an economic disaster. This is far from obvious to me, as it will keep more of our dollars in the hands of Americans rather than Middle Eastern Oil Moguls.
I personally don't think that a slow shift away from fossil fuels will seriously impact the economy. The question is "how slow is slow enough to not incur serious economic repurcussions?" And will nuclear be allowed to replace coal? If reasonable transitions are made over a 30+ year period, we will undoubtedly survive.
(4) When it is 60 degrees in January for three days in a row, in the middle of Indiana, I am not going to appologize for getting a little concerned for thinking that it is certainly possible that the burning of fossil fuels is exacerbating global warming. Gabe
Gabe
So how about in 1950 when the temperature in Indianapolis exceeded 70 degrees in January? Was that "global warming" exacerbated by burning fossil fuels too?
On a related note, I think that railroad executives are well aware of the ramifications of the eventual closing of coal burning plants. But who can blame them for making hay while the sun shines?
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
gabe wrote: futuremodal wrote: dldance wrote: Why do you think the CEO of BNSF took journalists and analysts on a personally conducted tour of the 3 remaining single track sections in New Mexico? Seeing is believing. He wanted them to see lines of auto trains and intermodals (revenue) waiting to cross the Pecos River bridge. He wanted them to see that the investment in fixing those problems will better position BNSF in the growth areas of the trasportation business. I expect those same journalists and analysts can also read the annual reports from BNSF and see that steamship intermodal only brings in half the revenues of domestic freight.Okay, maybe not the journalists, most of whom are too stupid to tie their own shoes. But the analysts are paid to pore over the relevant finanial data, and they know like most of us that coal is paying the bills while ISO intermodal is mostly window dressing.So if the unthinkable happens and the global warming fraudmongers win out, and we end up with carbon taxes and carbon emission restrictions, and demand for coal withers which in turn kills off coal hauling by the railroads...................well, that will be deep water indeed.FM,It seems like I am taking issue with your positions a lot. It is not intentional, and I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but how hot does it have to get before you are convinced?The world just had its hotest winter in recorded history. The vast majority of scientists say polution either created this problem or made it worse. If it is 90 degrees in January, are we still going to be saying this global warming thing is just a fraud?I am not as opposed to your thesis as you might think, as there is little doubt in my mind that the scientists are not simply neutral unbias reporters of fact. And, I realize the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles. Nonetheless, I would like my daughter to grow up in a world that is not underwater, and it seems to me that the consequences of false positive for global warming are a lot less of a concern than a false negative.Gabe
futuremodal wrote: dldance wrote: Why do you think the CEO of BNSF took journalists and analysts on a personally conducted tour of the 3 remaining single track sections in New Mexico? Seeing is believing. He wanted them to see lines of auto trains and intermodals (revenue) waiting to cross the Pecos River bridge. He wanted them to see that the investment in fixing those problems will better position BNSF in the growth areas of the trasportation business. I expect those same journalists and analysts can also read the annual reports from BNSF and see that steamship intermodal only brings in half the revenues of domestic freight.Okay, maybe not the journalists, most of whom are too stupid to tie their own shoes. But the analysts are paid to pore over the relevant finanial data, and they know like most of us that coal is paying the bills while ISO intermodal is mostly window dressing.So if the unthinkable happens and the global warming fraudmongers win out, and we end up with carbon taxes and carbon emission restrictions, and demand for coal withers which in turn kills off coal hauling by the railroads...................well, that will be deep water indeed.
dldance wrote: Why do you think the CEO of BNSF took journalists and analysts on a personally conducted tour of the 3 remaining single track sections in New Mexico? Seeing is believing. He wanted them to see lines of auto trains and intermodals (revenue) waiting to cross the Pecos River bridge. He wanted them to see that the investment in fixing those problems will better position BNSF in the growth areas of the trasportation business.
Why do you think the CEO of BNSF took journalists and analysts on a personally conducted tour of the 3 remaining single track sections in New Mexico? Seeing is believing. He wanted them to see lines of auto trains and intermodals (revenue) waiting to cross the Pecos River bridge. He wanted them to see that the investment in fixing those problems will better position BNSF in the growth areas of the trasportation business.
I expect those same journalists and analysts can also read the annual reports from BNSF and see that steamship intermodal only brings in half the revenues of domestic freight.
Okay, maybe not the journalists, most of whom are too stupid to tie their own shoes. But the analysts are paid to pore over the relevant finanial data, and they know like most of us that coal is paying the bills while ISO intermodal is mostly window dressing.
So if the unthinkable happens and the global warming fraudmongers win out, and we end up with carbon taxes and carbon emission restrictions, and demand for coal withers which in turn kills off coal hauling by the railroads..........
.........well, that will be deep water indeed.
It seems like I am taking issue with your positions a lot. It is not intentional, and I hope you don't take this as a personal attack, but how hot does it have to get before you are convinced?
The world just had its hotest winter in recorded history. The vast majority of scientists say polution either created this problem or made it worse. If it is 90 degrees in January, are we still going to be saying this global warming thing is just a fraud?
I am not as opposed to your thesis as you might think, as there is little doubt in my mind that the scientists are not simply neutral unbias reporters of fact. And, I realize the earth has natural warming and cooling cycles. Nonetheless, I would like my daughter to grow up in a world that is not underwater, and it seems to me that the consequences of false positive for global warming are a lot less of a concern than a false negative.
Gabe, how can I put this nicely?
You, like so many average citizens of the Western World who tend to lean to the left of the political spectrum,.....you've been duped.
You've been duped into thinking that there is a strong positive correlation between man's CO2 emissions from hydrocarbon combustion and a warming planet, e.g. increased atmospheric CO2 *causes* global warming via the erstwhile greenhouse effect. In fact the opposite is true: A naturally warming climate causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The anthropological record shows that warming periods precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by an average of 800 years. Thus we have an irrefutable cause and effect dynamic, one that flies in the face of those promoting the myth of man made global warming.
I assume you've seen Al Gore's propoganda movie. Now you have a chance to see a devastating rebuttal of "An Inconvenient Truth". "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is now available for viewing via the Internet (since as of yet none of the US media outlets are willing to show it). Take the time to watch this documentary, compare and contrast the information being presented with the Al gore film......
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
The question then becomes "If global warming is a natural occurrance, why do we think we can *do* something about it? Indeed, why do we want to *do* something about it?"
If indeed even the man made global warming proponents say that there is nothing mankind can do to stop global warming short of partial annihilation of the human species (the only way to reduce man's CO2 contributions to pre-warming levels), how much more true is it to conclude there is nothing to be gained by legislating ourselves out of existance to *save* the planet when the fact is that this warming (like all others in recorded history) is a natural occurrance?
What is startling to me (not to mention more than a bit discouraging in terms of our current "enlightened age") is why you or anyone remotely educated would choose to believe the worst regarding a warming planet? What is the historical record regarding previous warming periods such as occurred 1,000 years ago? Is there any evidence low lying areas were under rising ocean water? Is there any evidence of increased frequency of hurricanes/tornados/earthquakes/droughts/et al?
No. On the contrary, the recorded evidence from that age recalls the most prosperous era ever experienced by most of mankind.
If I was you, I would be more concerned about your daughter living in an economically decimated world, one in which mankind metaphorically emaciated himself via legislative shortsightedness. Do you have any idea what will happen to our economy, indeed our entire economic system, if we legislate a collapse of our energy and transportation infrastructure via misguided CO2 taxation/regulation?
Or are you one of those folks who believe that Big Auto suppressed the development of the electric car, and that Big Oil suppressed the development of *alternative* energy sources? People of that mindset are the ones who believe that money will grow on trees if we simply pass a law mandating that fantasy. Just pass a law to mandate autos get 100 mpg with zero emissions. Just pass a law that all energy generation have zero emissions. "See? It's that easy!" Now break out the wine and tofu........
dldance wrote: Why do you think the CEO of BNSF took journalists and analysts on a personally conducted tour of the 3 remaining single track sections in New Mexico? Seeing is believing. He wanted them to see lines of auto trains and intermodals (revenue) waiting to cross the Pecos River bridge. He wanted them to see that the investment in fixing those problems will better position BNSF in the growth areas of the trasportation business. He didn't want them to say that the $billion (+ or -) would be better spend increasing BNSF's dividend or purchasing/merging with a smaller Class 1. For every $1 that a Class 1 CEO has to spend on expansion, there are at least $100 in possibilities. Their 5 year strategies are focused on how to spend that $1 on the projects that will return them $10 - $50 over the next 5 years.dd
Why do you think the CEO of BNSF took journalists and analysts on a personally conducted tour of the 3 remaining single track sections in New Mexico? Seeing is believing. He wanted them to see lines of auto trains and intermodals (revenue) waiting to cross the Pecos River bridge. He wanted them to see that the investment in fixing those problems will better position BNSF in the growth areas of the trasportation business. He didn't want them to say that the $billion (+ or -) would be better spend increasing BNSF's dividend or purchasing/merging with a smaller Class 1.
For every $1 that a Class 1 CEO has to spend on expansion, there are at least $100 in possibilities. Their 5 year strategies are focused on how to spend that $1 on the projects that will return them $10 - $50 over the next 5 years.
dd
Someone once told me that the internet at times misses nuance hence causing misunderstanding..so bearing that in mind, I am not challenging what you are saying but I am curious as to some examples you could provide to fill the blanks...This is the point I was investigating in my meager way..outside of coal and intermodal...where is that $100.00 coming from...from an existing traffic base and expansion of it, or new sources of haulage? You refer to existing intermodal traffic as we are currently in a boom phase, the same applies to coal...if you took away coal and intermodal, what would you replace them with? I was'nt implying to questioning the validity that these are boom times, but historically it's been boom then a bust cycle based on the type of commodity hauled. With having said that, my question is pretty straight forward..let's say there's a rainy day...in existing commodities..eventually everything seems to fall into a bell curve...when the slope approaches as it will...what is there being developed today? Based on the replies, it appears coal and intermodal are twin keystones..if removed, the masonry arch will "bust"...if thats where its at..so be it...
wallyworld wrote: bobwilcox wrote: wallyworld wrote: What strategy would you use to surmount these challenges? I would need my box of prozac as I perhaps wrongfully, to navigate a strategy based on future growth. If you were sitting in the Presidents chair right now, how would you grow the business? The stockholders want to know...rely on fate? If you tune in to the quartely prensentations the Class Is make to the Wall Street anaylists you should be able to get a feel for where the various railroads are trying to push their firms. You will get a much better feel than the reprocessed STB stuff that has been carefully veted to not make any of the various interest groups unhappy. One cavet with the questions mangement will get from the anaylists-they anaylists don't look much farther than the next quarters earnings and they don't like any surprises. Bob..then what is your personal take on the prospect for future mergers.?..it sounds like you have some experience in that realm...more specifically, alot of corporations I was associated with, had five year rolling strategic plans...Anyhing like that operating inside of class 1's? If so, what are they in general terms? Any insights are appreciated..
bobwilcox wrote: wallyworld wrote: What strategy would you use to surmount these challenges? I would need my box of prozac as I perhaps wrongfully, to navigate a strategy based on future growth. If you were sitting in the Presidents chair right now, how would you grow the business? The stockholders want to know...rely on fate? If you tune in to the quartely prensentations the Class Is make to the Wall Street anaylists you should be able to get a feel for where the various railroads are trying to push their firms. You will get a much better feel than the reprocessed STB stuff that has been carefully veted to not make any of the various interest groups unhappy. One cavet with the questions mangement will get from the anaylists-they anaylists don't look much farther than the next quarters earnings and they don't like any surprises.
wallyworld wrote: What strategy would you use to surmount these challenges? I would need my box of prozac as I perhaps wrongfully, to navigate a strategy based on future growth. If you were sitting in the Presidents chair right now, how would you grow the business? The stockholders want to know...rely on fate?
What strategy would you use to surmount these challenges? I would need my box of prozac as I perhaps wrongfully, to navigate a strategy based on future growth. If you were sitting in the Presidents chair right now, how would you grow the business? The stockholders want to know...rely on fate?
If you tune in to the quartely prensentations the Class Is make to the Wall Street anaylists you should be able to get a feel for where the various railroads are trying to push their firms. You will get a much better feel than the reprocessed STB stuff that has been carefully veted to not make any of the various interest groups unhappy. One cavet with the questions mangement will get from the anaylists-they anaylists don't look much farther than the next quarters earnings and they don't like any surprises.
Bob..then what is your personal take on the prospect for future mergers.?..it sounds like you have some experience in that realm...more specifically, alot of corporations I was associated with, had five year rolling strategic plans...Anyhing like that operating inside of class 1's? If so, what are they in general terms? Any insights are appreciated..
I think the current batch of CEOs view another round of mergers with fear and loathing. However, if one of the Class I railroads gets very stupid they will rush to line up into two systems in the US. I would guess their five year plans vary but are probably along the tried and true lines of milking the cash cows (coal, chemicals) to feed growth (intermodal). They have a very big concern about how they going to finance the expansion projects.
I fully agree with bobwilcox. I do analysis in another industry and the hours I spend reviewing the quarterly press releases, finanacial reports, and presentations are extremely useful in understanding the long-term trends in the industry. As was mentioned, Wall Street does not like surprises. Thus, skilled CEO's will find ways of warning Wall Street far in advance of changes in trends. The warnings are subtil but after you have read many quarters of information, small changes start to stick out.
1435mm wrote: I'm not following your point, nor am I even sure what your point is. The presentation shows nothing that hasn't been known for a long time; it's just a recitation of established fact. Page 13 is very positive in my opinion -- it shows that we got rid of all the duplication and fruitless speculative excess.In my lifetime railroading has had some very dark times and from my perspective the future has never been brighter.S. Hadid
I'm not following your point, nor am I even sure what your point is. The presentation shows nothing that hasn't been known for a long time; it's just a recitation of established fact. Page 13 is very positive in my opinion -- it shows that we got rid of all the duplication and fruitless speculative excess.
In my lifetime railroading has had some very dark times and from my perspective the future has never been brighter.
S. Hadid
I agree , I think the future in the industry is very good . I'm looking forward to the challenges !!
wallyworld wrote:What strategy would you use to surmount these challenges? I would need my box of prozac as I perhaps wrongfully, to navigate a strategy based on future growth. If you were sitting in the Presidents chair right now, how would you grow the business? The stockholders want to know...rely on fate?
It wasn't my personal point of view, hence none was offered. I was interested in the merger prospects for Class Ones in the near term. I would love to see an in depth first person interview with the Chairman of the STB in Trains. None I could find. Coal and intermodal containers "fell" into railroadings lap. Growth is considered good. Boom and bust cycles and being dependant on them as well as being ill prepared for whichever way the wind blows seems rather silly on a mission, vision values statement.
1. Railroad applications for Mergers are based primarily on parity of rates and apparently, even more so on customer service. They are interlocked issues.
2.The last mergers were not exactly smooth transitions resulting in a great deal of customer complaints about service.
3.The Return on Investment for railroads is poor.
4.The capacity issues are capital intensive. See #1,2and #3
5. Commodities carried have narrowed. Coal at 42% last year represented only about 20% of revenues. The political attitude toward coal has decreased in favorability. This trend is likely to continue.
6. Intermodal at 14-16% is sensitive to geopolitics. Example: China is working hard on South America as an colonial economic outpost, an end run around our economy, hence the President's trip there.
All of this points to what I perceive to be an achilles heel of "success." The roads need to expand their traffic base , develop more partnerships as sources of traffic. We need transcontinental roads to improve service, etc. Service is far from being based on regional customer base. Railroads seem to have created their own barriers for further mergers in terms past poor merger plans. Re-regulation of roads seems likely before a merger would occur. What strategy would you use to surmount these challenges? I would need my box of prozac as I perhaps wrongfully, to navigate a strategy based on future growth. If you were sitting in the Presidents chair right now, how would you grow the business? The stockholders want to know...rely on fate?
http://www.stb.dot.gov/TestAndSpeech.nsf/9c0ecd4a0be1c80f852570ff004b208a/c1f73d7ec84c86228525720d00542b24/$FILE/afpa%20washington%20dc%205%2023%2006.pdf
A test transmission..and an insight..wading into deeper water..starting on page 13...ROI?..if I had the unfortunate karma to be a railroad president..I would be living off a caselot of prozac...with a permanent case of gastric upset...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.