Trains.com

Energy Bill's Impact on the Railroads Locked

5406 views
79 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 3, 2009 10:58 PM

henry6

HERBYD

  EVER HEAR THE ONE IM HERE FROM THE GOVT TO HELP YOU. CAP & TRADE & THE ENERGY BILL IS A DISASTER. WE HAVE PLENTY OF COAL GAS & OIL USE IT .

HERBYD

UNTIL ITS ALL GONE OR WE CHOKE TO DEATH!

What would cause us to choke to death?  The issue of cap and trade has nothing to do with toxic emissions.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Friday, July 3, 2009 10:32 PM

HERBYD

  EVER HEAR THE ONE IM HERE FROM THE GOVT TO HELP YOU. CAP & TRADE & THE ENERGY BILL IS A DISASTER. WE HAVE PLENTY OF COAL GAS & OIL USE IT .

HERBYD

UNTIL ITS ALL GONE OR WE CHOKE TO DEATH!

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • 42 posts
Posted by HERBYD on Friday, July 3, 2009 9:43 PM

  EVER HEAR THE ONE IM HERE FROM THE GOVT TO HELP YOU. CAP & TRADE & THE ENERGY BILL IS A DISASTER. WE HAVE PLENTY OF COAL GAS & OIL USE IT .

HERBYD

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Duluth, MN
  • 343 posts
Posted by htgguy on Friday, July 3, 2009 4:02 PM

Railway Man

Bucyrus

Well in my opinion, the bill is being officially represented to be something quite different than what it really is, and a lot of people agree with me.  We may be right or wrong, but if we are right, the experts who are hired by railroads to explain the bill may be giving them the wrong information.

 

Could be, though to me it seems fairly straightforward. 

There's risk in everything railways do.  The "we" who are supposed to have these and similar answers for railway senior management try to mitigate our risk (because we really don't want to be fired) by spending a lot of time in D.C. talking to members of Congress, senior legislative staff, and senior administration officials, to seek clarification about the proposed rules, schedules, and effects.  I'm reasonably confident that railways aren't assessing it wrong.

RWM

I'm curious how you can even assess the impact of a bill that is more than 1000 pages long and wasn't available in its final form at the time the House voted on it.

It's understandable that politically, a railroad can't come out and say "We think this bill will be an anchor on the economy and detrimental to our business."

Railway Man, have you read the whole bill, and briefed anyone on the likely effects on the economics of rail transport? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious. I haven't read it-just a few selected portions. I expect it is hugely complex and will have effects that are very hard to predict now, along with the fact that there are a lot of unknowns in the world that will change outcomes as well.

I still see the greatest impact on railroads as how the overall economy will be affected.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 3, 2009 1:26 PM

With all the criticism of the climate bill, I think it is only fair to characterize the opposite position.  Here is a comprehensive analysis of the climate bill that echoes the rhetoric of the sponsors.  If what they say is true, we will all be winners.  No reason to worry about an adverse impact on anything.  The article implies that the only ones objecting to the climate bill are oil companies and other fossil fuel interests, and because of the bias of their business agenda, their objections are unfounded.   

 

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2009/07/02/3382/climate-bill-could-allow-industry-innovators-to-bring-total-energy-revolution/

 

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Friday, July 3, 2009 11:51 AM

Bucyrus

Well in my opinion, the bill is being officially represented to be something quite different than what it really is, and a lot of people agree with me.  We may be right or wrong, but if we are right, the experts who are hired by railroads to explain the bill may be giving them the wrong information.

 

Could be, though to me it seems fairly straightforward. 

There's risk in everything railways do.  The "we" who are supposed to have these and similar answers for railway senior management try to mitigate our risk (because we really don't want to be fired) by spending a lot of time in D.C. talking to members of Congress, senior legislative staff, and senior administration officials, to seek clarification about the proposed rules, schedules, and effects.  I'm reasonably confident that railways aren't assessing it wrong.

RWM

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 3, 2009 11:33 AM

Railway Man

Railways employ staff and consultants whose job is to provide expertise on matters such as the Energy Bill and its potential affects on railways.  The Energy Bill as well as other proposed or enacted Congressional policy and Obama Administration policy is summarized into policy effects papers that are distributed for reading and discussed in policy meetings. 

RWM

Well in my opinion, the bill is being officially represented to be something quite different than what it really is, and a lot of people agree with me.  We may be right or wrong, but if we are right, the experts who are hired by railroads to explain the bill may be giving them the wrong information.

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Friday, July 3, 2009 11:22 AM

Railways employ staff and consultants whose job is to provide expertise on matters such as the Energy Bill and its potential affects on railways.  The Energy Bill as well as other proposed or enacted Congressional policy and Obama Administration policy is summarized into policy effects papers that are distributed for reading and discussed in policy meetings. 

RWM

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 3, 2009 11:06 AM

Railway Man
Don is as well-informed about the traffic potential of railways as anyone I know. 

The original thread question was "what will be the effect of the Energy Bill and railways."  Don and others with expertise have answered, "nothing special."  If someone with expertise in railways wants to say otherwise, then I'm pleased to engage that discussion.

Do a word search for "rail" in half the posts in this thread and it doesn't even appear!  Or is at best just tacked on.  Sure doesn't seem to be much interest in railways any more. 

RWM

 

I appreciate everyone’s contribution to this thread, no matter what their viewpoint is.  However, I don’t know how anyone could answer the question implied in the thread title without being an expert on both railroads, and the energy bill.  Both are a part of the subject.  I know a little about both, but even if I knew everything about railroads, I would not even attempt to say specifically how the energy bill would affect railroads in dollars, given what I don't know about the energy bill.  All I can do is give my view and reasoning. 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Duluth, MN
  • 343 posts
Posted by htgguy on Friday, July 3, 2009 10:43 AM

Railway Man
Don is as well-informed about the traffic potential of railways as anyone I know. 

The original thread question was "what will be the effect of the Energy Bill and railways."  Don and others with expertise have answered, "nothing special."  If someone with expertise in railways wants to say otherwise, then I'm pleased to engage that discussion.

Do a word search for "rail" in half the posts in this thread and it doesn't even appear!  Or is at best just tacked on.  Sure doesn't seem to be much interest in railways any more. 

RWM

Thanks, I guess we are done then, since the experts have spoken.

  • Member since
    November 2007
  • 2,989 posts
Posted by Railway Man on Friday, July 3, 2009 10:25 AM
Don is as well-informed about the traffic potential of railways as anyone I know. 

The original thread question was "what will be the effect of the Energy Bill and railways."  Don and others with expertise have answered, "nothing special."  If someone with expertise in railways wants to say otherwise, then I'm pleased to engage that discussion.

Do a word search for "rail" in half the posts in this thread and it doesn't even appear!  Or is at best just tacked on.  Sure doesn't seem to be much interest in railways any more. 

RWM

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 3, 2009 10:21 AM
  

One thing to keep in mind is that the point (ostensibly) of cap and trade is to reduce the emission of CO2, rather than to generate revenue by a tax.  The tax is really just a penalty for violating the CO2 emission limit set by congress.  So, in theory, we won’t be paying more, but rather, we will be consuming less in order to lower our contribution of CO2 emissions.  The threat of higher cost is the stick of the classic carrot and stick motivator.  The carrot is the planet being saved from ruin.

 

The simplest execution of the cap and trade objective would be to just set the CO2 limits and prosecute any violators, like a speed limit on the highway.  Set the limits high and gradually reduce them over a period of years, so all CO2 emitters could adjust their output downward at a manageable rate.  At the same time, the American people could adjust their lifestyle by reducing their heating and cooling, driving less, and modifying their diet.  This simple execution of the cap and trade objective would just be called, cap.

 

But cap and trade, as it is being advanced, is more complex than the simple execution of cap.  First it focuses on the entire quantity of atmospheric CO2, and how much that quantity needs to be reduced.  Then it divides up the responsibility of reducing it equally.  So producing CO2 then becomes a fundamental human right, which is equally apportioned.  Some recipients of that right are producing less than what they are allowed, and some are producing more than what they are allowed.  If those exceeders cannot reduce to what they are allowed, they have the option of purchasing the unused portion of the right to produce CO2 from those who are producing less than what they are allowed.  That is the trade of cap and trade.  It is the purchase of those excess CO2 rights (carbon credits) that adds cost to the big carbon emitters such as coal fired power plants, agriculture, and transportation.  The cost of the purchase is the what is being called the tax.

 

So the bill endows a gift to the low CO2 emitters in the form of excess emission allowance, which they can sell as if it were currency.  It raises a question of how those beneficiary businesses will be defined.  Businesses normally exist or don’t exist on the basis of whether or not they produce something for which there is a market, and are able to meet the market price.  Will it be possible to start a new low-capital business that happens to have a very low carbon footprint, but is really just a “front” business for the purpose of harvesting the lucrative carbon credits?   Could I officially start the low carbon GREEN VISIONS COMPANY, and receive a federal allotment of carbon credits, which I could sell to the power company for big bucks?          

 

Considering this and other complications, there will have to be a mighty complex set of regulations developed to administer and manage all of these carbon credits and to determine how many are given free to businesses as their rightful allotment.  It seems like it would require something at least as complex as the IRS code right at the outset.  How much will businesses have to pay for experts just to manage their compliance with this new set of regulations?  How much will the trading companies charge for managing the trades?  How much will the government charge for administering its end of the regulations? 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Friday, July 3, 2009 9:15 AM

All I hear is that railroads will loose coal traffic. And the only thing they could gain is intermodal.  Where is the great marketing initiative, a term thrown around over the past decades as being the panacea for American businesses, the golden diploma carried forth by community college graduates hell bent on changing the world's economy!  (Yeah, I am sarcastic.)  Besides new products and transportation needs coming along in time, there is one other flagrantly apparent traffic yet unmined by today's managements: passenger!  Could rail's future actually be in moving people rather than freight; or in addition to freight.  This forum has out of hand dismissed such a future for railroads.

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Duluth, MN
  • 343 posts
Posted by htgguy on Friday, July 3, 2009 9:04 AM

oltmannd

htgguy

Now this is interesting, the statement that "coal will be a declining business, but it's very managable and more than replaceable". Coal contributed almost 25% of BNSF revenues in 2008.

I have managed multiple businesses. If 25% of my revenue left, I would manage it by reducing my labor force and capital investment drastically. Anything is manageable, but that doesn't mean it is not tremendously destructive to the business.

Because will take decades for the coal traffic to dry up. 

Because the growth of base load traffic other than coal is still 1-2% a year. (population growth alone increases the size of the economy)

Because, carbon tax or not, intermodal growth will swamp everything else in the next few of decades.

Because RRs don't particularly care either way if a carbon tax becomes law.

Because a carbon tax is peanuts compare to labor cost differential in driving business off-shore.

Because managing a declining business  (coal traffic, not all RR traffic)  means that capital is freed up for other purposes - like building intermodal terminals and ROW improvments.

The unilateral clean air and clean water acts of the late 60s and early 70s didn't send us to permanent economic ruin.  Those were really pretty heavy regulation (that largely worked!).  This is at least market based.  Is this really any worse?

It really just doesn't matter much to railroads.  RRs are in a good spot these days.  If rereg can be kept down to a dull roar, RRs will grow.

What I see as the flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that cap and trade will have no effect on the growth of the economy and intermodal service. I disagree. As others in this thread have pointed out, the goal of cap and trade is "sustainability". A sustainable economy is a slower growing (or stagnant, or contracting) economy.

Cap and trade is not the market at work-it is a government mandate that CO2 emissions be cut by a huge amount. The imposition of this cap and trade scheme is the most drastic government intervention in the economy in the history of our nation, much further reaching that the environmental mandates of 40 years ago. The government will pick winners and losers, a process that has already started in congress. The only "market" here is how much it will cost to buy favor from elected officials.

You chose not to address my points regarding who will be buying all the goods shipped by rail, and why a huge tax increase on every segment of the economy won't affect economic activity and in turn the business of railroading. That is crucial to my point that cap and trade will hurt railroads. Rail traffic levels in 2009 provide a glimpse at how economic activity affects railroads-why won't a huge tax increase on the entire economy (which is what cap and trade is) provide more of the same? Railroads will grow only if the economy grows, and cap and trade is nothing if not a huge anchor on economic growth.

Last, if global warming is really as big a problem as some maintain, why will it take decades for coal traffic to dry up? If this was really about global warming, or climate change, the bill would be directed toward actually accomplishing a quicker reduction in CO2, and a shift to nuclear power. But the real intent of cap and trade is to make the federal government more powerful and steal choices away from the average person.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, July 3, 2009 8:32 AM

htgguy

Now this is interesting, the statement that "coal will be a declining business, but it's very managable and more than replaceable". Coal contributed almost 25% of BNSF revenues in 2008.

I have managed multiple businesses. If 25% of my revenue left, I would manage it by reducing my labor force and capital investment drastically. Anything is manageable, but that doesn't mean it is not tremendously destructive to the business.

Because will take decades for the coal traffic to dry up. 

Because the growth of base load traffic other than coal is still 1-2% a year. (population growth alone increases the size of the economy)

Because, carbon tax or not, intermodal growth will swamp everything else in the next few of decades.

Because RRs don't particularly care either way if a carbon tax becomes law.

Because a carbon tax is peanuts compare to labor cost differential in driving business off-shore.

Because managing a declining business  (coal traffic, not all RR traffic)  means that capital is freed up for other purposes - like building intermodal terminals and ROW improvments.

The unilateral clean air and clean water acts of the late 60s and early 70s didn't send us to permanent economic ruin.  Those were really pretty heavy regulation (that largely worked!).  This is at least market based.  Is this really any worse?

It really just doesn't matter much to railroads.  RRs are in a good spot these days.  If rereg can be kept down to a dull roar, RRs will grow.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Friday, July 3, 2009 8:03 AM

Been gone for a couple of days.  This has been a very good discussion.

The way I see things right now is that we are at a major junction (crossroads) in our economic structure.  We are addressing in a very quick manner, while there is a super majority in the Senate, major issues which will move our economy as never before.

Go back and listen to the Candidate's comments on January 8, 2008.  You dont even have to listen carefully.  It is stated very clearly.  Electric rates will "necessarily skyrocket".

C&T is the crossroads we have never faced before.  Economically, we had better get it right.

ed

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: South Dakota
  • 1,592 posts
Posted by Dakguy201 on Friday, July 3, 2009 8:02 AM

oltmannd

How about RRs being in a position to sell credits gained from intermodal to their coal consuming customers?

Who even knows if the railroads will be generators or users of credits? 

I easily can envision the regulations surrounding carbon credits quickly becoming quite a bit like the Internal Revenue Code; chock full of special provisions meant to award -- or perhaps punish -- specific industries.  I might even predict the "green" jobs that are generated will be dwarfed by the lobbyist and lawyer jobs created.

The railroads would be well advised to continue ad campaigns similiar to the recent ones of NS featuring their fuel use advantage over trucks.    

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Duluth, MN
  • 343 posts
Posted by htgguy on Friday, July 3, 2009 7:30 AM

 

oltmannd

Meanwhile, back on the RR.... 

garr

Coal will be the proverbial frog in the warming cooking pot. At first the railroads won't notice the effects but over time that stalwart of income will be reduced significantly. What will replace it?

Intermodal!  Lots and lots of it.  If they do the carbon cap and trade, it will chase trucks off the road in huge numbers.  

How about RRs being in a position to sell credits gained from intermodal to their coal consuming customers?

Sure, coal will be a declining business, but it's very managable and more than replaceable.

Now this is interesting, the statement that "coal will be a declining business, but it's very managable and more than replaceable". Coal contributed almost 25% of BNSF revenues in 2008.

I have managed multiple businesses. If 25% of my revenue left, I would manage it by reducing my labor force and capital investment drastically. Anything is manageable, but that doesn't mean it is not tremendously destructive to the business.

What do you propose the railroads "easily replace" this lost business with? Intermodal, from the increasing amount of imported goods due to the manufacturers being driven overseas by draconian and unilateral cap and trade policies? Who is going to buy all this stuff the railroads will supposedly be hauling after their disposable income is effectively reduced by 10% due to the taxes and increased prices resulting from cap and trade? Is it the people who will be newly unemployed, like those who USED to operate the declining coal business of the railroads, or the truckers who the railroads are replacing? Remember, it should take less people to haul the freight by rail.

Everyone needs to think about what the ramifications of cap and trade will be. There is no free lunch. The increased costs will be paid,ultimately, by consumers. Cap and trade is a fundamental restructuring of the US economy and our lifestyles. Whether you agree it is needed or not, if you are not willing to admit this fact, you are denying reality.

The effect on railroading will be the same as the effect on the rest of the economy which railroading depends on-it will lead to no economic growth, higher unemployment, and a long term decline in our standard of living. There is no upside.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, July 3, 2009 6:56 AM

Meanwhile, back on the RR.... 

garr

Coal will be the proverbial frog in the warming cooking pot. At first the railroads won't notice the effects but over time that stalwart of income will be reduced significantly. What will replace it?

Intermodal!  Lots and lots of it.  If they do the carbon cap and trade, it will chase trucks off the road in huge numbers.  

How about RRs being in a position to sell credits gained from intermodal to their coal consuming customers?

Sure, coal will be a declining business, but it's very managable and more than replaceable.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: hillbilly hide away and campground C, M-ville,ILL
  • 2,153 posts
Posted by inch53 on Friday, July 3, 2009 6:27 AM

 

From what I've been able to glean from the different news medias, talk radio and even here. I can see nothing good becoming of this bill. Yes it will lower pollutants by reducing consumption by force, but at what cost.

 From what I can see the working poor and those on fixed incomes will be hit the hardest with costs. How will they survive????

 Our national debit is already is in the trillions. How many trillion will the cost for this be in the long run????

 The RR's will survive in a much different form, but it'll take government funding to make up from the losses in the long run. What will the public cost be for this????

 Our country is acuminating debit at rate, which it can ill afford at this time and are quickly becoming the land of indentured servants owned by other countries.

As I said there can be no over all good come of this plan as I see it.     

http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309

DISCLAIMER-- This post does not clam anything posted here as fact or truth, but it may be just plain funny
  • Member since
    October 2005
  • From: Central Texas
  • 365 posts
Posted by MJ4562 on Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:40 PM

Don't forget to write, call and email your Senators and make sure they understand how you feel.  Speak up and let your neighbors know what's in this bill.

This bill would be very detrimental to the railroads as their fate is tied to the economy as a whole. Coal, lumber, chemicals, autos, intermodal traffic will all decline as standards of living decline.  Investors will be little impacted as they will simply move their money overseas to China, India, etc.  It's the working class that will be most impacted because they cannot afford to pack up and move to New Zealand and live off their worldwide investment income.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
  • 1,503 posts
Posted by GP-9_Man11786 on Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:43 PM

GP40-2
Bucyrus
I think you are right that the general public does not realize the level of sacrifice that will be called for....
Very true, and when the general public realizes exactly what this bill calls for there will be a political backlash the likes never seen before. Most people just wanted "W" out of the oval office, not a seismic change in their lifestyles. It is going to get real ugly in American politics over the next few years.

 

That's part of the reason why we have a bi-cameral legislature. The Senate is supposed to (and hopefully will) provide a bit of a reality check to the House. My guese is the Senate will water the bill down to make it more paletable to the American people.

As for the renewable power part of the bill, I wonder why there's no talk of hydroelectric. We get nearly one tird of our electricity here in South Carolina from hydropower. It's clean and it's proven.

Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.

www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com 

  • Member since
    October 2002
  • From: US
  • 64 posts
Posted by ungern on Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:29 PM

GP40-2
Bucyrus
I think you are right that the general public does not realize the level of sacrifice that will be called for....
Very true, and when the general public realizes exactly what this bill calls for there will be a political backlash the likes never seen before. Most people just wanted "W" out of the oval office, not a seismic change in their lifestyles. It is going to get real ugly in American politics over the next few years.

*warning*

This thread looks like it is beginning to push the politics line.

As for the amount of "sacrifice" that people may be asked to make with this bill is up to debate and unfortunately with most government programs we will not know the amount until after the fact which is why many bills have sunset provisions so if something does not work it will go away--in theory at least.

As for the effect I think that TOFC and COFC loadings will go up simpkly because of the added tax on diesel fuel.  More and more trucking companies are going out of business.

Ungern

If mergers keep going won't there be only 2 railroads? The end of an era will be lots of boring paint jobs.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:10 PM
Bucyrus
I think you are right that the general public does not realize the level of sacrifice that will be called for....
Very true, and when the general public realizes exactly what this bill calls for there will be a political backlash the likes never seen before. Most people just wanted "W" out of the oval office, not a seismic change in their lifestyles. It is going to get real ugly in American politics over the next few years.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 2, 2009 1:00 PM

Fallen Flag

 Oh, I know. My question was more hypothetical than anything.

That's the thing. I think most of the general public is under the impression that there is all of this magical pie-in-the-sky clean power out there and it's just waiting to be utilized. I don't think most people realize the type of lifestyle sacrifices they will have to make to achieve the reduced emissions and "sustainability" that is being called for.

I think you are right that the general public does not realize the level of sacrifice that will be called for.  So far, there has been a remarkable disconnect between the problem and the cure.  The problem that has been framed by the experts could not possibly be more dire, and yet, we are being told to solve it by little symbolic acts like caulk and weather-stripping.  We are told that all of these little measures will add up to what is required to solve the problem.  No they won’t.  Not even close.  The public has been cultivated to accept the premise of the problem by making the cure seem painless.  Now that the premise has been widely accepted, the real cure is being brought forth in the form of cap and trade.  And the dire nature of the problem perfectly matches the dire sacrifice called for by cap and trade.

 

Regarding the effect on railroads, the direct effect will be loss of business rather than increase of cost of operation.  This will be the case with most businesses that make up the economy.  Most of the loss of business will come from the reduction of GDP as cap and trade imposes financial penalties on consumption throughout the economy.  Cap and trade will force the reduced consumption of coal, not only due to the rising cost and falling consumption of electricity, but also because one of the main objectives of cap and trade is to replace coal with renewables.  I cannot think of any other commodity hauled by rail that will be affected as much as coal.

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • 964 posts
Posted by TH&B on Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:50 PM

Bucyrus

Fallen Flag

Where is this clean energy going to come from, though?

Wind, solar, things like that... can't even come close to providing enough power to get this country where some people are saying it should be regarding CO2 emissions. Nuclear?

Nuclear power is an unacceptable answer to the problem that cap and trade purports to address.  It is true that renewable energy sources will not produce enough energy.  However, the cornerstone of the philosophy that calls for cap and trade is a goal called “sustainability.”  The achievement of this goal requires that we reduce our consumption of energy to a point where renewables such as wind and solar can keep up with demand.  By reducing our consumption of energy, and of goods and services that require energy to the level where renewables can keep, we will be consuming at a sustainable rate, and thus will have achieved sustainability.  Cap and trade calls for us to make sacrifices. 
 
One of the easiest sacrifices will be the elimination of air conditioning in buildings and vehicles.  That will start us down the road to sustainability.  From there, we will lower heating temperature in residential and commercial buildings, drive fewer miles, consume less animal and dairy based food, use less commercial fertilizer, and use far less electricity.

 

See the problem here is that I haven't had the airconditioning on all last year and so far this year, and I walk to work, by choice, I like the windows open.  Although that will change because of the slow ecconomy I will have to drive to work at a location farther away probably.  I feel offended over that now society wants me to not afford the airconditioning through these global climate change programs.  What are we supposed to sacrifice for anyways? So neighbors can waste?  So the world can overpopulate?  There are more real problems in this world then light bulbs, SUVs, A/Cs, chimneys and climate change, the climate is going to change no matter what we do, there is no such thing as "global climate stay the same" nature doesn't work that way. So don't sacrifice anything for that goal. Kick a pebel in the sand on a beach and you cause big changes, so yes everything we do affects the planet, but nature is too complex for us mortal humans to steer. 

 

Real problems to solve are; wars, food shortage, rain forest and ocean destruction, poverty, overpopulation, deseases and we need more trains, bring back steam trains yes, but not climate stay the same issues.  

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 31 posts
Posted by Fallen Flag on Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:04 PM

 Oh, I know. My question was more hypothetical than anything.

That's the thing. I think most of the general public is under the impression that there is all of this magical pie-in-the-sky clean power out there and it's just waiting to be utilized. I don't think most people realize the type of lifestyle sacrifices they will have to make to achieve the reduced emissions and "sustainability" that is being called for.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:57 AM

Fallen Flag

Where is this clean energy going to come from, though?

Wind, solar, things like that... can't even come close to providing enough power to get this country where some people are saying it should be regarding CO2 emissions. Nuclear?

Nuclear power is an unacceptable answer to the problem that cap and trade purports to address.  It is true that renewable energy sources will not produce enough energy.  However, the cornerstone of the philosophy that calls for cap and trade is a goal called “sustainability.”  The achievement of this goal requires that we reduce our consumption of energy to a point where renewables such as wind and solar can keep up with demand.  By reducing our consumption of energy, and of goods and services that require energy to the level where renewables can keep, we will be consuming at a sustainable rate, and thus will have achieved sustainability.  Cap and trade calls for us to make sacrifices. 

 

One of the easiest sacrifices will be the elimination of air conditioning in buildings and vehicles.  That will start us down the road to sustainability.  From there, we will lower heating temperature in residential and commercial buildings, drive fewer miles, consume less animal and dairy based food, use less commercial fertilizer, and use far less electricity.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 31 posts
Posted by Fallen Flag on Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:03 AM

 Where is this clean energy going to come from, though?

Wind, solar, things like that... can't even come close to providing enough power to get this country where some people are saying it should be regarding CO2 emissions. Nuclear? If they started building nuclear plants right now, how long would it take to even break ground, after all the red tape hoops are jumped through? And then, where would nuclear plants go?? Funny thing, a lot of people want nuclear power but I bet most of them don't want it near their home. Maybe they'll build a nuclear plant in Aurora IL next to the EJ&E. :-p

I think short of  a major breakthrough (Nobel Prize calibre) in the field of physics and more specifically electromagnetics, we're stuck with fossil fuels in some way or another.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy