Trains.com

Energy Bill's Impact on the Railroads Locked

5408 views
79 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:22 PM

I cannot cite the source at this point, but I have heard that the bill includes provisions for tariffs on imports of goods made by manufacturing that will be moved off shore in order to dodge the carbon caps in the U.S.  So the bill itself anticipates causing manufacturing to flee the higher manufacturing costs that the bill will impose, and the bill closes that loophole by the use of import tariffs to cancel the economic advantage of leaving the country to flee cap and trade.   So whether or not there will be sufficient economic incentive for manufacturing to flee cap and trade, the point might be moot if import tariffs cancel out that incentive.   

 

Manufacturing was allowed to move off shore in order to pursue lower labor costs.  But the point of cap and trade is to reduce our carbon footprint, and apparently it will not be acceptable to simply move part of that footprint to another country and continue our consumption at normal levels.  Instead, manufacturing will be forced to stay here, pay the added cost for carbon credits, and pass it along to the consumers.  Consumers will thus reduce their consumption due to the higher costs.  That, after all, is part of the basic point of cap and trade.    

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:12 PM

Bucyrus:

You are making a leap of faith here.  It seems the assumption is that a company will move it's manufacturing offshore or remain here.  There is nothing to guarantee that the domestic company will remain in business here.  That is the great divide which requires an enormous amount of faith.

Another provision which I heard today was that if you sell your house, it must pass a government test which insures the house is properly weather proofed.  What happens if it doesnt pass the government test?  Who determines the factors for the testing?

My house has something like 48 windows.  It is nearly 100 years old with many of the original windows that are part of the architecture of the house.  Energy efficient?  No.  However I compensate by burning wood and by keeping the thermostat at 60 degrees during several months.  Then, during the summer the 48 windows provide natural cooling.  My guess is my energy consumption is quite similar to other houses, but if I dont sell me house soon, I will be penalized, probably severly (moving is in my plans).

Again, I would strongly recommend that anyone listen to the January 8, 2009 interview with then Candidate Obama. 

ed

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:52 PM

MP173

Bucyrus:

You are making a leap of faith here.  It seems the assumption is that a company will move it's manufacturing offshore or remain here.  There is nothing to guarantee that the domestic company will remain in business here.  That is the great divide which requires an enormous amount of faith.

Another provision which I heard today was that if you sell your house, it must pass a government test which insures the house is properly weather proofed.  What happens if it doesnt pass the government test?  Who determines the factors for the testing?

My house has something like 48 windows.  It is nearly 100 years old with many of the original windows that are part of the architecture of the house.  Energy efficient?  No.  However I compensate by burning wood and by keeping the thermostat at 60 degrees during several months.  Then, during the summer the 48 windows provide natural cooling.  My guess is my energy consumption is quite similar to other houses, but if I dont sell me house soon, I will be penalized, probably severly (moving is in my plans).

Again, I would strongly recommend that anyone listen to the January 8, 2009 interview with then Candidate Obama. 

ed

 

Ed,

 

I did not mean to make the leap of faith you suggest.  Sorry if I was not clear.  When I was talking about companies either staying here of fleeing the cost of cap and trade, I did not mean to exclude the possibility that some will go out of business rather than staying or fleeing.  Indeed, going out of business will be an inevitable consequence of cap and trade for some companies.  It may be that the cost of fleeing cap and trade will be too high to justify them fleeing, while staying will price them out of their market. Or it may be that import tariffs will prevent them from fleeing cap and trade, while staying will price them out of their market.  In either case, they will go out of business or re-organize to shrink their business.  Consumers will simply abandon the consumption of certain products or find substitutions rather than pay higher prices imposed by cap and trade.

 

And yes I have heard about the provision mandating that your house pass a federal test of energy efficiency before you can sell it.  This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is intended in re-ordering our society in the name of sustainability.  It is neatly summed up in stated goals to reduce CO2 within certain timeframes.  But to actually achieve this will require heavy lifting that is far beyond what the average consumer expects.  So far, it has been made to appear painless—a little weather-stripping, a little more efficiency in our appliances, different light bulbs, and problem solved.  But these little measures do not begin to match the sacrifice that will be required to meet the CO2 reduction targets that may soon become law.      

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:29 PM

Bucyrus:

Well stated.  This is the tip of the iceberg.  Lets all change our light bulbs and everything should be ok.  OK?  Well, perhaps not.

ed

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:21 PM

The real problem of moving jobs off shore is that leaves fewer and fewer able to buy the products our  investment oriented  big business people proport to be manufacturing.  I have always said you need as many keys to the executive washrooms as you do to the janitor's closets to make an organization work efficiently and effectively.  Workers cannot work and earn money where there are no jobs, therefore cannot purchase anything in the economy.  But investors cannot earn a return on the investment if nobody is earning enough to afford their product or service.  Once either labor or capital become more powerful, more in control, than the other, the house caves in on itself.  Greed is has been in both parties of this equation.  But so have marks of progress.

As for the government as a catylist, I forgot to mention, way above someplace, that the airline industry, has been manufactured by government armed service contracts and reasearch and development.  The airline industry and others have also gained by the research and development of the space program.

Now, although it is an amendment to the Transportation bill, congressmen from a Maine and  California have introduced an amendment which will allow 97,000lb trucks on our interstate highways taking away the value of private enterprise investment of the railroads in interstate commerce.  This is not a good energy move, not a good safety move, and certainly not one in favor of private investment unless you include the Highway lobby's investment in congress!

 

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
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:58 AM

henry6


As for the government as a catylist, I forgot to mention, way above someplace, that the airline industry, has been manufactured by government armed service contracts and reasearch and development.  The airline industry and others have also gained by the research and development of the space program.

 

I agree the government did a speedy job with the space program, but did the government fund the Wrights when they were developing manned flight in the bicycle shop? 

The government did a good job with the interstate highway system which was funded as it was built, but it took contracts with private companies to do the actual construction.

I firmly believe America is great because of our freedoms, private enterprise, and private ownership of property --  not because of government(other than the form, a representative republic, that we have). Remember, every law that is passed has freedom limiting aspects to one side of it.

But for an organization with trillions of dollars of debt, there are few great efficient success stories. The old adage that an organization gets dumber as it gets larger is definitely illustrated with our federal government. Remember the ICC? Read "Brosnan, The Railroads' Messiah" to see some of the fights over that brilliant organization.

As far as being an inhibitor, why has it been over two decades since a new nuclear electric plant has been constructed in the US while European countries are enjoying the benefits of nuclear plants constructed during that time?

Ask some of the land owners who have fought the government over developing their property only to be told that a hole the landowner dug which happens to hold water is now a wetland or that rat which happened to take residence on ones land is endangered.

Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, has stated that with today's government it would be impossible to do what they accomplished in the late '70s and early '80s in the embryonic  stages of Home Depot.

Unfortunately the environment has become the free-pass for the anti-capitalist in our society. "It is for the environment" seems to have replaced the old mantra of "It is for the children". Whenever I hear either statement from the government or anti-capitalist my suspensions are raised about the true motive of the proposed legislation.

 

Jay 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:40 AM

But Jay, you're proving my point: the government deveoped the projects and payed the private enterprises to do the work, i.e., the catylist. 

And the Wright Bros. falls outside of this discussion as does Henry Ford, John Stevens, and Robert Foulton for that matter.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

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
    July 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
  • 1,503 posts
Posted by GP-9_Man11786 on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:40 AM

henry6

But Jay, you're proving my point: the government deveoped the projects and payed the private enterprises to do the work, i.e., the catylist. 

And the Wright Bros. falls outside of this discussion as does Henry Ford, John Stevens, and Robert Foulton for that matter.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Another example of the government acting as a catylist was the electric car. Vehicles like the GM EV1 and the Toyota RAV4 EV only came about because of California's Zero-Emission Vehicle mandate. If CA had stuck to their guns and not repealed the mandate (And allowed those innovative cars to be taken away from their owners and crushed), we'd be well down the road to energy independence by now.

Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.

www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 11:13 AM

Acting as a catalyst is one thing, but forcing a mandate for which no market exists or funding that mandate with public money is an entirely different thing.  The electric car in general, falls into the latter of the two choices.  So do much of the renewable energy mandates. 

 

However large or small the market is for an electric car, the private sector will fulfill that market perfectly by building electric cars with its own capital investment.  There is absolutely no need for the government to be involved with mandates and public funding.  Their participation will only drive up the cost. 

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:20 PM

garr

Unfortunately the environment has become the free-pass for the anti-capitalist in our society. "It is for the environment" seems to have replaced the old mantra of "It is for the children". Whenever I hear either statement from the government or anti-capitalist my suspensions are raised about the true motive of the proposed legislation.

Thumbs UpThumbs Up

The "Green" movement:
*Soccer moms and dads driving their three-ton Land Bruiser to the environmental rally;
*Buying ten pounds of red meat at the grocery store then putting all that meat in a "environmentally-friendly" shopping bag;
*Watching reality shows on their 60" hi-def tv, while the a/c is cranked to 70 degrees, and lighting the house with "eco-friendly" flourescent bulbs;

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 1:37 PM

henry6

But Jay, you're proving my point: the government deveoped the projects and payed the private enterprises to do the work, i.e., the catylist. 

And the Wright Bros. falls outside of this discussion as does Henry Ford, John Stevens, and Robert Foulton for that matter.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Only helped prove your point in a small number of government actions. The vast majority of what the federal government does today is the stifle the free enterprise system.

The government may provide the catalyst in certain instances, but they also retard an even faster result with regulation. Sort of like driving with your foot on the accelerator and brake at the same time.

Why do you think there are so many US assets, i.e. corporate profits, that never see the light of day within the US proper? 

The Wright Bros do matter, without their development of the first step in manned aviation, there is no further advancement. This big step was privately done.

 

Jay

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:56 PM

New government initiativs are not stifling free enterprise but rather increasing it.  The green movement has spawned a lot of new industries and services; even older businesses and industries have found economy and safety (also leads to economy) in this "green" invironment.

And if we are so hell bent for eliminating government interference in business and industry, why isn't there a cry to eliminate agricultural subsidies, price supports, even food stamps (which is an agriculture subisidy)?  Why not get rid of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Aviation Agency,....any agency which funnels money into any special industry?  Forget about R&D for aircraft for the military, have the manufacturers bring their blueprints and the government buy off the shelf?  How far can I go here.....to make my point.  Either the government is or it isn't.  It is what we've made it, how do you undo it and still continue to progress?

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
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:57 PM

henry6
And if we are so hell bent for eliminating government interference in business and industry, why isn't there a cry to eliminate agricultural subsidies, price supports, even food stamps (which is an agriculture subisidy)?  Why not get rid of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Aviation Agency,....any agency which funnels money into any special industry?  Forget about R&D for aircraft for the military, have the manufacturers bring their blueprints and the government buy off the shelf?  How far can I go here.....to make my point.  Either the government is or it isn't.  It is what we've made it, how do you undo it and still continue to progress?

 

I think that is a false characterization of the position of those who oppose cap and trade.  For the most part, they are not asking to discontinue all government involvement with the business of the private sector.  All they are asking is that we don’t go ahead with cap and trade.  While they might be opposed to expanding the role of the public sector, it is a matter of proportion that makes cap and trade so objectionable.  Ag subsidies, food stamps, F.C.C., national highway programs, space program—the effect of these things and everything else all added together are chump change compared to cap and trade and the effect it will have on our economy and standard of living. 

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:41 PM

henry6

New government initiativs are not stifling free enterprise but rather increasing it.  The green movement has spawned a lot of new industries and services; even older businesses and industries have found economy and safety (also leads to economy) in this "green" invironment.

And if we are so hell bent for eliminating government interference in business and industry, why isn't there a cry to eliminate agricultural subsidies, price supports, even food stamps (which is an agriculture subisidy)?  Why not get rid of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Aviation Agency,....any agency which funnels money into any special industry?  Forget about R&D for aircraft for the military, have the manufacturers bring their blueprints and the government buy off the shelf?  How far can I go here.....to make my point.  Either the government is or it isn't.  It is what we've made it, how do you undo it and still continue to progress?

Believe what you want, but who do you think is going to be paying the new cap and trade taxes? Some may think the businesses are, but 100% of the increased taxes from C&T will be passed on to the consumer who happens to be us.

Maybe for you it won't be an issue, but for most Americans an increased cost of living will affect their spending. An additional $100-200 of hidden taxes, i.e. cap and trade passed down costs, per month will mean they no longer have the choice of braces for the kids, a vacation or railfan trip, extra Christmas presents,--heck even a new model railroad item.

This is a direct influence on our economy. It won't show as decreased consumer spending in the government stats but it will have profound affects on companies selling products that the consumer no longer has the option to purchase because of the increased cost of living from the C&T taxes.

The federal government has constitutional mandates. Defense is one of them. I have no problem with most of the money spent protecting our freedoms. It is when the federal government oversteps its mandates that I have a problem.

There have been cries to eliminate or drastically reduce everything you listed. But in the nanny state society we have become, they go unheard.

But who cares-- when it is going tobe our children and grand children paying the tab. I am sure they will be happy to have their tax freedom day moved from mid-April to September. Everyone can live on 1/3rd of their salary.

 

Jay

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:16 PM

Americans have always been able to pick and choose their welfare recipients depending on religion, politics, and geography and tell a convinceing story that it is good for the country because it is for defense. Or for holding down prices for the little guy.  Or for holding up prices for the farmer.  Or for making it possible for businesses to move  products to their consumer.  The list goes on, but it is all pick and choose for the current purpose, to be paid for later; rationalizing, thats all it is.  And it always has been done.   We go either far to the left or far to the right, but never enough in the middle.

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
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:40 PM

henry6

Americans have always been able to pick and choose their welfare recipients depending on religion, politics, and geography and tell a convinceing story that it is good for the country because it is for defense. Or for holding down prices for the little guy.  Or for holding up prices for the farmer.  Or for making it possible for businesses to move  products to their consumer.  The list goes on, but it is all pick and choose for the current purpose, to be paid for later; rationalizing, thats all it is.  And it always has been done.   We go either far to the left or far to the right, but never enough in the middle.

I don't follow what you are saying.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:58 PM

     Fellas- can we please try to keep this on-topic (Energy Bill's Impact on the Railroads), so it doesn't drift into troubled areas of politics?  Thanks

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:07 PM

Murphy Siding

     Fellas- can we please try to keep this on-topic (Energy Bill's Impact on the Railroads), so it doesn't drift into troubled areas of politics?  Thanks

 

 

Call me a pessimist-I prefer realist- but this is the world I see after C&T (it is a tax bill with energy being the means not the ends):

If this C&T bill becomes law, today's economy will be the new normal at best. Every consumer, rich or poor, will have less discretionary income. Less discretionary income for consumers means less freight for the railroads.

As I stated earlier, the total consumer spending will not be reduced per government stats. The taxes hidden in every item purchased by consumers as a result of this potential legislation will mask the reduction in sales of discretionary items consumers otherwise would have bought with that $100-200 per month.

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?

Without that volume of coal business, the overhead costs for railroads will be be split over fewer total carloadings thus driving up rates for grain, aggregate, intermodal, chemicals, garbage, plastics, etc.

Hauling people will not be the answer. Hauling hineys has never been a long term profitable venture for railroads or any other form of transportation for that matter except in very niche markets.

I don't think we have been off topic as far as railroads are concerned. Any time in history other than war time, reduced discretionary income for a population has always resulted in reduced traffic for railroads, airlines, buses, pony rides at the county fair, or any other form of transportation.

Jay

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:54 PM

Murphy Siding

     Fellas- can we please try to keep this on-topic (Energy Bill's Impact on the Railroads), so it doesn't drift into troubled areas of politics?  Thanks

I am not sure where the line is drawn in this thread between politics and non-politics.  Nobody has named politicians or mentioned a political party.  However a person believes the bill will effect railroads depends on what that person believes about the greater, overall effect of the bill.  You cannot opine about how the bill will affect the rail industry without doing so through the prism of how you view the bill.  And there is great controversy about the bill with it being perceived by the public in generally two diametrically opposed ways:

  

1)      As proclaimed by the proponents, the bill will usher in a new era of economic prosperity by forcing the country away from the carbon energy based economy and into a clean, efficient, renewable energy based economy.

 

2)      Contrary to the proclamation of the proponents, there is no market for the new renewable energy economy because of its higher cost, so it will require a public subsidy by taxpayers in order to create an artificial market.  The burden of paying this subsidy will severely depress the economy.  The promise that this will lead us to prosperity sounds like an economic perpetual motion machine.

 

Are these two viewpoints political expressions or are they merely expressions of economic and scientific analysis? 

 

Is one view a political expression and the other not?  If so, which is which?

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:50 AM

      Bucyrus (and others):  I acknowledge what you're saying.  This thread has not crossed that line.  I'm just asking that we stay on course.  In the past, discussions like this start well, as this one has, but evolve into the *Hatfields & McCoys*, and "So's your mother" hissing match type threads.  I think you'd agree, that once a thread hits that point, all the positive, thoughtfull discussion is over.  Therefore, I ask- can we please keep this thread on the up & up? 
Thanks

-Norris

    

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:09 AM

Bucyrus's last posting makes me think of business growth in another way.  All businesses begin at point A and move forward through stages.  At each stage there is a shifting of gears, so to speak; to promulgate progress.  That "shifiting" get one to the change but not without a short pause, a brief period of confusion and dissarray, and then steady movement to the next shifting point.  It happened as the Industrial reveloution supplanted agriculture, as railroads succeeded canals and dirt roads, as the personal moter vehicle supplanted the railraods, as steam gave way to diesel, etc....each business has these "shift" points as does overall progress of any endeavor.  As does the society and commerce of the United States.  We are at one of those shift points with the need for safer environmental controls.  In the long run it will be better for individuals as well as business: both with thrive with time, just not like we've become comfortable with. Its change, its somebody moving the cheese.  Change is inevitable (except from vending machines)!  We have lived with constant change since July 4, 1776 and we will live with more constant changes after July 4, 2009.

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
    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.

  • 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 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
    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
    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 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
    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
  • 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 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.

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