YoHo1975 It. Is. all. about. money.
It. Is. all. about. money.
Don't forget freedom.
I have some ideas that would reduce pollution.
Let's ban people from buying anything they don't need (by the way, I am the arbiter). Do people really need computers, TVs, radios, magazines, books, upholstered furniture, or model trains? People really don't need to be awake after dark. Let's ban all light bulbs. People really don't need to travel on vacations, get away for the weekend, or go to see someone. Let's ban all unnecessary travel. Walking will require more frequent replacement of shoes, so that too will be restricted. We could even mandate that all conferences be teleconferences (there goes banning computers or smart phones but their use would be limited to those approved uses). How about unnecessary web sites? Those sever farms use a lot of energy. Those should also be banned. A person who never exists does not pollute. Let's require a permit to have children (maximum of 2 per couple). This is just the start, imagine what else we could ban. If everybody would just give up all of their modern conveniences, we could make great progress. We will also need to ban forests and grasslands (they tend to catch fire) and volcanoes. If you disagree with me you must be a polluter who wants to destroy the planet.
We need some standards. Where do you draw the line between reasonable environment laws and the absurd?
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
ericsp YoHo1975: It. Is. all. about. money. Don't forget freedom. We need some standards. Where do you draw the line between reasonable environment laws and the absurd?
YoHo1975: It. Is. all. about. money.
Well, start by leaving the hyperbole at the door. None of those things equate to this lawsuit or anything we're talking about.
I'm going to ignore the rest, because I have nothing to say that's on topic except to say that Freedom all to often = money in this country.
@ericsp appears to be using the fallacious "straw man" argument: set up an absurd premise to distract from and refute what is at contention.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
YoHo1975 I'm aware of a number of other threads over the years that point out that pure electric traction would be the most energy efficient method of powering trains. So, you know what, if we get to a California where the entire LA basin is Electrified instead of diesel, then yeah, that probably is progress. We'd be getting more tractive effort for less input energy. That is obviously the best choice. BNSF and UP would have to spend a lot of money to fix this. OTR truckers need to spend a lot of money to fix this. Progress costs money. It always has and it always will. The diesel engine itself wasn't invented for free. Cause, I don't know about you, but I personally would prefer zero particulates....if I could afford it and not releasing carbon dioxide captured millions of years ago...If I could afford it and buying purely local...if I could afford it.
I'm aware of a number of other threads over the years that point out that pure electric traction would be the most energy efficient method of powering trains.
So, you know what, if we get to a California where the entire LA basin is Electrified instead of diesel, then yeah, that probably is progress. We'd be getting more tractive effort for less input energy. That is obviously the best choice.
BNSF and UP would have to spend a lot of money to fix this. OTR truckers need to spend a lot of money to fix this.
Progress costs money. It always has and it always will. The diesel engine itself wasn't invented for free.
Cause, I don't know about you, but I personally would prefer zero particulates....if I could afford it and not releasing carbon dioxide captured millions of years ago...If I could afford it and buying purely local...if I could afford it.
If you can afford it? You seem to believe that if it is progress, then the money should be spent whether you can afford it or not. And the force of law should make you spend the money. You say truckers and the railroads should be forced to pay for electrification because you believe it is progress. You do not give them the option of deciding whether they could afford it. For that matter, their cost will come out of the end user. So your neighbors will be paying for it. You ought to ask them whether they can afford it, since you reserve that option for yourself.
I did not say that at all and I will not be baited into a political argument on this forum.
I simply said that yes, those things would be progress and that progress costs money one way or the other.
If you wish to add additional motive on top of that, I can't stop you, but it's not what I said.
If California is so bloody concerned about emissions, why don't they ban automobiles? All that rush hour (that is, all day) traffic produces thousands of times more pollution than all the idling engines put together.
They don't call it "The Granola State" for nothing...
schlimm @ericsp appears to be using the fallacious "straw man" argument: set up an absurd premise to distract from and refute what is at contention.
No, the impression I get from YoHo1975's post is that the only reason the progress he is talking about does not happen is money. I was pointing out, using absurdity (but there are some people proposing some of those ideas), that money is not the only reason. I wanted to use examples that just about anyone would object to. There are already many restrictions on freedom (see below and the idling regulations previously mention) that some people have no problem with. I was hoping that by using examples everybody would object to, they might see why other people object to restrictions they are fine with. Obviously, that did not happen. Perhaps with this clarification, you see that point of view now.
A couple of examples of restricting freedom for "progress" is California lighting Title 24 and the California Coastal Commission. Using the lighting Title 24 as an example, you cannot install a fixed, incandescent light your house and have it controlled by an on/off switch without a vacancy sensor. By the way, every few years these regulations get more restrictive.
Having lived in California for 12 years over 30 years ago I still follow their idiotic actions. Reading this thread it confirms my belief that California is the serial state: Full of fruits, flakes, and nuts!
Interesting. California...because of smog created by the automobile...was the first state to meet the challange of air pollution from the automobile head on with a lot of restrictions on fuel and emissions. Others have had to follow suit not because of politics but because California was right. This was progress in reducing pollution and allowing for usable air. Being able to breathe is not calculated in dollers and cents but in hearbeats and years. Money may be a factor as to the amount of money one might earn and the dollars he might return to the economy. But are we really that crass a dollar and cent country that the bottom line is money rather than life?
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.
Outside of a misplaced sense of self preservation, being able to breathe is calculated in dollars and cents, unless you live somewhere other than here. Making idealism a profitable exchange in a market economy is an exercise in frustration. The bottom line is money rather than life, not that I agree with self vested interests over the greater public good, but until we actually have a policy on who does what and see the wisdom of a little self sacrifice, a little less substituting endless debates, lawsuits, rhetoric for action where we all work together, it's all a miasma of ad hoc, random propaganda wars...take your pick. If all the UP switchers have been paid for and introduced to reduce air particulates, how many hybrid cars are there as a percentage of the sum total? How many genset buses? How much has car ownership decreased? The PE was scrapped for buses as I recall and now California is stumbling over itself to reinvent the wheel it scrapped as far as rail transit is concerned. Short term profitability with no long range plans. Come to think of it there is no plan at all, just a patchwork of knee jerk reactions. California is no better or worse than the rest of this mess we got ourselves into.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Henry right now to Comply with the CFurrent EPA crap for a Model year 2011 Truck it costs an extra 20 CPM for everything an OTR trucker needs for a model year 2011 year truck that will meet the 2011 regs in all 50 States in terms of Idle regs with an APU DEP Filters that need to be replaced annully at the cost of 5 grand Parts and Labor EGR Valves at 5 grand for the set Parts and Labor. Not to Mention the Urea Fluid he now has to buy at 4 bucks a gallon to burn out his DPF. Now who pays for all this Complanice You the CONSUMER no OTR trucker is going to price his service so low he is taking a loss at it. Yet the EPA and their friends in the Enviromental Fringe movement keep piling on.
10 Years ago an OTR truck produced just 20% more NOX and 5% more CO2 than they do now and got 75% more Fuel Economy and a new one was 50 grand CHEAPER than they are now. Now they cost more burn more fuel BREAK MORE it was nothing back in the 90's to hear of a motor going over a million before an Overhaul now if they break 750 grand your lucky. Why the EPA started ramming stuff onto the engine compaines so fast and hard under threat of not being able to sell another one in the USA unless they agreed to do this schedule that they had no choice.
Right now DPF is just supposed to be rolling out however the EPA said either bring it out in 7 years in 2000 or you can never sell another Engine of anykind here in the USA and only when it is the Goverment Extorting you is it LEGAL.
Truthfully ed, the only thing I can understand in your paragraphs is that you are opposed to regulations of any kind at any cost for any good.; othewise your presentation does not really make sense.
Wally, yes. But California wasn't the only place that street cars, interurbans, and other rail commuter services were scrapped in favor of gasoline driven buses but L.A. was certainly the densest of population centers and became an air quality problem the quickest. Electric lines were shut down because buses could move off straight lines into other parts of the community, because General Motors, Goodyear Rubber, and Standard Oil of California bought up these lines and scrapped them in favor of their procucts. A new freedom was found in being able to live someplace other than along a trolley line, to be able to come and go as one wished in his own private carriage. In the 70's and 80's to today, where lines are drawn for proposed mass transit routes, usually light rail at this point, these lines curiously follow the routes of now scrapped interurban and trolley and rail lines! California is not the only place in retrograde. America is so often quick to throw out the baby with the bath water for the "newest thing: without understanding what they got. They are fiscally conservative except when it comes to making money!
YoHo1975 I did not say that at all and I will not be baited into a political argument on this forum. I simply said that yes, those things would be progress and that progress costs money one way or the other. If you wish to add additional motive on top of that, I can't stop you, but it's not what I said.
Well, if all you were saying is that progress costs money, I certainly can’t disagree with that. But you did say, “OTR truckers need to spend a lot of money to fix this.” In view of your rebuttal to my comments, I guess you must have meant this: “OTR truckers would need to spend a lot of money to fix this if they want it fixed.”
Sure all of this progress costs money, and spending the money is normally the prerogative of the business enterprise that would benefit from the progress. But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The topic here is using the force of law to compel a business to spend their own money on what somebody else wants in the name of the greater good.
I am all for cleaning up pollution, but the cleaner you get, the higher the cost per each increment of improvement. At some point, further improvement is not worth the cost unless you are able to use legal force to compel the expenditure. In this case, ultimately the cost will come out of the pockets of Californians, so they will have to decide if it is worth it. They have the option of moving out of the state if they think the cost of living is not worth it.
They have the option of moving out of state?
What a joke.
Only the truly rich have the option to move whenever they want. Most people live where they do because of their jobs and most jobs don't just transfer. To say nothing of moving away from family and friends.
"Just move" might be the most insulting argument on the internet.
But back to the specific topic. Someone is going to pay either way.
If the particulates are actually affecting people as suggested then guess what, instead of the railroads, trucking and state paying to avoid the particulates, they will pay in medicaid costs, in medicare costs, in higher insurance premiums, in higher insurance payouts and for additional payments for those uninsured who would get free hospital treatment. And even if none of that existed, the people who were too poor to just move aka most of them, would suffer higher incidence of illness, disease and death which means on top of out of pocket medical they can't afford, they loose productivity, meaning less money into the economy.
The money will be spent by someone somewhere. It is unavoidable. It can either be spent on the front end or the back, but it will be spent.
And that's the problem with the Freedom argument. Why is Union Pacific's and BNSF's freedom more important than anyone elses?
So, presuming the initial implication has merit and those particulates do create the hazards specified, the question isn't a matter of restricting freedoms, its a question of who will pay how much. Because the money is going to get spent either way.
Something tells me that even if BNSF and UP are found at fault, the state and maybe even the fed will fork out some cash as well.
And just for the record. I currently live in Roseville Ca which I am positive is one of the affected areas. I make a fair chunk of change and I do NOT have the freedom to just move. I feel lucky right now to have a job at all.
YoHo1975 They have the option of moving out of state? What a joke. "Just move" might be the most insulting argument on the internet. So, presuming the initial implication has merit and those particulates do create the hazards specified, the question isn't a matter of restricting freedoms, its a question of who will pay how much. Because the money is going to get spent either way.
They have the option of moving out of state? What a joke.
Well nobody wants to move, but it is an option. People do move to other states specifically because of high taxes. So I don’t see why the idea should insult anyone. My only point is that if it is a state issue, you can move to another state. If it is a federal issue, however, moving to a different country is a much less reasonable option.
You said this:
“If the particulates are actually affecting people as suggested then guess what, instead of the railroads, trucking and state paying to avoid the particulates, they will pay in medicaid costs, in medicare costs, in higher insurance premiums, in higher insurance payouts and for additional payments for those uninsured who would get free hospital treatment.”
What if the particulates are NOT actually affecting people as suggested, and what if this is just a power grab, using clean air as a pretext? And what if they win the lawsuit and impose new costs on California citizens that are not actually needed to solve a real problem?
Bucyrus What if the particulates are NOT actually affecting people as suggested, and what if this is just a power grab, using clean air as a pretext? And what if they win the lawsuit and impose new costs on California citizens that are not actually needed to solve a real problem?
Today, Bucyrus, this is a wrong assumption, we do know the problems created by all kinds of pollutants in the air and how it affects for people and animals and plants. Healthy citizens and animals and agricultural crops is cheaper than the alternatives (disease, death, inability to work or otherwise perform tasks). Since socialism is frowned upon, then it falls on private industry...the guys who take the risks, the guys who gain from the risks...to also be responsible for health and safety of the animal and flora populations. And it seems that the only way for big businesses to be a responsible citizen is to regulate them and take them to court when they aren't! The alternative is to let big business run rampant and have the government run clean up operations at taxpayer expense. But I suppose that would not be bad because some big business would have to be hired to do that. So is that socialism...the government having to take matters in it's own hands...or capitalism as some business has to be enlisted?
A Power grab? Really? They're trying to overthrow the government?
If the particulates are not actually affecting people and experts show that to be true, then the suit has no merit and justice will be served.
AS for moving. You completely missed the point. Only rich people can move wherever they want when they want. I myself am upper middle class. I CANNOT MOVE. I WOULD NOT HAVE A JOB. and if I moved, I WOULD BE FAR AWAY FROM MY FAMILY and not be able to afford to travel to see them.
I've moved 4 times now and each time it was for a job, never because I wanted to.
The "JUST MOVE" argument is an insult.
Freedom in that case isn't very free at all.
I've lived in some relatively low tax states and some fairly high tax states. I have never moved to avoid taxes. I don't ever pay enough in taxes for it to make a difference, because I'm not rich. It's a bogey man argument. In fact, the cost of living in Roseville isn't that bad. The reason most of California is expensive is because there is very little easy to build on land, very little water and very very valuable beach that everyone wants to live by. It isn't the taxes.
Also, back on topic, just to put it out there, I'm not 100% convinced that exhaust particulates should be considered toxic waste in the eyes of the law, but even if I was convinced, I'm not sure to what extent the Railroads should be punished for treating them exactly the way established law demands.
I suspect though, that if the environmentalists win the case, the requirements won't be all that onerous in the grand scheme of things. Certainly, I would expect the case to be appealed.
Which is fine. This is what the Judiciary is designed to do.
What if the earth is actually flat? What if, what if. Let's just deny that particulates in emissions cause any problems to humans (or animals). Water? No problem. And BTW, let's get one thing straight. Regulation of businesses by government (elected by the people) is not socialism. Maybe some folks don't like it at all, don't like some elements of it, whatever, it is not socialism.
Simply have all the folks who favor this lawsuit go down to the rail yard and introduce them to an absolutely non polluting locomotive such as a !:! scale Marx wind up and present them with a two hundred pound key..Keep encouraging them by asking " Is this what you wanted? "
I have two consultants working on this revolutionary engine now.
.
Oh goody, more hyperbole. That's sure to make this thread more interesting.
YoHo1975 A Power grab? Really? They're trying to overthrow the government?
Gee now you are putting words in my mouth.
You may be right that the lawsuit will sort out the truth of the alleged hazard, so if the hazard is not significant enough to warrent the remedy, no remedy will be imposed. However, it is possible that the remedy will be imposed when it is not needed. That has happened, and it is likely to happen in the future.
It sounds fine to say that there should not be any poison particles in the environment, but bear in mind that all the water people drink and all the air they breathe contains poisonous materials.
Given the choice, when it comes to my health and the health of my fellow citizens, I'm willing to risk an ere on the side of caution. Life is more precious than the bottom lines of the railroad companies and it's more precious than my tax rate.
Especially considering the high standard this case will require.
If we were talking about a corruptable board of supervisors that will undoubtly be unfair and unconstitutional, I might have a different opinion.
Interesting conversation. What it all seems to boil down to is the fact that the EPA and its state counterparts go after the low hanging fruit-in this case the railroads and trucking firms. This is similar to what the philosophy is on stormwater. National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Phase II (MS4) programs targets municipalities that discharge storm (rain) water into local rivers. Why? Because it is easier to get a large corporation (most municipalities are corporations) to comply than it is to go after the multiple small contributors (farmers who do not utilize good tillage practices that reduce soil erosion) that are the major source of the problem. Same situation here-who has the money and is easiest to get to comply-the individual with his car, gasoline powered equipment, etc. or the big railroad. Don't expect logic from the EPA because the science and research division does not talk to the enforcement and compliance divisions and the air and water divisions do not talk to each other either. Case in point is that some time back EPA air required a reduction in auto emissions and approved a gasoline additive (MBTE, I believe). Compliance followed and then a couple of years later EPA water sued because the additive mandated by EPA air caused health risks. Enforcement does not listen to science when they are told standards are unrealistic in terms of cost-benefit ratios. Granted, we all want a clean world but at what cost? When 90% of the problem is solved by 10% of the money expended when do you decide the benefits of getting that last 10% is worth the cost? A key point to remember is that EPA's favorite tool is something called the Consent-Decree which is just what it is-you consent to whatever the EPA decrees or you will be in a world of hurt. Case in point is Continental Ohio (former NKP junction), a small town of a couple of hundred in an economically distressed area. EPA came in, said your sewer plant is junk and you will build a new one to our standards-estimated cost for monthly sewer service needed to pay for the new plant will be 3 figures in front of the decimal point. EPA determines what you can pay-general rule of thumb is a good percentage (5-10% pops into my mind but not sure) of the median income for the political subdivision-so in other words, half of the people affected will be sorely stretched to cough up the extra scratch to meet EPA's itch. The whole problem boils down to trying to reach a reasonable agreement with unreasonable people (on both sides).
Case in point is were I live in IL. The ILEPA same idiots in overall well they decided that Septic Tanks do not meet standards for Waste Disposal in Towns over 200 people ON THEIR OWN. I live in a township that is being forced via the ILEPA to install a High Pressure Sewer System that is costing taxpayers 15 Million Dollars. Since then I have had probelms with drains and the Plumbers have told the Township it is on YOUR END yet they refuse to fix it.
I have to look at it this way: No-one likes dirty air or water, that's a given. But if you want to live in a modern, sophisticated, industrial society with all it's advantages and all its, yes, blessings, you have to accept a certain amount of "schmutz." it's unavoidable. The trick is finding the level you're willing to live with. The Chinese, for example, have found their level. It's air you can cut with a knife! But with all the employment and all the money coming in they just don't care, and no-one can make them care. Me, I LIKE my personal transportation, and I don't drive a gas guzzler. I LIKE having hot water instantly when I turn the tap. I LIKE electricity, and I know it has to be generated somehow because Saint Thomas Edison doesn't send it down from heaven.
Now if there's some folks out there who want to live like the Amish, let them move to Pennsylvania or Ohio and see if they can be accepted into the faith. If there's some who want to live like primitive tribesmen in the Amazon, go on down and see if you can move in with the tribe. If there's some who are so guilt wracked at American abundance when other countries don't have it, well, that's THEIR problem. They should live the way they want and leave the rest of us alone.
The point I'm trying to make is there's too many out there striving for an impossible ideal who don't care who they hurt in the process. I'm reminded of Pittsburgh. Back in the 70's the steel mills were given a "clean up or move out" order. They moved, and the result was an economic catastrophe that took decades to recover from. Some Pittsburghers still aren't sure if it was worth it. I know, I've been there, I've asked them.
Oh, well. I've ranted enough.
henry6 Bucyrus: What if the particulates are NOT actually affecting people as suggested, and what if this is just a power grab, using clean air as a pretext? And what if they win the lawsuit and impose new costs on California citizens that are not actually needed to solve a real problem? Today, Bucyrus, this is a wrong assumption, we do know the problems created by all kinds of pollutants in the air and how it affects for people and animals and plants. Healthy citizens and animals and agricultural crops is cheaper than the alternatives (disease, death, inability to work or otherwise perform tasks). Since socialism is frowned upon, then it falls on private industry...the guys who take the risks, the guys who gain from the risks...to also be responsible for health and safety of the animal and flora populations. And it seems that the only way for big businesses to be a responsible citizen is to regulate them and take them to court when they aren't! The alternative is to let big business run rampant and have the government run clean up operations at taxpayer expense. But I suppose that would not be bad because some big business would have to be hired to do that. So is that socialism...the government having to take matters in it's own hands...or capitalism as some business has to be enlisted?
Bucyrus: What if the particulates are NOT actually affecting people as suggested, and what if this is just a power grab, using clean air as a pretext? And what if they win the lawsuit and impose new costs on California citizens that are not actually needed to solve a real problem?
Henry,
What I said can't be a wrong assumption because it is not an assumption. It is simply a possibility.
For the most part, American steel mills didn't move. Many of them closed because they were obsolescent and couldn't compete on the world market. An extreme example was the Wisconsin Steel Works in Chicago, which was the in-house supplier for International Harvester. IH had put the mill on the block, McLouth Steel took a look and backed off, apparently because it would take too much money to modernize the plant. The mill was eventually sold off to a firm (Envirodyne) with absolutely no steelmaking experience. The firm eventually went into Chapter 11 and the mill shut down in 1979-1980.
I also read somewhere in the mid-1980's that the world would still have excess steelmaking capacity even if every American steel mill shut down.
Hasn't California also recently started a program to prohibit docked ships - mostly containerships - from running their very big and dirty diesels at idle all day long to essentially provide just 'hotel' power for the crews and misc. functions ? Instead, the ship gets plugged into a giant extension/ umbilical cord.
Likewise, some truck stops are being retrofitted with centralized HVAC and flexible ducts, extension cords, CATV, Internet, etc. out to each parking stall so that will provide those functions and amenities to a truck that's stopped for a rest, instead of having to idle to provide power for that.
Stepping back a bit from the enviro-politics here: I don't see where idling diesel locomotives that are burning expensive fuel (while emitting particulates) are doing the railroads any good whatsoever, not even by accumulating operating hours on their meters. The risk of the engine crankcase freezing up in SoCal and Frisco most of the year is about as long as a sno-cone would stay solid there too (not much). If someone could figure out a way to start-up the engines again quickly and reliably - remotely ? - when needed, without causing too much wear and damage to the cylinders and crankshaft from lack of lubrication, etc., that would seem to be a 'no-brainer' for all concerned.
Placing limits on or attempting to ban diesels from running and moving under load, however, is another story. That's a clear threat to the present technology and industry. As such, any such change should be studied carefully - and perhaps often - and again - and again - so that we're really sure of what we're doing, and all of the intended - and unintended - consequences before we leap into it.
In the meantime, I'm convinced a lot of the mainlines will be electrified anyway, mainly on the economic basis of fuel cost savings and capacity increases, etc. I know I'm just a lone 'voice in the wilderness' on this, but that's OK. It'll happen anyway, sooner or later. Maybe sooner if some clever railroads figure out a way to get someone else to help pay for part of it, too . . . .
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr In the meantime, I'm convinced a lot of the mainlines will be electrified anyway, mainly on the economic basis of fuel cost savings and capacity increases, etc. I know I'm just a lone 'voice in the wilderness' on this, but that's OK. It'll happen anyway, sooner or later. - Paul North.
In the meantime, I'm convinced a lot of the mainlines will be electrified anyway, mainly on the economic basis of fuel cost savings and capacity increases, etc. I know I'm just a lone 'voice in the wilderness' on this, but that's OK. It'll happen anyway, sooner or later.
I'll join the choir!!
I think it will happen, too, with time. Air quality standards will play a role, availability/price of any and all fuels will, too. Same with generation, storage, and transportation (conduction) of all fuels; there will be breakthroughs. Despite what many say, there is always progress that will overtake the status quo in almost everything!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.