Okay. You don't like a carbon tax. If the goal is to reduce CO2, what would be a better solution?
No begging the question....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
MP173Don:Your statement made a whole lotta sense.
Thanks!
MP173Now, if we could also direct our attention to other matters, such as the national debt, over spending, etc.
Yes! Especially that debt thing....
oltmannd Okay. You don't like a carbon tax. If the goal is to reduce CO2, what would be a better solution? No begging the question....
I would not assume the goal to reduce CO2. But if that were the goal, I would prefer it be done by direct consumer conservation as opposed to conservation pricing, straight price rationing, or a carbon tax. Ideally, my preference for direct conservation would be voluntary, but it would probably have to be done by regulation or simple rationing.
On one hand, consumers would save a lot of money by reducing their consumption. However, due to the fixed cost of energy production, the price would have to rise in order to compensate for falling consumption.
So when we get down to just one light bulb, we will still have a $150 monthly bill.
MP173Complex issues? You bet and well beyond my pay grade...but I am all ears.
Complex and fraught with even slim possibility of really, really bad things happening. It is beyond our ability to fully assess the likelyhood of the various levels of risk. Small risk x really big cost x low certainty still equals a big problem.
Being unable to completely assess the risk does not mean the proper response is to ignore it - or act as if the worst case is proven fact.
Similarly, being unable to fully understand the science (and I'm nowhere close!) does not mean there isn't some level of understanding among those who do fully understand what's known to date. This current level of mistrust of science and trust of pundits is really troubling to me.
And, finally, just getting from correlation to cause and effect is really hard. We seem to have some good correlations with weak theories of cause and effect. Lack of solid explanations for cause and effect is not the same as no correlation - or a reason for no response.
Euclidbut it would probably have to be done by regulation or simple rationing.
First, thanks for not begging the question....(even after you did )
Direct regulation I get. It's exactly what the administration just did. Carbon reduction by fiat.
What, exactly, is "simple rationing"?
Some interesting reading about the costs of regulation vs carbon tax:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-tax-carbon/
"...prominent conservative economists as Kevin Hassett, Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, and Art Laffer have expressed support for a carbon tax swap."
oltmannd Euclidbut it would probably have to be done by regulation or simple rationing. What, exactly, is "simple rationing"?
I just wanted to make it clear that I see no good way of reducing CO2 emissions, and offer that as a backdrop to my preference for the best method.
But assuming that we must reduce CO2, I think that would be best accomplished by everybody individually, voluntarily reducing their energy consumption. It would save money and make the economy stronger. While electricity price might rise if consumption were cut, other commodities like gasoline would fall in price as consumption drops.
I used the term "simple rationing" to distinguish from price rationing. In other words, simple rationing would be just a regulation limiting how much you can buy.
Generally, I don’t believe that the average person who supports the need to do something about MMGW has any idea of what will actually be required of them once they are called upon to deliver the solution. The average person has been led to believe that a few token measures such as better light bulbs and buying local will solve the problem. But even starting with the low-hanging fruit, the overall solution will begin with the total elimination of air conditioning.
Lets start with the elimination of lighted roadside billboards.
John WR would abolish all property tax on railroad tracks
Russell
Randy Stahl Lets start with the elimination of lighted roadside billboards.
And street lights that are on all day.
Norm
oltmannd MP173Complex issues? You bet and well beyond my pay grade...but I am all ears. Complex and fraught with even slim possibility of really, really bad things happening. It is beyond our ability to fully assess the likelyhood of the various levels of risk. Small risk x really big cost x low certainty still equals a big problem. Being unable to completely assess the risk does not mean the proper response is to ignore it - or act as if the worst case is proven fact. Similarly, being unable to fully understand the science (and I'm nowhere close!) does not mean there isn't some level of understanding among those who do fully understand what's known to date. This current level of mistrust of science and trust of pundits is really troubling to me. And, finally, just getting from correlation to cause and effect is really hard. We seem to have some good correlations with weak theories of cause and effect. Lack of solid explanations for cause and effect is not the same as no correlation - or a reason for no response.
Wow, I almost never agree with you but I think you lay the situation out fairly (if a bit conservatively) Doing nothing is not an option. From the standpoint of economics a tariff (or tax if you will) is the preferred option to reduce demand for a good. The classic example of how not to change demand and supply is the case of Japanese cars in the 1980s and restrictions placed on them (in order to give domestic producers and domestic workers a breather to become more competitive). There are three ways to accomplish the goal of reducing the number of cars entering the US: a tariff, paid upon the car entering the US; a quota, in which say only a million cars may be imported from Japan; or a voluntary export restraint or VER in which the exporter itself limits how many cars will be exported (and then it is left to the individual manufacturers to work out how many of each will be exported). The issue is: who gets the surplus above the normal cost of the car? With a tariff, it is collected by the state and used for public purposes (I can expand on this later but am pressed for time now); with a quota, the surplus goes to the US importer (generally car dealers)as demand for Japanese cars goes up as supply falls; with a VER the surplus goes to the Japanese manufacturers (again as supply falls and demand rises). VERs are the worst, but they were adopted mainly for political reason in the 1980s (so G officials could say "hey, it is the Japanese doing this, driving up prices, not us") and so the surplus stayed in Japan. In this case, curtailing global warming by reducing the use of coal, if we simply put restrictions on how much coal-derived power is generated, the surplus will go to the conglomerates producing electricity, and to alternative suppliers, (of gas, wind etc) whereas a tariff will be returned to public coffers and COULD be used (a big if) to, say, remediate those most effected by higher energy costs (say, an income based rebate). The Germans use such tariffs to give price supports to renewables, by setting a price floor for power and supplementing the income of solar etc. producers if the price per KW hour falls below that, say during a recession, so they aren't wiped out when the price of electricity falls. .So tariffs/taxes are preferred. I will respond later if there is interest in this topic...
If the tax on railroad property, etc is reduced to 0, where do these contributors suggest we get the tax revenue to replace it? Or are state and local governments supposed to simply do without this revenue? Why? How will this help the public?
This thread appears to have gone from a discussion of what will replace coal, presumably within the context of its impact on the nation's railroads, since this is a forum for people interested in railroads, to a discussion of climatology. Whilst it is an interesting and timely topic, it probably belongs in a forum devoted to climate change.
Railroads, as an aside, don't pay any taxes. They are paid by the shippers, who in turn collect them in the price of their goods and services, for the most part. If they (shippers and railroads) don't have sufficient pricing power to pass them on to their customers, they may be paid in whole or in part by the shareholders and the workers.
According to the American Association of Railroads, its members paid $960 million in property taxes in 2012. Spread over all the taxing districts that levy property taxes on the nation's railroads, this is not much per taxing district. Property taxes are approximately 1.9 per cent of rail company operating expenses.
Whoops. I failed to follow my own advice and strayed from a discussion of the presenting topic, which was what will replace coal and its implications for the nation's railroads.
Sam1This thread appears to have gone from a discussion of what will replace coal, presumably within the context of its impact on the nation's railroads, since this is a forum for people interested in railroads, to a discussion of climatology. Whilst it is an interesting and timely topic, it probably belongs in a forum devoted to climate change.
Have you actually read this thread? Virtually EVERY ONE of the 131 replies, from the very beginning, was about global warming, not railroads, becasue the posters wanted to demonstrate that they disagree/ agree with the science of global warming, which is driving the slowdown in domestic coal use, which therefore affects railroads. . In my experience, someone only posts "This political post shouldn't be here" in response to someone whose politics differs from their own, while on the other hand if every one of the posts had been from a perspective the complainer agrees with we wouldn't have heard a peep out of them.
I find it strange that most scientists won't agree to the idea that the animal Bigfoot exists, even though there has been thousands of sightings and a few videos with credibility. Go to youtube and type in "New bigfoot trail cam video". I doubt that much or any government funding has been put foreward to study whether Bigfoot exists or not.
But with a big socialist political agenda and lots of government paid study, human sourced global warming is said to be real when real time data has only been collected for about 150 years.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
DwightBranch Sam1
Sam1
DwightBranch Sam1This thread appears to have gone from a discussion of what will replace coal, presumably within the context of its impact on the nation's railroads, since this is a forum for people interested in railroads, to a discussion of climatology. Whilst it is an interesting and timely topic, it probably belongs in a forum devoted to climate change. Have you actually read this thread? Virtually EVERY ONE of the 131 replies, from the very beginning, was about global warming, not railroads, becasue the posters wanted to demonstrate that they disagree/ agree with the science of global warming, which is driving the slowdown in domestic coal use, which therefore affects railroads. . In my experience, someone only posts "This political post shouldn't be here" in response to someone whose politics differs from their own, while on the other hand if every one of the posts had been from a perspective the complainer agrees with we wouldn't have heard a peep out of them.
Yes, most of it. My point is simple! A discussion of climatology belongs in a forum on climatology. The impact of replacing coal with whatever should be focused on the traffic and financial implications for the nation's railroads.
You got the quote wrong! The words, "political post ...." does not appear in my post. In fact, I did not say anything about politics.
Sam1 This thread appears to have gone from a discussion of what will replace coal, presumably within the context of its impact on the nation's railroads, since this is a forum for people interested in railroads, to a discussion of climatology. Whilst it is an interesting and timely topic, it probably belongs in a forum devoted to climate change.
Who cares?
I get tired of the occasional priss on here who wants to direct the conversational traffic. If you don't like the turn the conversation has taken ... drop out! There are other threads.
Insisting that we confine ourselves to the original subject is as childish as insisting that all conversation at, say, a family reunion be about family. No politics, no baseball, no weather, etc.
C'mon! In any case ... who appointed you?
Boyd I find it strange that most scientists won't agree to the idea that the animal Bigfoot exists, even though there has been thousands of sightings and a few videos with credibility. Go to youtube and type in "New bigfoot trail cam video". I doubt that much or any government funding has been put foreward to study whether Bigfoot exists or not.
She exists, I was married to her.
dakotafred Sam1 This thread appears to have gone from a discussion of what will replace coal, presumably within the context of its impact on the nation's railroads, since this is a forum for people interested in railroads, to a discussion of climatology. Whilst it is an interesting and timely topic, it probably belongs in a forum devoted to climate change. Who cares? I get tired of the occasional priss on here who wants to direct the conversational traffic. If you don't like the turn the conversation has taken ... drop out! There are other threads. Insisting that we confine ourselves to the original subject is as childish as insisting that all conversation at, say, a family reunion be about family. No politics, no baseball, no weather, etc. C'mon! In any case ... who appointed you?
Your intemperate comment is duly noted. People are free to wander all they want; that does not mean that failure to address the subject in a meaningful way is helpful.
There is scant commonality between a discussion of what, if anything, would replace coal and its impact on the well being of the nation's freight railroads and a family reunion, although it may be difficult for some people to recognize it.
No one appointed me? I am as entitled to an opinion, including where a discussion is headed or not headed, as anyone. Who gave you the right to rant at me or tell me to buzz off?
THANK YOU! I started to say something similar (the term I was using was "smarmy") but decided against it.
Threads go where they go - just like life goes where it goes. Enjoy the ride!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Just to be fair to Sam1, several threads discussing global warming here have been locked in the past, and the reason given was that a discussion of manmade global warming is political, and thus violates that rule.
My sense was that those calling for the lock were in support of the global warming scientific premise, and wanted to end criticism of that premise by locking the thread. Ironically, however, those are the very people who deny that there is any political agenda behind the theory of manmade global warming. They claim it is scientific. But they were willing to claim it is political in order to stop criticism of it here on the forum.
EuclidMy sense was that those calling for the lock were in support of the global warming scientific premise, and wanted to end criticism of that premise by locking the thread. Ironically, however, those are the very people who deny that there is any political agenda behind the theory of manmade global warming. They claim it is scientific. But they were willing to claim it is political in order to stop criticism of it here on the forum.
Your sense? You mean you have some inside knowledge form the moderators? I think we need to heed science that indicates man-caused global climate change is occurring. Speaking for myself and without any insider knowledge, I know I would not want such a thread locked. I prefer to present the case to the wider audience beyond members. It is not political. That is merely a red-herring used by deniers to garner support. And I do know that others who support this empirical, science-based issue do not want the thread locked and really are not concerned if some folks want to deny the evidence. However, I do think we should avoid using terms like "swarmy" and "prissy" in reference to other members on this or other threads.
Speaking to the recent postings, I think don oltmann's approach is quite sensible.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
our electric company had a meeting with us customers and told us our electric bills will double or tripple in 2 years cause of closing - retrofitting coal power plants. my last one was 42.00 so it will be 84 in 2 years.... no biggie for me.... but my neighbor paid 250.00 last month....his will be 500.00 in 2 years ..ouch!
Just to be clear: I am not suggesting or desiring the thread to be locked; or even that the topic should not be discussed. I have yet to see a thread on this forum that I desired to be locked. My desire would be that every single locked thread in the past had not been locked.
chicagorails our electric company had a meeting with us customers and told us our electric bills will double or tripple in 2 years cause of closing - retrofitting coal power plants. my last one was 42.00 so it will be 84 in 2 years.... no biggie for me.... but my neighbor paid 250.00 last month....his will be 500.00 in 2 years ..ouch!
None of the elitist zealot liberals care about that. They have supposed empirical scientific data that we MUST heed or else. Imagine a small or medium business and what it will take for them to stay in business, guess what , those costs are going to be passed right down the line to you and I.
Sacrifice the entire economy for theoretical doomsday climate scenarios. Follow the logic to its end.
Without any documentation, this may well be yet another piece of denial propaganda. The numbers and time lines are suspicious.
So, how do we know the earth is warming?
Where does the data come from? Who collected it and just how accurate is it?Ed
Ed,
Good questions. There are many sources that show the earth has warmed since 1850, as well as data showing the earth is warmer now than 1970. There is a lot of debate on how much the earth has warmed since 1998, most data suggests that no global warming has occurred since 1998. How much of that warming was due to human versus natural causes has not been resolved as well as how much of the human induced warming is due to CO2.
The proposed regulations on CO2 emissions from existing coal fired plants in the US is based on the assumption that increases in CO2 are the main driver in the temperature increases since 1850. That assumption has yet to be proven (note that increasing CO2 will result in an increase in global temperature, the argument is how much of a rise for a given amount of CO2).
The EPA estimates that the proposed regulations should reduce the global temperature rise by 0.02C in the year 2100. What I'd like to see is how that compares to global warming caused by aircraft contrails.
- Erik
P.S. Some of the organizations involved with collecting temperature data include the Climate Research unit at the University of East Anglia, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Sciences and the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
Facts.
1. Based on Core samples in Northern Greenland, it was 4 DEGREES warmer on avg 1,000 years ago there. Guess thats how it got its name handed down....
2. Solar flare activity is the Lowest its been in over 100 years ( and we are on the cooler end of an 11 year cycle) Solar flares "microwave" the poles when they break up. Its why the climate folks just love the poles.
3 Last SUMMER in Antarctica ( our winter) a climate change research vessel was stranded in major ICE many miles from Antarctica
4. The RATIO of Co2 to O2 is nearly unchanged avg in 80 years they kept track..OMG how is this possible? Well what the kids in school are NOT being taught is that Plants give off major O2 at night. warmer climates means more plants.... its just that simple.
5. Meta data on climate is "bent" and manipulated for political gain. IF you dont like CO2 and believe the BS, stop EXHALING and help the planet....
6. Remember last winter??? 60% more ice was reformed in the arctic....STIll cold air drops down in the middle of the US causing major storms
7. The BS installed on tier 4 Diesels ( Train and OTR truckers) makes the exhaust temp quadruple, so HEAT doesnt matter, its the CO2??. In the early 70's it was CO1 , remember MONOXIDE?
8. We are carbon based life forms, Carbon is our life and we live in it.. Be frugal and work as clean as you reasonably can, but NO im not raising the exhaust temp by 1,000 degrees on a notion that Co2 is ALL bad...... and HEAT is not?? come on.... Start throwing some Entropy into this equation.. and common sense... Is it REALLY about "warming", CO2? or is it about money?? ..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.