QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....And the beat goes on...and on. Rip out 50 million from a rebuild Iraq budget and apply it to doing something for us in this counrty. Maybe it will have some left over bucks when the bridge is repaired so apply the rest of it to the phone cards for Service folks at the Rehab. units to call home. Some of this budget cutting subject gets really disgusting. As does where we're spending some of it too.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript.........
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Some folks will counter and say there are "externalities" that are not included in the profit/loss figures. "Externalities" are the last refuge of scoundrals. Externalities can rarely be indentified or quantified. The costs and benifits are unassignable. Gee, a perjorative. How nice! You sound like a typical hard-headed southerner. Now we're even![:D] "Externalities" are can be HARDER to define and assign than direct costs and benenfits, but that does not make them less real. An example: The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. Another example more to the current point: You have a congested commute that take 90 minutes. There is a proposal to make the road a toll road at a cost to you of $40 a week in order to fund the extra highway capacity to reduce your commute to 30 minutes. There is another proposal to collect a toll of $10/week from you that would eliminate some of the existing traffic so that your commute would be 30 minutes, but it would involve investing the toll somewhere else. Same benefit to you, but different cost. The cheaper one involves "scoundrals". Which would you pick? Why is the state the "right" level of gov't to access taxes for public infrastructure? People in Crescent City CA will NEVER benefit from SF/LA/SD train service. Why should they have to pay? (You can make a sound arguement here, but you'd have to be a bigger scoundral than I am)
QUOTE: Some folks will counter and say there are "externalities" that are not included in the profit/loss figures. "Externalities" are the last refuge of scoundrals. Externalities can rarely be indentified or quantified. The costs and benifits are unassignable.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript......... Well look on the bright side..at least you'll finally have some non simulated experience to post about.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar ....And the beat goes on...and on. Rip out 50 million from a rebuild Iraq budget and apply it to doing something for us in this counrty. Maybe it will have some left over bucks when the bridge is repaired so apply the rest of it to the phone cards for Service folks at the Rehab. units to call home. Some of this budget cutting subject gets really disgusting. As does where we're spending some of it too. I think Amtrak will wait until after the 3rd World War. I have heard the words Iran, China, freedom and North Korea in the same sentences and am not thrilled of the consequences if I understood correctly. If all goes according the the Bush doctorine, our nations along with the other NATO countries will be arming for war against China, Iran and North Korea within four more years.[V] Wonderful, I'm going to be a consript.........
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton We have on the other hand a forum member who clearly believes the idea that the free market will solve all. However, he has for some time been arguing that anti-trust laws have not been enforced and government should establish open access on rail lines. Like those aren't social programs?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Canada is one big duopoly; CN or CP. The great thing is that it will likely never be a monopoly because neither railroad likes each other. Fortunately for some industries in Southern Ontario, the choice can also be NS or CSX.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Then you've also got the spector of a BNSF + CN or UP + CP merger (and/or inclusion of CSX, NS, KCS), which could really reek havoc on service to certain sectors of Canada.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Then you've also got the spector of a BNSF + CN or UP + CP merger (and/or inclusion of CSX, NS, KCS), which could really reek havoc on service to certain sectors of Canada. It could reek havoc if they run lots of smelly tra***rains, but you probably mean it would wreak havoc. [;)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:57 PM QUOTE: [i] "Externialities" are much HARDER to define, identify and assign as to cost/benifit. That's why I don't trust them. I do accept the polution example. The air and water were free and were consequently used reclesly. I don't get your tollway example. It seems in both your options the benifits are going to the toll payers - which is the good match that elimates externality. So no, I don't think that state level funding is necessarily right. (I'm certain that national funding isn't right.) In Rhode Island it would be good. But a citizen in western Pennsylvania shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NE corriodor, since his/her benifits will be insignificant at best. This emphatically means that the trains through Montana should be paid for by the people who use the trains, no one else. LA, New York, Chicago - we can think about it. If I take toll money from autos and pay RRs with move trucks thru the city and get them off the highway, I've violated the "Free market fairness" rule. Highway users are paying for RR service for trucks! And, if it's not fair for W. PA to pay for service on the NEC, then it also isn't fair for NJ to pay as much per gallon in Fed gas tax as PA since NJ has many many fewer interstate and US highway miles, right (I80 in PA alone has more route miles than all the free interstates in NJ)? In fact, the whole interstate system should have been paid 100% out of state revenues - no federal match? And, if Kansas, Nebraska, SD and ND opted out??? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 3:49 PM I read somewhere recently that fewer than 5 percent of Americans flew last year, and 60 percent of Americans have never flown..... There's a small airport south of Fort Worth, Texas, which is getting $60 million of federal funds to improve the airport to land corporate jets even though there is only 46 airplanes hangared there... Yes, over a million per airplane..... No commercial airline service whatsoever..... I would like that kind of subsidy..... anyone want to spend a million for my garage? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. You have no basis whatsoever to state that environmental regulations have done anything remotely positive for our environment or our quality of life. There is much more evidence that just the opposite has occurred. Clinton's ban on logging only resulted in millions of boardfeet of timber being needlessly scorched by wildfires at a cost of billions, and salmon spawning streams being overrun by ash and erosion in these scorched areas. Elk herds once plentiful in cut over areas are now diminished due to fewer clear cuts. The EPA's recent arsenic standards from 50 ppm to 10 ppm have resulted in burdensome costs on municipalities to meet these new standards, even though there is no evidence the 50 ppm standard ever resulted in increased mortality or disease, and according to the CDC, certain cancer rates are actually lower in those states with naturally occurring arsenic rates above 10 ppm. The global warming scam has resulted in money being wasted on so-called renewables and recession-inducing conservation policies, and now we have the spector of CO2 regulations, even though higher atmospheric CO2 levels have resulted in more verdant plant growth and lower rates of water consumption by plants, something to think about when considering how to feed an ever growing world population. During the 1990's the feds wasted countless taxpayer dollars promoting dam breaching as a cure all for ostensiblly endangered salmon in the PNW, even though researchers showed higher survival rates through the dams and reservoirs then in the free flowing rivers, all the while continuing to allow gill nets to be spread across the lower Columbia River. Then the EPA claimed river tempuratures were higher than "normal" due to dams, even though Idaho officials showed them evidence that river temperatures were also higher in the free flowing rivers coming out of wilderness areas. Environmental regulations have resulted in abnormal costs of oil exploration and value-added production in the U.S., furthering our need for imported oil, and causing high paying manufacturing jobs to head oversees. These regulations have made infrastructure improvement projects obscenely more costly than they should be. Environmental regs have totally emasculated our economy. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:29 PM You are citing only some of the more recent issues that are hot button issues for the current liberal/conservative shouting match. I don't think you really have a clue what was done in the 1960s and 70s. You must be a child of the 80s. If you believe, that, on the whole, ALL of the environmental regs from the 1960s on, are a waste, then, I can say with certainty that: 1. You have no idea what you're talking about. 2. You don't have a techincal background, or if you do, you wasted your tuition money. 3. You are part of a one-in-a-million minority in this country. If you want to continue this discussion, try talking about why catalytic converters and EGR valves (do you know what these things do?) on cars are a bad idea. Or, how the air quality on the NJTP got better between 1970 and 1990 even though the traffic doubled. It's a fallen world. There is no free market utopia the way there was no socialist utopia, but maybe Santa will bring you one for Christmas if you ask him (he's usually at the Mall in December, so you might have to wait a while) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:13 PM Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:49 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. So, you agree that SOME regulation is a good thing? Then the only arguement is how much regulation is needed and how to do it. I wish you'd make up your mind. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You can never have regulation put in place by government that don't occur in a messy way with imperfect results as various constituencies battle over their self interests. But, that is the nature of how our gov't works - not an idealogical problem. Without regs, your neighbor's outhouse could be polluting your well and there would be nothing you could do about it other than to move. But, who'd want your house if your well was polluted? So your neighbor should have to properly site and build his outhouse, per government regulations, so that you have clean water. The extra cost is born ENTIRELY by your neighbor, but YOU get all the benefit. Not a free market force in sight! Tier II, as at least as it relates to RRs, was pushed more on "fairness" than as a whole, measurable solution to a documented problem, although the RRs ARE significant sources of NOx in urban areas. In the talks before the regs were drafted, one of the stated gov't goals was that it couldn't be so onerous that it would cause modal shift to trucks, nor reduce fuel efficiency any meaningful amount. The regs were developed in conjuntion with the RRs and loco builders and, in general, the results were easy for RRs to bear. The added cost per loco is fairly low and reduction in NOx is high - very cost effective in terms of NOx reduction. Tier II is, for RRs, a good reg that was developed the right way. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:56 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:09 PM Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Absolutely NONE of those automtive improvement would have happened w/o gov't regs. Deaths are down because of: Federal crashworthiness std - which the automakers fought Federal airbag mandate - which the automakers fought State seatbelt laws State DUI theshhold lowered from 0.10 to 0.08% plus enforcement (both state laws are tied to Fed Highway funds) Why in the world would a fed fuel tax have to go into a highway trust fund. Why not pay for defense with it? What sense does it make paying for schools with property tax? What sense does it make paying for the dept of agriculture with a personal income tax? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice.
The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: [i] "Externialities" are much HARDER to define, identify and assign as to cost/benifit. That's why I don't trust them. I do accept the polution example. The air and water were free and were consequently used reclesly. I don't get your tollway example. It seems in both your options the benifits are going to the toll payers - which is the good match that elimates externality. So no, I don't think that state level funding is necessarily right. (I'm certain that national funding isn't right.) In Rhode Island it would be good. But a citizen in western Pennsylvania shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NE corriodor, since his/her benifits will be insignificant at best. This emphatically means that the trains through Montana should be paid for by the people who use the trains, no one else. LA, New York, Chicago - we can think about it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. You have no basis whatsoever to state that environmental regulations have done anything remotely positive for our environment or our quality of life. There is much more evidence that just the opposite has occurred. Clinton's ban on logging only resulted in millions of boardfeet of timber being needlessly scorched by wildfires at a cost of billions, and salmon spawning streams being overrun by ash and erosion in these scorched areas. Elk herds once plentiful in cut over areas are now diminished due to fewer clear cuts. The EPA's recent arsenic standards from 50 ppm to 10 ppm have resulted in burdensome costs on municipalities to meet these new standards, even though there is no evidence the 50 ppm standard ever resulted in increased mortality or disease, and according to the CDC, certain cancer rates are actually lower in those states with naturally occurring arsenic rates above 10 ppm. The global warming scam has resulted in money being wasted on so-called renewables and recession-inducing conservation policies, and now we have the spector of CO2 regulations, even though higher atmospheric CO2 levels have resulted in more verdant plant growth and lower rates of water consumption by plants, something to think about when considering how to feed an ever growing world population. During the 1990's the feds wasted countless taxpayer dollars promoting dam breaching as a cure all for ostensiblly endangered salmon in the PNW, even though researchers showed higher survival rates through the dams and reservoirs then in the free flowing rivers, all the while continuing to allow gill nets to be spread across the lower Columbia River. Then the EPA claimed river tempuratures were higher than "normal" due to dams, even though Idaho officials showed them evidence that river temperatures were also higher in the free flowing rivers coming out of wilderness areas. Environmental regulations have resulted in abnormal costs of oil exploration and value-added production in the U.S., furthering our need for imported oil, and causing high paying manufacturing jobs to head oversees. These regulations have made infrastructure improvement projects obscenely more costly than they should be. Environmental regs have totally emasculated our economy. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:29 PM You are citing only some of the more recent issues that are hot button issues for the current liberal/conservative shouting match. I don't think you really have a clue what was done in the 1960s and 70s. You must be a child of the 80s. If you believe, that, on the whole, ALL of the environmental regs from the 1960s on, are a waste, then, I can say with certainty that: 1. You have no idea what you're talking about. 2. You don't have a techincal background, or if you do, you wasted your tuition money. 3. You are part of a one-in-a-million minority in this country. If you want to continue this discussion, try talking about why catalytic converters and EGR valves (do you know what these things do?) on cars are a bad idea. Or, how the air quality on the NJTP got better between 1970 and 1990 even though the traffic doubled. It's a fallen world. There is no free market utopia the way there was no socialist utopia, but maybe Santa will bring you one for Christmas if you ask him (he's usually at the Mall in December, so you might have to wait a while) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:13 PM Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:49 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. So, you agree that SOME regulation is a good thing? Then the only arguement is how much regulation is needed and how to do it. I wish you'd make up your mind. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You can never have regulation put in place by government that don't occur in a messy way with imperfect results as various constituencies battle over their self interests. But, that is the nature of how our gov't works - not an idealogical problem. Without regs, your neighbor's outhouse could be polluting your well and there would be nothing you could do about it other than to move. But, who'd want your house if your well was polluted? So your neighbor should have to properly site and build his outhouse, per government regulations, so that you have clean water. The extra cost is born ENTIRELY by your neighbor, but YOU get all the benefit. Not a free market force in sight! Tier II, as at least as it relates to RRs, was pushed more on "fairness" than as a whole, measurable solution to a documented problem, although the RRs ARE significant sources of NOx in urban areas. In the talks before the regs were drafted, one of the stated gov't goals was that it couldn't be so onerous that it would cause modal shift to trucks, nor reduce fuel efficiency any meaningful amount. The regs were developed in conjuntion with the RRs and loco builders and, in general, the results were easy for RRs to bear. The added cost per loco is fairly low and reduction in NOx is high - very cost effective in terms of NOx reduction. Tier II is, for RRs, a good reg that was developed the right way. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:56 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:09 PM Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Absolutely NONE of those automtive improvement would have happened w/o gov't regs. Deaths are down because of: Federal crashworthiness std - which the automakers fought Federal airbag mandate - which the automakers fought State seatbelt laws State DUI theshhold lowered from 0.10 to 0.08% plus enforcement (both state laws are tied to Fed Highway funds) Why in the world would a fed fuel tax have to go into a highway trust fund. Why not pay for defense with it? What sense does it make paying for schools with property tax? What sense does it make paying for the dept of agriculture with a personal income tax? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:13 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. You have no basis whatsoever to state that environmental regulations have done anything remotely positive for our environment or our quality of life. There is much more evidence that just the opposite has occurred. Clinton's ban on logging only resulted in millions of boardfeet of timber being needlessly scorched by wildfires at a cost of billions, and salmon spawning streams being overrun by ash and erosion in these scorched areas. Elk herds once plentiful in cut over areas are now diminished due to fewer clear cuts. The EPA's recent arsenic standards from 50 ppm to 10 ppm have resulted in burdensome costs on municipalities to meet these new standards, even though there is no evidence the 50 ppm standard ever resulted in increased mortality or disease, and according to the CDC, certain cancer rates are actually lower in those states with naturally occurring arsenic rates above 10 ppm. The global warming scam has resulted in money being wasted on so-called renewables and recession-inducing conservation policies, and now we have the spector of CO2 regulations, even though higher atmospheric CO2 levels have resulted in more verdant plant growth and lower rates of water consumption by plants, something to think about when considering how to feed an ever growing world population. During the 1990's the feds wasted countless taxpayer dollars promoting dam breaching as a cure all for ostensiblly endangered salmon in the PNW, even though researchers showed higher survival rates through the dams and reservoirs then in the free flowing rivers, all the while continuing to allow gill nets to be spread across the lower Columbia River. Then the EPA claimed river tempuratures were higher than "normal" due to dams, even though Idaho officials showed them evidence that river temperatures were also higher in the free flowing rivers coming out of wilderness areas. Environmental regulations have resulted in abnormal costs of oil exploration and value-added production in the U.S., furthering our need for imported oil, and causing high paying manufacturing jobs to head oversees. These regulations have made infrastructure improvement projects obscenely more costly than they should be. Environmental regs have totally emasculated our economy. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:29 PM You are citing only some of the more recent issues that are hot button issues for the current liberal/conservative shouting match. I don't think you really have a clue what was done in the 1960s and 70s. You must be a child of the 80s. If you believe, that, on the whole, ALL of the environmental regs from the 1960s on, are a waste, then, I can say with certainty that: 1. You have no idea what you're talking about. 2. You don't have a techincal background, or if you do, you wasted your tuition money. 3. You are part of a one-in-a-million minority in this country. If you want to continue this discussion, try talking about why catalytic converters and EGR valves (do you know what these things do?) on cars are a bad idea. Or, how the air quality on the NJTP got better between 1970 and 1990 even though the traffic doubled. It's a fallen world. There is no free market utopia the way there was no socialist utopia, but maybe Santa will bring you one for Christmas if you ask him (he's usually at the Mall in December, so you might have to wait a while) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:13 PM Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:49 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. So, you agree that SOME regulation is a good thing? Then the only arguement is how much regulation is needed and how to do it. I wish you'd make up your mind. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You can never have regulation put in place by government that don't occur in a messy way with imperfect results as various constituencies battle over their self interests. But, that is the nature of how our gov't works - not an idealogical problem. Without regs, your neighbor's outhouse could be polluting your well and there would be nothing you could do about it other than to move. But, who'd want your house if your well was polluted? So your neighbor should have to properly site and build his outhouse, per government regulations, so that you have clean water. The extra cost is born ENTIRELY by your neighbor, but YOU get all the benefit. Not a free market force in sight! Tier II, as at least as it relates to RRs, was pushed more on "fairness" than as a whole, measurable solution to a documented problem, although the RRs ARE significant sources of NOx in urban areas. In the talks before the regs were drafted, one of the stated gov't goals was that it couldn't be so onerous that it would cause modal shift to trucks, nor reduce fuel efficiency any meaningful amount. The regs were developed in conjuntion with the RRs and loco builders and, in general, the results were easy for RRs to bear. The added cost per loco is fairly low and reduction in NOx is high - very cost effective in terms of NOx reduction. Tier II is, for RRs, a good reg that was developed the right way. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:56 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:09 PM Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Absolutely NONE of those automtive improvement would have happened w/o gov't regs. Deaths are down because of: Federal crashworthiness std - which the automakers fought Federal airbag mandate - which the automakers fought State seatbelt laws State DUI theshhold lowered from 0.10 to 0.08% plus enforcement (both state laws are tied to Fed Highway funds) Why in the world would a fed fuel tax have to go into a highway trust fund. Why not pay for defense with it? What sense does it make paying for schools with property tax? What sense does it make paying for the dept of agriculture with a personal income tax? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. You have no basis whatsoever to state that environmental regulations have done anything remotely positive for our environment or our quality of life. There is much more evidence that just the opposite has occurred. Clinton's ban on logging only resulted in millions of boardfeet of timber being needlessly scorched by wildfires at a cost of billions, and salmon spawning streams being overrun by ash and erosion in these scorched areas. Elk herds once plentiful in cut over areas are now diminished due to fewer clear cuts. The EPA's recent arsenic standards from 50 ppm to 10 ppm have resulted in burdensome costs on municipalities to meet these new standards, even though there is no evidence the 50 ppm standard ever resulted in increased mortality or disease, and according to the CDC, certain cancer rates are actually lower in those states with naturally occurring arsenic rates above 10 ppm. The global warming scam has resulted in money being wasted on so-called renewables and recession-inducing conservation policies, and now we have the spector of CO2 regulations, even though higher atmospheric CO2 levels have resulted in more verdant plant growth and lower rates of water consumption by plants, something to think about when considering how to feed an ever growing world population. During the 1990's the feds wasted countless taxpayer dollars promoting dam breaching as a cure all for ostensiblly endangered salmon in the PNW, even though researchers showed higher survival rates through the dams and reservoirs then in the free flowing rivers, all the while continuing to allow gill nets to be spread across the lower Columbia River. Then the EPA claimed river tempuratures were higher than "normal" due to dams, even though Idaho officials showed them evidence that river temperatures were also higher in the free flowing rivers coming out of wilderness areas. Environmental regulations have resulted in abnormal costs of oil exploration and value-added production in the U.S., furthering our need for imported oil, and causing high paying manufacturing jobs to head oversees. These regulations have made infrastructure improvement projects obscenely more costly than they should be. Environmental regs have totally emasculated our economy. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 4:29 PM You are citing only some of the more recent issues that are hot button issues for the current liberal/conservative shouting match. I don't think you really have a clue what was done in the 1960s and 70s. You must be a child of the 80s. If you believe, that, on the whole, ALL of the environmental regs from the 1960s on, are a waste, then, I can say with certainty that: 1. You have no idea what you're talking about. 2. You don't have a techincal background, or if you do, you wasted your tuition money. 3. You are part of a one-in-a-million minority in this country. If you want to continue this discussion, try talking about why catalytic converters and EGR valves (do you know what these things do?) on cars are a bad idea. Or, how the air quality on the NJTP got better between 1970 and 1990 even though the traffic doubled. It's a fallen world. There is no free market utopia the way there was no socialist utopia, but maybe Santa will bring you one for Christmas if you ask him (he's usually at the Mall in December, so you might have to wait a while) -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:13 PM Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:49 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. So, you agree that SOME regulation is a good thing? Then the only arguement is how much regulation is needed and how to do it. I wish you'd make up your mind. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You can never have regulation put in place by government that don't occur in a messy way with imperfect results as various constituencies battle over their self interests. But, that is the nature of how our gov't works - not an idealogical problem. Without regs, your neighbor's outhouse could be polluting your well and there would be nothing you could do about it other than to move. But, who'd want your house if your well was polluted? So your neighbor should have to properly site and build his outhouse, per government regulations, so that you have clean water. The extra cost is born ENTIRELY by your neighbor, but YOU get all the benefit. Not a free market force in sight! Tier II, as at least as it relates to RRs, was pushed more on "fairness" than as a whole, measurable solution to a documented problem, although the RRs ARE significant sources of NOx in urban areas. In the talks before the regs were drafted, one of the stated gov't goals was that it couldn't be so onerous that it would cause modal shift to trucks, nor reduce fuel efficiency any meaningful amount. The regs were developed in conjuntion with the RRs and loco builders and, in general, the results were easy for RRs to bear. The added cost per loco is fairly low and reduction in NOx is high - very cost effective in terms of NOx reduction. Tier II is, for RRs, a good reg that was developed the right way. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:56 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:02 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:09 PM Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it! Absolutely NONE of those automtive improvement would have happened w/o gov't regs. Deaths are down because of: Federal crashworthiness std - which the automakers fought Federal airbag mandate - which the automakers fought State seatbelt laws State DUI theshhold lowered from 0.10 to 0.08% plus enforcement (both state laws are tied to Fed Highway funds) Why in the world would a fed fuel tax have to go into a highway trust fund. Why not pay for defense with it? What sense does it make paying for schools with property tax? What sense does it make paying for the dept of agriculture with a personal income tax? -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics? You really have littile idea how hybrids save fuel. They would make almost zero difference in an over the road truck. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why?
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Don, You are correct that many (but certainly not all) of the environmental laws passed in the 60's had a positive environmental effect, without being too much of a drag on the economy. From the 70's on, the law of diminishing returns has been the rule on the efficacy of environmental law. In fact, the law of diminishing returns had itself been trumped by the law of negative returns. Take CAFE standards. The feel good theory was that simply requiring vehicles to achieve arbitrary fuel efficiency standards would benefit everyone, when in fact what really happened is that the mortality rate for accidents involving high mileage vehicles has gone up due to less impact resistance, the necessary characteristic to make these vehicles more fuel efficient. No matter how you analyse it, higher mortality rates run counter to quality of life goals. Added to that is the fact that customer choice has pre-empted wide spread acceptance of such vehicles. Is consumer choice a quality of life variable? How about the new EPA standards for farm tractors? The Tier II requirements will raise the cost of new farm equipment, but since these vehicles operate outside of areas of impact, what is the point of putting this added onus on our nation's ag producers? Clearly, a higher cost for no societal benefit. The same can probably be said for the new locomotive emissions standards. Is there any evidence that diesel locomotives have contributed in any quatifiable way to urban air pollution? No, but still new engines must meet these standards, at a higher cost that will no doubt be passed on to shippers. Did you know that everytime an environmental group files a frivolous lawsuit against the Forest Service or the Corps of Engineers, it is the taxpayers that end up paying the lawyer fees for these groups? Talk to any professional forester, and they will say that thinning projects in our forests will have a positive impact on those ecosystems. Yet so-called environmental groups will file a lawsuit every single time to stop these projects, for no societal gain. What current environmental law iqnores is that ostensibly "dirty" impacts are a part of human and societal functionality, and since man is part of the natural order, nature itself has the ability to adapt to these impacts. Current environmental law is way too intrusive upon normal human activity. You got any fact to back up your CAFE/death rate argument? In the 55 mph, pre CAFE 70s, the death rate was about 60,000/100M vehicle miles. Now, with traffic more than doubled and 70 mph speed limits, it's only 35,000/100M veh. miles. All the explanations I know of that explain this improvement run afoul of more gov't regs. Hmmm... could there be more beneficial gov't regs where cost and benefit accrue in different places? Another way to do CAFE, would be to tax fuel. CAFE is such a heavy handed "command and control" type reg. It takes choices away from consumers. A fuel tax would let "free market" forces guide the production possibilities and let consumers vote with their $$. I would prefer that to CAFE, but CAFE is a tolerable reg as is. Do you know when the CAFE stds were put in place and why? Don, Your stats on improving death rates per 100M vehicle miles has nothing to do with CAFE standards or any environmental regulations. Vehicles today have better navigation controls, better tires, better braking, better steering, computer controls allow better response actions to potential hazards, highways today have all but rid themselves of deadly spots (few "Dead Man's" curves are left) and have better barriers to accidents where vehicles leave the road, techniques for compensating for snow and ice are much improved. Even traffic congestion has had a part in reducing the propesity to accidents. That being said, it is true that mortality rates for drivers of smaller/lighter vehicles are higher than for those of larger/heavier vehicles, and that is simply the laws of physics at work. Since the response to CAFE by the automakers was to reduce the tare weight of the vehicles, it is axiomatic that that will lead to higher statistical mortality rates for drivers of smaller vehicles relative to mortality rates for drivers of larger vehicles when there is an impact collision. It is now possible to allow larger heavier vehicles and still meet fuel efficiency goals by implementing hybrid technologies, but then you have the increased costs to deal with. Right now, assuming a normal life span of a family vehicle, you are still spending more on the puchase price of the hybrid than what you are saving in increased fuel efficiency for the same size vehicle. Your idea of taxing fuel to force consumers to make fuel efficiency choices is intriguing, but you're missing two truths: (1)We already tax fuel to pay for highway improvements. Would you be willing to put all the revenue from increasing fuel taxes into the Highway trust fund, or would you give that money to some other cause? If, as I suspect, you'd probably try to fund Amtrak or some transit project with that money, then I'd be opposed, as would most Americans. Such transport modes only serve a few select portions of the country, unlike highways which transverse the nation everywhere. Let Amtrak and transit users pay their own way. (2)Why not let the market decide the price of fuel? If higher fuel prices cause consumers to choose more fuel efficient vehicles, then let it be so. If not, then raising a fuel tax to try and force such choice would be pointless. Now, if you instead are opting for a local option fuel tax for only the congested urban areas, I have no problem with that. Then if those cities want to use that revenue for transit, that is their choice, and since it is local only it does not affect non-urban areas. I say go for it!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper Hybrid cars are practical, the cost vs conventional vehicles is not a huge increase, and there really isn't any reason for not using them across the board. So fuel economy regulations happen to make sense to me. Typically, electric-hybrid vehicles cost $6,000 to $7,000 over the same size conventional car. So at an average low ball figure of $15,000 for a small car, a hybrid will cost over $20,000, a 33%+ increase, fairly substantial. Now, if we're talking about using hybrid technology in an SUV (and assuming the same hybrid cost premiums), then we can take a $25,000 SUV and increase it to $30,000+ for a hybrid SUV, then it's only a 17% price increase. My bet is that the cost increase for a hybrid SUV will be porportional to that of the smaller models. The real transport breakthrough with hybrid technology will be when it is incorporated into trucks on a large scale. Can you imagine the increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency when hybrid 146,000 lb trucks are out there? What will that do to shorthaul and medium haul rail dynamics?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.