MichaelSol wrote: marcimmeker wrote: MichaelSol wrote:What is the price of diesel fuel per gallon these days?Across the tracks (also Shell) the price is: €1.03/liter today.Well, if I did the conversions right, that works out to $6.26 per gallon, U.S. using today's Euro conversion.If that is historically applicable, it seems to explain European Electrification of railways all by itself. Rather than tax incentives, European governments used heavy taxation (of fuel) to produce the result.Of course, that also results in this (bicycle parking lot at Eindhoven train station):
marcimmeker wrote: MichaelSol wrote:What is the price of diesel fuel per gallon these days?Across the tracks (also Shell) the price is: €1.03/liter today.
MichaelSol wrote:What is the price of diesel fuel per gallon these days?
Across the tracks (also Shell) the price is: €1.03/liter today.
Well, if I did the conversions right, that works out to $6.26 per gallon, U.S. using today's Euro conversion.
If that is historically applicable, it seems to explain European Electrification of railways all by itself.
Rather than tax incentives, European governments used heavy taxation (of fuel) to produce the result.
Of course, that also results in this (bicycle parking lot at Eindhoven train station):
..and why Europe has less suburban sprawl, etc.
Does it really matter which method gov't uses to distort a market? Is it possible to judge the distortion as "bad" if the result is the on the citizenry desires? i.e. society may organize itself around it's values and the set of rules and laws that flow from those values set up the playing field with resultant peaks and valleys that the players can then compete on. I seriously doubt there is ever such a thing as a "level playing field". There may be locally level areas, but draw the control boundaries wide enough and you'll find undulation since there are no universally subscribed to values.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: If you want to find the truth don't listen to JB Hunt, watch what he does. That would be a tedious and unrewarding exercise.He's dead.No, duh!Lots of good, intelligent, incisive schoolyard stuff from you these days. What's up ...
oltmannd wrote: MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: If you want to find the truth don't listen to JB Hunt, watch what he does. That would be a tedious and unrewarding exercise.He's dead.No, duh!
MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: If you want to find the truth don't listen to JB Hunt, watch what he does. That would be a tedious and unrewarding exercise.He's dead.
oltmannd wrote: If you want to find the truth don't listen to JB Hunt, watch what he does.
If you want to find the truth don't listen to JB Hunt, watch what he does.
That would be a tedious and unrewarding exercise.
He's dead.
No, duh!
Lots of good, intelligent, incisive schoolyard stuff from you these days. What's up ...
Irrelevant sarcasm vs. schoolyard stuff. Anybody giving odds?
MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote:Perhaps this sheds some light on why the truckers never built or tried to purchase their own ROW.....All those truckers, just sitting there idling their trucks before the highways were built, deciding to just wait until there were public highways ... this is weird.It sheds no light at all. It didn't happen.
oltmannd wrote:Perhaps this sheds some light on why the truckers never built or tried to purchase their own ROW.....
All those truckers, just sitting there idling their trucks before the highways were built, deciding to just wait until there were public highways ... this is weird.
It sheds no light at all. It didn't happen.
If truckers are paying an unfair share of their ROW cost, then why don't they build their own and get out from under those "unfair" costs? Even when Mass offered up the Mass Pike, including the ability to gouge car drivers with "unfair" toll levels, the ATA couldn't put it's money where it's mouth was. They may complain about unfair taxation, but if it was true, you'd see some action. The opportunity to build out their own, private, highway network has always existed. Therefore, it must be cheaper for truckers to use public roads than to build there own.
oltmannd wrote: All that blather out of ol' JB and his ilk was just them trying to find a way to put more moola in their pockets. I don't blame them, but "Economic Justice" it ain't!
All that blather out of ol' JB and his ilk was just them trying to find a way to put more moola in their pockets. I don't blame them, but "Economic Justice" it ain't!
Is there something on this thread that JB Hunt, or his "ilk" said, or that is relevant? What are you talking about? Sounds like something personal ...
"a five-axle, tractor-trailer loaded to the 80,000-pound Federal limit, has the same impact on an interstate highway as 9,600 automobiles". (http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109954.pdf)
Perhaps this sheds some light on why the truckers never built or tried to purchase their own ROW.....
Suburban Station wrote: MichaelSol wrote:Well, you did compare the businesses, and pronounced absolutely that there was a "distortion" and that it needed to be fixed -- to make the railroad business more comparable -- by placing a greater tax burden on the general public by giving the railroads tax subsidies in the form of tax free bonds and what not.I guess I misstated what I meant. you were comparing apples to oranges. per truckload costs are really quite meaningless in this conversation. you did not address my main point, that is your figures do not take into accont the cost of the road they run on. In that sense your figures mean nothing in terms of this conversation. and yes, exempting bonds, etc is a good way to put railroads on a comparable basis. it's not a subsidy,it's the removal of a tax. the subsidy is to teh trucking industry that doesn't have to build or maintain its own infrastructure and does on the back of tax free entities and a lack of property tax,let alone income tax on the entities that maintain the roads, let alone the cost of dealing wth regulation in various states, environmental impact studies, etc. that's all absorbed by the taxpayers. it Is a can of worms, butnot one that youhave the sole answer to. MichaelSol wrote: You wanted to penalize everyone when you had the false notion that there was a "distortion"; now that you have happened upon the prospect that you might have had it backwards, you are no longer in the penalizing mood, and your sure sense of justice does not extend to tax breaks for the truckers to eliminate "the distortion." Just don't like truckers, I gather?there's no need for excessive arrogance. this is the internet where people express their opinions. it now appears that you may have had your facts screwed up. next time, drop the attitude.
MichaelSol wrote:Well, you did compare the businesses, and pronounced absolutely that there was a "distortion" and that it needed to be fixed -- to make the railroad business more comparable -- by placing a greater tax burden on the general public by giving the railroads tax subsidies in the form of tax free bonds and what not.
I guess I misstated what I meant. you were comparing apples to oranges. per truckload costs are really quite meaningless in this conversation. you did not address my main point, that is your figures do not take into accont the cost of the road they run on. In that sense your figures mean nothing in terms of this conversation. and yes, exempting bonds, etc is a good way to put railroads on a comparable basis. it's not a subsidy,it's the removal of a tax. the subsidy is to teh trucking industry that doesn't have to build or maintain its own infrastructure and does on the back of tax free entities and a lack of property tax,let alone income tax on the entities that maintain the roads, let alone the cost of dealing wth regulation in various states, environmental impact studies, etc. that's all absorbed by the taxpayers. it Is a can of worms, butnot one that youhave the sole answer to.
MichaelSol wrote: You wanted to penalize everyone when you had the false notion that there was a "distortion"; now that you have happened upon the prospect that you might have had it backwards, you are no longer in the penalizing mood, and your sure sense of justice does not extend to tax breaks for the truckers to eliminate "the distortion." Just don't like truckers, I gather?
You wanted to penalize everyone when you had the false notion that there was a "distortion"; now that you have happened upon the prospect that you might have had it backwards, you are no longer in the penalizing mood, and your sure sense of justice does not extend to tax breaks for the truckers to eliminate "the distortion." Just don't like truckers, I gather?
there's no need for excessive arrogance. this is the internet where people express their opinions. it now appears that you may have had your facts screwed up. next time, drop the attitude.
It's part of his show! He's not here for a discussion or exchange of opinions. And, certainly, he's not here to gain any followers. He's just showin' off.....
futuremodal wrote: oltmannd wrote: I'll stick with Samuelson..........who apparently is a disciple of Karl Marx.
oltmannd wrote: I'll stick with Samuelson.....
I'll stick with Samuelson.....
.....who apparently is a disciple of Karl Marx.
Samuelson is a mainsteam economist, unlike the radical, but brilliant, Friedman. There IS a Freidman paper published at www.marxists.org, though
Paul A. SamuelsonPh.D., Harvard Institute Professor, Emeritus; Professor of Economics, Emeritus; Gordon Y. Billard Fellow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson
I don't have a car, so I have to go by what market leader Shell says and the fuel station across the tracks from my home. You have to convert to gallons yourself as I do not know how many liters go into a gallon.
This year prices for diesel were between €0.962/liter in january and €1.024/liter in april according to Shell. For 2006 the price range was €0.988 - 1.085/liter
And as Shell explains on its website, much of it is tax in one form or another (64% excise and Value Added Tax in april 2007 for unleaded gas, VAT being 19% and some goes to financing the EU from that).
greetings,
Marc Immeker
IRONROOSTER wrote: selector wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:... The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming... Paul What is by no means established, though, are the causes. The vocal set seems to discount the greatest single energy producer within 4 lightyears of the Earth...by a factor of about 6 orders of magnitute. The Sun's flux is in flux, and its changes in flux cannot be discounted. The Sun is a flare star, so its output changes over time. Tying CO2 production to global warming is by no means a slam dunk. But thousands have jumped on this bandwagon...'cuz it's so campy. I am not going to state that our ways of doing things down here are not worth reflection and modification, maybe even in a hurry, but I am not convinced that we understand why we should do it. The horse has swapped ends with the cart, in my view.I deliberately left out a causal clause. For me the real issue is can we do something about it? and will we? I agree that there may be nothing we can do. Also, for reasons not well understood, it may turn out less catastrophic than some claim. OTOH maybe we can tip the balance in our favor by taking action now. Maybe, only by taking action now can we divert catastrophe. The sad thing will be if we finally know we should have taken action, but it's too late.
selector wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:... The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming... Paul What is by no means established, though, are the causes. The vocal set seems to discount the greatest single energy producer within 4 lightyears of the Earth...by a factor of about 6 orders of magnitute. The Sun's flux is in flux, and its changes in flux cannot be discounted. The Sun is a flare star, so its output changes over time. Tying CO2 production to global warming is by no means a slam dunk. But thousands have jumped on this bandwagon...'cuz it's so campy. I am not going to state that our ways of doing things down here are not worth reflection and modification, maybe even in a hurry, but I am not convinced that we understand why we should do it. The horse has swapped ends with the cart, in my view.
IRONROOSTER wrote:... The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming... Paul
... The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming...
Paul
What is by no means established, though, are the causes. The vocal set seems to discount the greatest single energy producer within 4 lightyears of the Earth...by a factor of about 6 orders of magnitute. The Sun's flux is in flux, and its changes in flux cannot be discounted. The Sun is a flare star, so its output changes over time. Tying CO2 production to global warming is by no means a slam dunk. But thousands have jumped on this bandwagon...'cuz it's so campy.
I am not going to state that our ways of doing things down here are not worth reflection and modification, maybe even in a hurry, but I am not convinced that we understand why we should do it. The horse has swapped ends with the cart, in my view.
I deliberately left out a causal clause. For me the real issue is can we do something about it? and will we? I agree that there may be nothing we can do. Also, for reasons not well understood, it may turn out less catastrophic than some claim. OTOH maybe we can tip the balance in our favor by taking action now. Maybe, only by taking action now can we divert catastrophe.
The sad thing will be if we finally know we should have taken action, but it's too late.
I am curious to know what type of action you believe will prevent the climate catastrophe. The reason I ask is that I see two distinct and radically different courses of action. One is the remedy that actually matches the threat as it has been quantified by the very ones who have defined the impending catastrophe. The other course of action is the one that catastrophe predictors actually recommend. It consists of a whole litany of easy little things often referred to as tips on being green. It includes things like keeping your tires properly inflated, using a programmable thermostat, changing to CFLs, caulking cracks, buying food that needs the least transportation, carpooling, reusing your grocery bag, only boiling enough water for one cup of tea at a time, and planning your car trips to avoid left turns. This is the sugarcoated remedy than anybody can swallow, but it amounts to little more than a symbolic effort compared to what will really be required to solve the problem.
The remedy that will actually solve the climate problem that has been laid out by the so-called experts is bitter medicine. It requires the elimination of most if not all manmade CO2. With this real remedy, one needs to consider not only what will happen if the threat is real and we don't try to prevent it, but also, the wasted cost of this tremendous sacrifice if the climate threat turns out to be false.
futuremodal wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: I understand and have sympathy for your point of view. But unfortunately for some problems, by the time it's obvious and convincing it is too late or excessively expensive to correct. The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming.What is your evidence of anthropogenic global warming?
IRONROOSTER wrote: I understand and have sympathy for your point of view. But unfortunately for some problems, by the time it's obvious and convincing it is too late or excessively expensive to correct. The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming.
I understand and have sympathy for your point of view. But unfortunately for some problems, by the time it's obvious and convincing it is too late or excessively expensive to correct. The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming.
What is your evidence of anthropogenic global warming?
Evidence of Global warming:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/science/earth/16gree.html?ex=1326603600&en=b018c85a1b03d90f&ei=5090
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4857832.stm
Not exactly extremist outfits either. Anthropogenic is your word not mine
What the effects are and what we can to do to successfully affect it are not clear. But waiting is also a choice with consequences not well understood. I favor trying to reduce or prevent our impact on climate change. I think the risk on this is too great to do otherwise - I just hope we're not late.CO2 from smokestacks and tailpipes as a percentage of the entire greenhouse effect potential: < 1/10 of 1 %.What does that tell you?Significant surface warming has now been observed on the other planets and moons in our solar system.What does that tell you?
What the effects are and what we can to do to successfully affect it are not clear. But waiting is also a choice with consequences not well understood. I favor trying to reduce or prevent our impact on climate change. I think the risk on this is too great to do otherwise - I just hope we're not late.
CO2 from smokestacks and tailpipes as a percentage of the entire greenhouse effect potential: < 1/10 of 1 %.
What does that tell you?
Significant surface warming has now been observed on the other planets and moons in our solar system.
Back to you for your evidence and relevance.
Please, for the sake of the survival of our representative democracy and our Western way of life......will you people in the global warming cult who ostensibly love the country at least try and put two and two together?
We're talking survival of the world here, democracy and the Western world included. Can you at least try to understand the magnitude of the problem.
Suburban Station wrote: it now appears that you may have had your facts screwed up.
it now appears that you may have had your facts screwed up.
"now appears" -- from what?
I don't think you had any "facts" to begin with.
I am gathering you just make stuff up. I might enquire what "facts" you looked at when you decided that we should all pay higher taxes because you decided that the struggling railroads needed tax breaks because ... there was a "distortion" except that, well, now you have decided oranges were competing with apples and there was no reason to compare the two industries.
Well, you wanted us all to pay higher taxes so somebody could get a tax break.
What "facts" did you compare, between your two "non-comparable" industries that led you to your conclusion?
I can give you cite and page numbers for where my "facts" came from ....
Where, specifically, did your's come from?
Anyone who freely offers "intenet opinions" ought to be willing to freely share the factual basis for his opinion. So, what is it?
Folks,
I think the biggest obstacle to electrifying railroads is how are they going to accommodate domestic doublestack container trains. Two 53' standard domestic doublestack containers stacked on top of each other plus the height added from the well-type container carrier freight car is quite high, and that could cause clearance issues galore.
Suburban Station wrote: MichaelSol wrote:Well, you did compare the businesses, and pronounced absolutely that there was a "distortion" and that it needed to be fixed -- to make the railroad business more comparable -- by placing a greater tax burden on the general public by giving the railroads tax subsidies in the form of tax free bonds and what not.I guess I misstated what I meant. you were comparing apples to oranges. per truckload costs are really quite meaningless in this conversation. you did not address my main point, that is your figures do not take into accont the cost of the road they run on. In that sense your figures mean nothing in terms of this conversation. and yes, exempting bonds, etc is a good way to put railroads on a comparable basis. it's not a subsidy,it's the removal of a tax.
I guess I misstated what I meant. you were comparing apples to oranges. per truckload costs are really quite meaningless in this conversation. you did not address my main point, that is your figures do not take into accont the cost of the road they run on. In that sense your figures mean nothing in terms of this conversation. and yes, exempting bonds, etc is a good way to put railroads on a comparable basis. it's not a subsidy,it's the removal of a tax.
I get the solid impression that you have some extraordinarily vague idea that railroads, as property owners, do not benefit from fire, police, flood control districts, hazardous waste response, plowing the roads, fire control when sparks light a hay field on fire or when the depot catches on fire, fire trucks and ambulances for the derailment or the grade crossing accident, schools for the children of railroad employees, Universities for them if they choose to go, police for arresting trespassers or thieves, in some cases even electricity for operating the stationary equipment and the waste disposal for normal operations.
And where do you get these ideas?
Of course, you would not be comparing apples to oranges by comparing railroad property taxes to trucker user fees -- trucker's who don't, in fact, own property in most of the counties they pass through, and do pay property taxes where they have facilities. And even though you felt the analogy sufficiently comparable to make it in the first place, now it's apples and oranges when someone actually took you up on it.
So, you announce, with your own special blend of arrogance, that because your analogy failed as soon as you didn't like the prospective results, that you didn't say what you meant, and that you "can't compare" the businesses at all, even though you are still trying to do exactly that -- even as you have pronounced it impossible. Please!
In most states -- actually all of them that I am aware of -- a commercial truck must register in order to operate commercially within the state. This is called "proportional registration" and each fleet must estimate its proportional mileage run within a given state for the purpose of assessing a tax -- a tax additional to the highway trust fund taxes.
Those taxes go to the State General Fund. Not the Federal Highway Trust Fund -- the State General Fund. The one that pays for the highway patrol, emergency services, property tax relief (including to railroads!), schools, Fish & Game, the University systems, parks & recreation, services for the poor, building codes, the court system, environmental regulation, the prison system, the Extension Service 4-H Clubs, sanitary regulations, the Governor's salary, drug rehabilitation programs, lettuce inspection, livestock inspection, tourism advertising, tax collection, child support enforcement, etc. -- all manner of things that have nothing to do with the Interstate Highway System, and just about exactly resembles what, in many states, property tax supports.
And all of which, from a trucker's perspective, have d*** little to do with the two or three hours he might spend on the Interstate crossing the state.
In most states, it is the same general procedure under the same general statutes, only without the mileage proration, that apply when you register and license your car or truck.
Guess what?
It's a property tax.
Do you think both truckers and railroads should be exempt? Why? Why not?
And why do you think the rest of us should make up the difference?
Suburban Station wrote: there's no need for excessive arrogance. this is the internet where people express their opinions. it now appears that you may have had your facts screwed up. next time, drop the attitude.
If you didn't "state what you mean" then you can drop yours.
marcimmeker wrote: Today, around 2/3 of the Dutch railroad network is electrified.Countries with more coal traffic build new steam engines in the 50s, like Germany. Countries with a lot of hydro electric power (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden) or no coal or oil (Italy) were early converts to electric railroading.
Today, around 2/3 of the Dutch railroad network is electrified.
Countries with more coal traffic build new steam engines in the 50s, like Germany. Countries with a lot of hydro electric power (Switzerland, Norway, Sweden) or no coal or oil (Italy) were early converts to electric railroading.
Marc, I always enjoy travelling on Dutch rail; for someone who grew up around grand and dynamic rotating Motor Generator Sets and all of their attendant running switches, transformers and switchboards, it's even still kind of a marvel to see those little nondescript rectifier buildings sitting on the side of the right-of-way.
What is the price of diesel fuel per gallon these days?
cordon wrote: Aside from that question, maybe someone should look at why European countries have so much of their RRs electrically powered. If we could understand their rationale, maybe we would discover some factors we haven't yet applied to the discussion here in North America.
For the Netherlands it was this:
- the Germans left our railroad in a mess after WW2. lots a things to repair.
- the steam engine was at its end, mostly because it was old and because of the war.
- no large oil reserves, no hydro electric power possible. Some coal mining.
So efficient use of power was necessary, couple it to a commuter like network (currently more than 5000 passenger trains and 200 freight trains per day on some 3000km of routes) and changeover occured for most mainlines between 1949 and 1959. Some electrification was done in the 60s and 70s and one line in the mid 80s (a long branchline between Zwolle and Emmen).
But interestingly, Denmark went all diesel. It only recently electrified some mainlines in connection with the building of tunnels and bridges over the large waterways that divide the islands and Jutland from each other. It also choose 25 kV rather than 15kV of neighbours Sweden and Germany....
I think I read in a newspaper series on trucking that at least some people believe that the trucking industry does not pay its fair share for highway construction and use, traffic control, administrative costs, and accidents. I believe this is a point of contention in the public safety and tax contexts, separate from the question of whether the RRs or the trucks get advantageous treatment by the governments, compared to each other.
Aside from that question, maybe someone should look at why European countries have so much of their RRs electrically powered. If we could understand their rationale, maybe we would discover some factors we haven't yet applied to the discussion here in North America.
As for electrical power, we are on the edge of having power shortages in the American south and west on a hot summer afternoon. There is plenty of capacity during other times. This is the subject of intense political controversy over reserve capacity, reliability, investment, and electricity rates. I suspect that running more trains with electricity would make the conflict worse.
1435mm wrote: erikem wrote: 1435mm wrote:There's a bit more room than that. Height from top of rail for hi-cube double-stacks is 20'2". Thanks again, I stand gratefully corrected. I have to look up every fact almost every time as I can't even remember my own phone number, address, or zip code most days (but I seem to have my UA and DL frequent flyer numbers memorized ). If you dig out those studies you mentioned I'd be grateful for a summary.S. Hadid
erikem wrote: 1435mm wrote:There's a bit more room than that. Height from top of rail for hi-cube double-stacks is 20'2". Thanks again, I stand gratefully corrected.
1435mm wrote:There's a bit more room than that. Height from top of rail for hi-cube double-stacks is 20'2".
There's a bit more room than that. Height from top of rail for hi-cube double-stacks is 20'2".
Thanks again, I stand gratefully corrected.
I have to look up every fact almost every time as I can't even remember my own phone number, address, or zip code most days (but I seem to have my UA and DL frequent flyer numbers memorized ). If you dig out those studies you mentioned I'd be grateful for a summary.
S. Hadid
I know the feeling...
In lieu of digging through my garage, I did look up the minimum clearances for conductors in substations (Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Thriteenth Edition, McGraw-Hill, page 17-20 - similar data should be in other editions). For rigid conductors, a minimum spacing of 10" between the energized conductor and a grounded condutor is recommended for 23KV and 17" is recommended for 46KV. That would imply that 23'6" is adeqaute with some safety factor for 25KV and marginal for 50KV (remember that contact wire plus messenger wire may be a few inches high at the minimum) - about what I guessed earlier (a bit scary when my guesses turn out to have some basis in fact).
The standard height for the contact wire on the Milwaukee was 24 feet about the rail - my recollection is that was predicated on providing clearance for brakemen to stand on the cars.
The wag in the industry is there are a number of railroads who want to be the SECOND railroad to electrify. Power pools and run thru power are an important part of the rail industry. If one railroad suddenly switches from diesel locomotives to electric locomotives their units become a pariah in the industry. The electrified line can accept diesels in a run thru pool but the diesel railroad cannot use the electrics on their own line. While not all trains would be affected the more the electrified road uses non diesel power for the effeciencies the fewer units they will have to send off line.
Trading the carbon emissions credits the electrified railroad would not be using to other industries would amount to a government subsidy or two. The first would be to provide and incentive for the railroad to invest in cleaner propulsion while the second allows the dirty industry to continue to pollute by paying a tax, subsidy or payment to the rainroad for going clean like they are unwilling or are unable to do. The net result is emissions would remain about the same but the power plant, industrial facility, truck line or other 'dirty' facility would pay the railroads to get clean. That would be OK for the railroad until the facility went off shore, closed down or found someone else willing to sell the same carbon credits for less money.
Bucyrus wrote:...I certainly do not want the government, for the purpose of preventing climate change, to force the railroads to electrify, nor mandate outcomes that require it. Unless a threat is obvious and convincing, I think it's far safer for a society to ignore it rather than to be forced into a collective remedy, especially one that may have ulterior motives. ...
I certainly do not want the government, for the purpose of preventing climate change, to force the railroads to electrify, nor mandate outcomes that require it. Unless a threat is obvious and convincing, I think it's far safer for a society to ignore it rather than to be forced into a collective remedy, especially one that may have ulterior motives.
...
I understand and have sympathy for your point of view. But unfortunately for some problems, by the time it's obvious and convincing it is too late or excessively expensive to correct. The evidence of Global warming is pretty overwhelming. What the effects are and what we can to do to successfully affect it are not clear. But waiting is also a choice with consequences not well understood. I favor trying to reduce or prevent our impact on climate change. I think the risk on this is too great to do otherwise - I just hope we're not late.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.