The Coming Competitive Milieu

Ocean going cargo ships burn bunker oil, a fuel that is very dirty and particularly high in sulfur emissions. Locomotives burn a higher grade of diesel fuel that causes much less pollution. Believe it or not, even the dirtiest locomotive is a "spring breeze" compared to what comes out of most container ship smokestacks.

My own belief is that pollution is contributing to global warming, but it isn't the cause of global warming. We know that the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling, caused by the any number of factors--volcanoes, forest fires or meteor strikes, for example. But if we add a man-made contribution of carbon or sulfur pollution to the natural cycle of warming and cooling, we'll be amplifying the effect of Mother Nature's natural cycles. So if sunspots might be causing a 1 degree rise in the earth's temperature, that increase might become a 1.5 rise in the temperature due to man-made pollution contributions. Do we know what the effect of that extra warming will be, especially if we are heading into a historically large--but "natural"--period of warming?

well , ive learnt some thing about dirty ship fuel .

As far as the developing countries go , i wouldnt write them off . I think theyll come to the party , making a giant leap , as long as they can trated fairly . I would liken it to tlelecommunications , where theyve gone from having none in many areas , skipped the copper wire landline stage , and gone straight to the fibre optic / sattelite stage . they can do the same in the energy / enviroment area .

Vincent wrote: My own belief is that pollution is contributing to global warming, but it isn't the cause of global warming.

A recent IPCC report has shown that the sun is not having any effect. The warming trend is caused by human activity. The denialists lack information. The debate on the cause is over. http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews ... imate.html

Lets keep it civil , and avoid labels that could be seen as insulting .

I think its the rate of warming thats the problem , rather than the actual warming .things can adapt if they have time . Here , its still as warm as summer , but the rivers at its lowest level in 50 years its been recorded .

My post wasn't intended to deny the existence or cause of global warming, but rather to say that pollution and greenhouse gases are amplifying and exaggerating the effect of the earth's normal warming and cooling process. The distinction might seem trivial, but here in the USA--where a large percentage of the electorate still believes that global warming is a hoax--it is often pointed out that the earth has gone through historic periods of warming and cooling. That's true, but can we ignore what's going on now in the environment and expect that in a few years everything will be back to normal? What's being overlooked is the fact that the normal cycles of temperature fluctuation have never before had to deal with the enormous amounts of combusted carbon that humans are currently contributing to the atmosphere. So here in the USA, we most likely will continue to delay any changes in transportation, industrial, energy and housing policies until our houses are under water (or the EU bans our jets from the Continent, if anybody remembers the source of this thread).

georgemathews wrote:

The warming trend is caused by human activity. The denialists lack information. The debate on the cause is over.

Mr mathews, with no personal rancor intended, the smugness implied in your post conveys exactly the sentiment that so many Americans find hard to accept.

Twenty years ago, when the European left was fighting a last-ditch battle to save the Soviet Union by spreading the fear of "nuclear winter" the possibility of global cooling, rather than warming, was the sacred word of the day. Today, the point in question has been turned 180 degrees for reasons of political expediency.

As I have stated in my previous post, I do accept the possibility that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. But even if this postion is accepted, exactly what to do about it remains unresolved, The only issue on which the alarmists and zealots seem to agree, above all else, ahead of any formal plan to quantify the issue or develop the means to address it, is the "need" for new forms of taxation and the creation of a new, multinational enviromental bureaucracy.

I challenge any member of the global warming advocacy to agree to, in return for American assent to the Kyoto protocols, a serious internationally-coordinated study of scientific means to address the possibilites of both global warming and global cooling, with a ten-year moratorium on impsition of any carbon tax until it is determined exactly what remedial measures can be undertaken, and at what cost.

Given the short-sighted and contradictory nature of the aforementioned group, I expect their enthusiasm to diminish rapidly should their pursuit of their primary objective be thwarted.

i would have thought it had been studied to death , and its time for action . Isn't it something like 90% of the worlds climate scientists believe the warming is been accerated by man made emissions ?

My point of contention, gentlemen, is simply that the proponents of the global-warming theory seem entirely fixated on raising revenue (but only from those portions of the world they deem able to pay, and likely, willing to volunteer) when no one has yet determined how those funds can be put to positive use.

If a reasonable sum is needed for specific research measures, or a specific plan of action, I think something can be agreed to, particularly if both contingencies of the warming/cooling scenario are equally addressed. But as things stand currently, we are simply being asked to fork over a large amount of wealth to a clique whose predilections, and lack of consistency, are easily recognized.

As I pointed out in my posts on the change in attitudes at the American conservative journal National Review last summer, all but the most strident have shown some willingness to adapt. But I have yet to see a similar accomodation among those who hold the opposite point of view.

my understanding is carbon taxes are SUPPOSED to be a way of measuring each countries , ( or company , activity ) emissions , versus their emission offsetting efforts . I would agree that it has been seized on as a way to tax by governments , and as a way to profit by trading by companies and individuals .
In new zealand's case , we were supposed to benefit from carbon trading , due to large forests in reserve , and lower co2 emissions .
but the govt has not promoted forestry as it should have , and methane emissions have come into the picture , we will now be paying quite substanially . Still the concept is largely supported by the populace and politicans .

It's not about taxes but about physics - changing what we do to stop the greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere, and ultimately to bring them down again. This is a policy that will have to proceed for at least the next 200 years.
On my web site, already cited, are some links to projects that will help: investment in solar based industry, projects to get the carbon out of the atmosphere (I have some hopes of a Geotherapy conference soon on these projects to fix the carbon).
If rail is a form of transport that can be conducted without adding carbon to the atmosphere then it needs to be encouraged, and yes people will find themselves encouraged to use it, if necessary by means of a price mechanism.
I have recently come back from Florida and I can see why Americans are so afraid of the kind of changes that circumstances (not people) are forcing us towards. Low density housing has run riot there. Most of it will be unviable if people can't use oil. I doubt if solar derived energy will be available to fund as much private transport as people are used to. Public transport can't serve low density housing.
To solve problems like these we need a very comprehensive kind of thinking. It has nothing at all to do with Left and Right, or "socialism".

Dakguy201 wrote:
Nellie has it right. Even when it is relatively self-evident what needs to be done, the EU has problems finding the collective will to actually take some action. The idea that they would impose meaningful sanctions on a major trading partner, such as China or ourselves, is a non-starter. At the most, they will limit their actions to symbolic protests -- giving Al Gore the Nobel prize comes to mind.

I believe it is up to us to find our way forward and certainly better transportation solutions are a major part of that in many portions of the country.

The possibility to make wars is not all you have to need to be a superpower in our wourld...
The EU has imposed meaningful sanctions to the USA and to China also in the past, if you doesn't know this ask your agricultural industry or your steel industry or Microsoft...

remember this a railroad forum please . Lets try and stick to things that directly or indirectly pertain to the railroads .

georgemathews wrote:

To solve problems like these we need a very comprehensive kind of thinking. It has nothing at all to do with Left and Right, or "socialism".

Your call for "comprehensive" thinking, Mr. mathews, would be interpreted by many in the United States as a call for centralized thinking, presumably originating in the corridors of power ruled by an "enlightened" few. Whether from the "low left" or the "low right", indeed does not matter; the desire for power is the overriding concern.

On the contrary, I wopuld argue that the emerging global marketplace provides an opportunity for multiple solutions for the same issue to emerge and compete. For a couple of small examples, I'll point out that the first hydrogen-pwered vehicles emerged in Singapore, a location with few resources other than a generous supply of human captal.

And yes, I am aware that the current hydrogen-propulsion systems rely on fuel extracted from natural gas, but it does represent a step in the right direction; it's the blind opposition to innovation in any form which could destroy us all.

I'll also point out that my own employer, American-founded, but German-based DHL, uses foot-powered delivery systems in areas where extreme congestion renders it economically feasible.

Within this scenario, the railroad holds a substantial energy advantage, negated, more often than not, by inefficiencies imposed for reasons suited to those in control of the absolute power of the state. The flowering of environmental consciousness demonstrates, I believe, that a large component of the pupulation wants to do the right thing; they simply hold a well-founded skepticism toward those whose focus appears to be primarily upon power.

And the principal reason for the railroads' economic advantage is precisely that as an entity originally funded and built under the rules of private enterpise, the costs involved (other than those such as environmental impact, which is open to many forms of interpretation, but empirically argues in the rails' favor, nonetheless) can be more easily identified and quantified.

Your call for "comprehensive" thinking, Mr. mathews, would be interpreted by many in the United States as a call for centralized thinking, presumably originating in the corridors of power ruled by an "enlightened" few. Whether from the "low left" or the "low right", indeed does not matter; the desire for power is the overriding concern.

If I meant "centralised" I would use that word. It's not my problem if people read what is not there.

I mean that people have to get into the habit of thinking of all the different factors in a problem instead of just one. A good example is the fashion for "biofuels". It has been noticed by quite a few people that turning food into motor fuel would lead to famine. I am a bit surprised that it has happened so fast. Both the British government and the European Commission are showing signs of changing policy here. The implications of using such fuels as Palm Oil are not helpful, still more in the case of turning maize into alcohol.

The only biofuel I am aware of that does not lead to famine is biogas, as described in this paper, and some others linked to it. http://www.members.aol.com/wimtalk/biogas/biogas.html

The approach of the Club of Rome was perhaps a bit premature but they showed what is possible with computer models to assist the human brain, which is ill adapted to the comprehensive approach. A lot of people have not yet caught up with the implications of using that kind of tool. The World Bank and IMF in particular are a bit slow, to say nothing of the dominant politicians. http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews ... world.html

I have hopes that the generations rising who have experienced computer games may be better equipped.

I have no doubt that railways will come back as they use less energy, and can use it from "centralised" electric grids. Those countries that already have a modern rail system will have an advantage. Those that failed to keep up will suffer from higher transport costs until they catch up. All will need to invest more. Britain for example is lagging in comparison to Germany.
I doubt if private passenger transport will be as easily available as it is now. It is easy to foresee that suburban developments from which people cannot travel except by private car may lose value.

I think the most promising biofuel is the one made form algae growing on sewage ponds . perhaps it should be a policy that biofuels are made form waste products only . im sure we have enough waste to supply a decent amount of fuel .
i have property near a river , because of the low flow and awarm weather it has grown a huge amount of water weed . i wonder if this could be used , ive already tried composting some .