CATO: Rail transit doesn’t deliver
April 15th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultFinally, an objective review of rail’s ability to deliver on its promises.
Conclusion:
There may be places in the world where rail transit works. There may be reasons to build it somewhere in the United States. But saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not among those reasons. Regions and states that want to be green should find cost-effective alternatives such as the ones described here. [emphasis added]
The CATO Institute’s report, Does Rail Transit Save Energy or Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?, released yesterday, has some less than flattering things to say about rail transit systems in the U.S.
Although this is stretching the fair use issue a bit, I wanted to include the entire Executive Summary from the report:
Far from protecting the environment, most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets.
While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder bus operations. Those feeder buses tend to have low ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile. The result is that, when new rail transit lines open, the transit systems as a whole can end up consuming more energy, per passenger mile, than they did before.
Even where rail transit operations save a little energy, the construction of rail transit lines consumes huge amounts of energy and emits large volumes of greenhouse gases. In most cases, many decades of energy savings would be needed to repay the energy cost of construction.
Rail transit attempts to improve the environment by changing people’s behavior so that they drive less. Such behavioral efforts have been far less successful than technical solutions to toxic air pollution and other environmental problems associated with automobiles.
Similarly, technical alternatives to rail transit can do far more to reduce energy use and CO2 outputs than rail transit, at a far lower cost. Such alternatives include the following:
- Powering buses with hybrid-electric motors, biofuels, and—where it comes from nonfossil fuel sources—electricity;
- Concentrating bus service on heavily used routes and using smaller buses during offpeak periods and in areas with low demand for transit service;
- Building new roads, using variable toll systems, and coordinating traffic signals to relieve the highway congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year;
- Encouraging people to purchase more fuel efficient cars. Getting 1 percent of commuters to switch to hybrid-electric cars will cost less and do more to save energy than getting 1 percent to switch to public transit.
If oil is truly scarce, rising prices will lead people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. But states and locales that want to save even more energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will find the above alternatives far superior to rail transit. [emphasis added]
Some other notes worth mentioning:
Although Denver, Portland, San Jose, and other cities often claim that light rail stimulated economic development, such developments are almost always supported by large tax subsidies. (Randal O’Toole, Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn’t Work (Washington: Cato Institute, 2007), pp. 8–9.) At best, the developments that result from rail transit are a zero-sum game, that is, they merely transfer developments that would have taken place anyway from one part of an urban area to another (Robert Cervero and Samuel Seskin, An Evaluation of the Relationship between Transit and Urban Form (Washington: Transportation Research Board, 1995), p. 3.).
One redeeming comment about ‘trolley buses’ (which does not include streetcars):
In regions where much if not most electricity comes from hydro or other non-fossil-fuel sources, trolley buses can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but otherwise they are not effective.
Note that this statement does not address the question of cost, and is comparing the ‘trolley buses’ to an average passenger vehicle, not a hybrid. As passenger vehicles become more fuel efficient trolley buses will likely lose their advantage in this area. However, cost is still a huge issue.
Streetcars, like the project that some in Tacoma are talking about,
Streetcars and vintage trolleys consume lots of energy and, for the most part, emit lots of greenhouse gases per passenger mile. The poor performance of these systems results from low passenger loads, as many carry average loads of just two to six riders.
Ridership is a big issue:
Rather than attract people out of their cars, transit’s share of commuting has declined in 20 out of 25 rail regions.
In contrast [to technical solutions to solve pollution problems], the behavioral solutions have failed miserably. Per capita driving in urban areas has more than doubled since the 1970s, and no city has managed to reduce per capita driving by even 1 percent except for short periods of time when gas prices were high. Americans respond to high fuel prices with a short-term reduction in driving, but their longterm response is to buy more fuel-efficient cars and then continue to drive more each year.
Thereby dispelling the myth that transit attracts riders away from passenger vehicles. But this doesn’t deter transit zealots:
Despite the failure of behavioral solutions in the past, history is repeating itself today with cities planning rail transit lines, high density housing projects, mixed-use developments, and other techniques aimed at changing people’s travel behavior in order to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Once again, the reality is that technical solutions cost less and do more to address these issues, while there is little evidence that the behavioral solutions will have any measurable effect at all.
To put it another way, social engineering doesn’t work.
Here’s one aspect that rail proponents seem to try to disguise:
Even if rail operations did save energy, it could take hundreds of years for that savings to repay the energy cost of constructing rail transit.
The real solutions:
The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that more than 2.9 billion gallons of fuel are wasted in congested traffic each year. Relieving the congestion by fixing bottlenecks, using congestion tolls, and adding new capacity will do far more to reduce energy than rail transit can. Moreover, new highways largely pay for themselves, especially if tolls are used, while rail transit requires huge subsidies.
Update: On the issue of hydro-electric run trains, consider this article: Popular Mechanics: Plug-in Hybrid Cars Could Drain U.S. Water Supply, Researcher Says.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
CATO is hardly objective. They are a “free market, limited government” lobby group. As my high school newspaper teacher taught us, “Always check your sources.”
April 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Humm, intresting report…. I see Tacoma’s system is mentioned on page #9 as being a leader in the nation.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
RBD,
Me again. First, are you really for congestion pricing? You seem to be since you’ve bolded that part of the Cato report and called it “a real solution.” If so, my hat is off to you for that.
Second, I feel like a lot of anti-mass transit arguments are almost predicated on the belief that there is something natural about the freeway and getting people off the freeway is unnatural.
But the freeways were built for moving troops across the country, not for moving people between Tacoma and Seattle, or other shorter distances. (In fact, the official title of the Interstate system is the “Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.”) It just happened to have that effect.
In total, if you adjust for inflation the cost of the Interstate and Defense Highways system is about $425 billion dollars. That is a crazy crazy amount of money. The only reason anyone was willing to pay for it was because it was considered necessary to national security.
In many ways, I believe the success of the highway system speaks to what could become of a well-developed and well-funded rail system. We pushed billions and billions of dollars of public money into an infrastructure that then spurred even more billions of dollars in private growth (would the automobile industry be what it is without the freeways? Of course not).
What I wouldn’t give if last year’s TGV rail speed record was broken in the US instead of France … think of the products we could create and then sell …
So how is rail different? Why not spend billions of dollars on a transportation infrastructure that will most likely eventually create more innovative technologies that will then end up generating more money back then we spent in the first place (not to mention providing better transit options in and between major cities? It’s what happened with highways. Why shouldn’t we expect the same thing with rail system too?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I said, “an objective review of rail’s ability to deliver on its promises”. I wasn’t commenting on CATO, although I will say that I don’t always agree with them. This review is documented from other sources than just CATO, making it even more reliable. Also, compared to organizations like tacomastreetcar.org, CATO is quite objective. Usually, as in this case, they have facts to back up what they’re saying.
Did you notice what they said about streetcars? For one thing they put Tacoma in the ‘Streetcars/Vintage Trolleys’ category, which is completely fitting since the only connection it has to light rail is the gauge of track. Its length, or lack thereof, apparently doesn’t even qualify it as a light rail system.
The only redeeming quality about Tacoma’s ‘link’ is that it is powered by hydro-electric generators. That doesn’t change the fact that it caused all kinds of pollution when it was built, not to mention economic damage for it’s price tag and the cost to surrounding businesses during construction and after (with decreased foot traffic in some areas as opposed to the buses that it replaced.)
Erik, so many things.
- No, I’m not in favor of congestion pricing. Congestion is the result of a failure of government. Individuals shouldn’t be penalized for it. See the next post.
- My anti-mass transit arguments have nothing to do with what’s natural. Your comment sounds like an attempt to reduce you opponents’ arguments to an emotional level rather than keeping them where they are, reasonable.
- The freeway system started as a national security issue, but now it’s infrastructure for the economy and quality of life as well. It was a key to replacing passenger rail (along with air travel), which proves that freeways are superior to rail.
One of the main reasons that passenger rail failed, giving way to freeways, is that rail is limited to where its track are laid. Rail only works for transporting people from one center of population or business to another. Outside of that it is completely useless. There are areas in the US that grew up around rail, such as NYC and Chicago which benefited from having rail and then grew up around the rail terminals. There really aren’t any cities on the West coast that have the same benefit for rail’s usefulness. What you may call ‘urban sprawl’, the rest of us call quality of life.
Roads are much cheaper to build and maintain especially in outlying areas. Railroad tracks can only be used by one vehicle at a time in only one direction. Any others have to get out of the way. A freeway can haul people in both directions without waiting for those going the other direction to get out of the way.
Simply put, rail cannot deliver what roads can. Short of another industrial revolution (thereby developing population centers), there’s nothing that will drive the need for rail anywhere in the US. And now it’s becoming clear that roads can be ‘greener’ than rail using modern technology.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
#1 by-product of concrete is massive amounts of carbon.
By Clark Williams-Derry, Research Director
Summary
Road-building proponents often suggest that adding lanes to a highway will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By easing congestion, they argue, new lanes will reduce the amount of fuel that vehicles waste in stop-and-go traffic, leading to lower releases of climate-warming gases from cars and trucks. Over the short term—perhaps 5 to 10 years after new lanes are opened to traffic—this argument may hold some slim merit. But considering the increased emissions from highway construction and additional vehicle travel, adding one mile of new highway lane will increase CO2emissions by more than 100,000 tons over 50 years
Full report:
htip://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/analysis-ghg-roads.
I will say this report has made me think.
I don’t want a system like New Orleans.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
The benefits of a better rail infrastructure would be better for freight than passengers. Most freight is going from a port or a manufacturing base to a population center and then distributed from there. Right now our “national” railroad system is stymied. Trains are forced to go down to 25 miles an hours or slower in places. A better investment in rail infrastructure can keep freight costs lower than shipping via the road because freight trains don’t have to worry about ridership, they can pack the trains to the gills.
Second, there’s no emotional level implied in my argument. You are saying that freeways are cheaper for moving people and goods than rail, and moving them from there is “social engineering.” I’m simply saying that is the case because we invested $425 billion dollars in it.
That still leaves my last question for you: do you believe that the $425 billion dollar investment in freeways, in addition to the annual maintenance after that, has had a positive economic development impact on the country? Have we more than made up that $425 billion dollars with increased property values in the suburbs and ex-urbs, have we spurred an industry and the services needed, have we created more wealth since 1956 than if we hadn’t spent that money? If you agree, then why wouldn’t spending (let’s say) $100 billion dollars over the next 10 years improving our rail connections do the same thing?
April 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
As I think about it …
“There really aren’t any cities on the West coast that have the same benefit for rail’s usefulness. What you may call ‘urban sprawl’, the rest of us call quality of life.”
I don’t understand this line. For me, quality of life is living close to work, close to restaurants, close to nightlife, and only putting 6,000 miles a year on my car, even if it means a smaller place and a higher price. For someone else, it’s a big backyard for the kids and a place to relax with a big family room, even if it means 3 hours in the car every day. I’ve got no problem that not everyone sees “quality of life” the same way I do. Live and let live. But if my taxes are going to expansive freeways because it maintains and expands the freeways that serve someone else’s quality of life, why can’t some money for rail or other mass transit that would enhance mine be allowed too?
April 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Furthermore, I would argue that population trends and smarter growth policies (like Washington’s Growth Management Act) that will prevent us from expanding the suburbs right up to Mt. Rainier National Park will make mass transit more effective and viable as we infill the empty lots in between. I don’t want to bulldoze the suburbs, but I do think they need to stop pushing further and further out. Curbing the growth will help the suburuban home owner (without new houses being built further out and increasing supply, their home will have a stronger value) as well as help cities get denser and better for the environment.
I would also point you to the recent Atlantic article about suburbs: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime It’s a very interesting read with a hard look at the future of the outer suburbs.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Marty, a left-wing, global warming site? I looked over their numbers (quickly) and I can see how much information they have left out of their ‘report’. I’m not going to waste my time going through it point by point because at a glance I can see it’s a piece of tripe.
Highways carry emergency vehicles. What value do you put on those? Not all businesses can function around a train schedule or near a train station.
A train’s value diminishes the further you get from a train station. They have limited value to a limited number of individuals who happen to be traveling from the same origin to the same destination at the same time on a regular basis when the origin and destination happen to be in close proximity to a train station. There aren’t many people that fit into that narrow mold.
If you happen to be one of those people then having a multi-billion dollar, taxpayer subsidized transportation system would be great. If not, it’s just another burden put on the taxpayer from where they get little to no value in return.
In order for trains to even begin to approach the value to society that roads provide, there would have to be tracks on every street in town. Passenger trains failed to meet the needs of our citizens and they went away. Amtrak can’t support itself because not enough people want to use it. The destinations and schedules are limited and that limits the value that trains have to society.
Erik, not many people share your values when it comes to urban living. And if they did you might just get sick of having so many of them around. Tacoma’s downtown is sparely populated. I would venture to guess that as it fills up and brings in more crime, drugs, litter, noise, traffic (people still need cars even when trains are around), taxes, ‘at-risk’ people, etc., etc., etc., you probably won’t find it so desirable. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
I’ve worked in Seattle. I watched the parks department hose down Occidental Park on hot summer days in an effort to control the smell of human excrement. They put in public toilets to try to solve the problem and the toilets became mini-hotel rooms for hookers and drug dens for dealers. They’re pulling them out now after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.
New York was a horrible place to live, by most accounts, until Rudy went in and cleaned it up. I’ve been there since then and it still isn’t a place I’d want to live. I didn’t even want to be there once I got there. They have centuries of experience dealing with dense populations and they still can’t get it right. Cities aren’t all they’re cracked up to be (pardon the pun).
In the meantime, try to remember that we don’t all hold the same values that you do. Expecting us to pay ridiculous taxes so that you can feel good about being able to ride a train is asking too much.
Pardon me if I seem a little short. It’s difficult to respond to so many points in comments. I’m not able to get so many important points across in this limited space. I can see more than a half-dozen points that need pages to respond to, and many more that need posts all to themselves.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
RBD, I didn’t trash your values and I haven’t tried to cram urban living down anyone’s throat, but thanks for putting words in my mouth and trashing mine. How clearer could I have been that I don’t expect everyone to want to live downtown? That I respect the decision to live in the suburbs?
Every point I keep trying to make gets passed by. I am all for the dialog, but instead of an argument of my ideas, I get instead it’s a random diatribe about big cities that is unrelated to a single comment above it.
I am so tired of this.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Erik, sorry, I missed one of your comments.
I am for freight rail and where possible and practical, I am also for commuter rail. Using existing tracks is a great idea as long as it’s safe and doesn’t interfere with (as in prevent) use of the rail for freight. However, the way that Sound Transit is implementing it is wasteful because of the way the throw money around. They could spend a lot less on their stations (have you been to Auburn’s?)
I am completely opposed to light rail because it requires a huge investment of tax dollars, most of which comes from people who will almost never use the system. It won’t be used anywhere other than in Seattle (aside from the little ‘link’) anytime in the near future, but we’re paying for it anyway. It’s slow (I think you’ve shown that the route from Tacoma to SeaTac and Seattle would take far too long to be a practical alternative).
As for streetcars they failed in this country as well. I think that there are situations where they might be effective, but downtown Tacoma isn’t one of them (at this time). I think the issue should be revisted when Tacoma’s downtown is flourishing and we’re having trouble moving people around town. Until then it’s just a waste of money and would do little to reduce greenhouse gases (if we have to do that at all) because of the limited number of people who would leave their cars to ride such a system. Most who might use it are currently using buses.
I would also like Tacoma to consider ‘trolley buses’ such as the ones used in Seattle (similar to the power source for the link). Since we do have cheap, clean electricity from hydro-electric plants it would reduce pollutants (some of which is carbon the by-product of burning fossil fuels.) Notice I said ‘consider’. I don’t want to assume that it will make a difference (or needs to make a difference) until all of the facts are in and considered.
I think the CATO review shows that there are better alternatives that should be considered, even when greenhouse gas issues are to be addressed.
Also, I don’t agree with anthropogenic global warming hysteria and I never have. There is mounting evidence that manmade carbon emissions are not causing any changes in temperatures. And at a minimum the evidence calls the hysteria into question. Science got broadsided by politics and is still trying to recover.
The social engineering issue is part and parcel with the rail issue in urban areas. Government should respond to trends in housing, not try to create them. Planning is a good thing, but when government tries to make one area more attractive while making another less attractive, they should have a better reason for it than eco-hysteria.
As an aside, take the salmon issue. For years it has been used to cost every roads project time and money fighting liberal groups who are more concerned with social engineering than with quality of life or even the salmon. Even the governor has said that her goal in transportation is to force people out of their cars. That is social engineering at its worst. And it’s also the main goal of much of the efforts liberals in Seattle and Olympia (and they’re spreading).
Now these same liberals are trying to use the greenhouse gas issue to put a stop to building more roads. All the while they’re causing congestion by preventing adequate highway infrastructure which is causing more pollution than if they would just build the roads.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
RbD,
I’m sorry, I was only responding to the focus of the blog entry that light rail is not enrgy smart.
If you wish to dimiss my opinion and supporting documention, fine.
However, responding to my post by saying I don’t consider the importance of emergency vehicles or the value of rail by the proximity not a correct representation.
I consider those things and I have thought out and researched opinions, but I did bring them in the single topic of the blog which was the carbon impact.
Please don’t make assumptions on my part.
I do not believe that carbon is the most compeling reason to build or not build rail, but rather congestion, urban density and quality of life. Carbon reduction is just another benefit for smart planning.
And you never did really address the efficency of the Tacoma system with supporting documention; CATO institute ( Are they leftie wack-jobs also?)
April 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
What do you mean by efficiency? If you mean energy efficiency, I don’t think it beats a Prius (calculated by passenger mile). If you mean carbon emissions it barely beats the Prius because of hydroelectric power (which some lefties want us to abandon because of the dams that create the water pressure needed to power generators). In other areas that don’t have hydroelectric generators the Prius beats it.
But if you mean cost efficiency (effectiveness) it blows chunks sideways. At $7.63 per boarding ($6.53 for 2007) it’s roughly 13 1/2 times higher than an automobile (assuming an average trip of 1 mile since most don’t ride end to end, which is 1.6 miles, IRS deduction is 48.5 cents per mile for 2007). And since the Prius is pretty close to the greenhouse gas emissions of light rail (and beats some on the East coast the are powered by fossil fuel driven generators), it’s certainly not a cost effective way to reduce emissions. Why not buy everyone a Prius instead?
I would say that light rail technology is outdated. As battery technology improves for automobiles, it will leave light rail in the dust. Even the capture technologies that recharge batteries during breaking won’t help much because it would mean replacing all of the light rail trains (adding more carbon emissions to manufacture new ones, and who knows how much of the old trains aren’t recyclable).
And the trains still only ride the tracks, which means they still need feeders like buses and cars. Light rail doesn’t operate in a vacuum. You can’t calculate the efficiency of a trip on a train without including the lesser efficiency of the vehicle that got you to the train. It’s one trip that has to be totaled to get an accurate picture.
It’s like Sound Transit including only the operating costs in it’s ‘cost per boarding’ calculation and leaving out the depreciation/amortization costs. It’s like saying that my car costs only 14 cents per mile to operate (because that’s the amount of gas it uses). I would have to include the cost of the car, insurance, maintenance, parking, etc. to get an accurate figure. (Unless you’re a liberal, they don’t seem to know what things cost.)
April 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
All this discussion is moot.
I’m 75 years old and travel extensively. I do not drive. I can, but prefer not to. It’s simply not that much fun anymore, if in fact it ever was. I mostlyride public transportation.
There will be many millions like me in the not distant future. We like comfortable, speedy, safe rail transportattion for going distances where the use of aircraft is impractical. Highway transportation just doesn’t work, except for very short distances.
Seniors vote. Younger folks seem too busy or too preoccupied or too whatever to bother to vote in local and state elections. Thus, seniors will get what they need and want, which is good rail transporation. Politics, not the marketplace, will win out.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Well, J. Moore, I hope you’re wrong about politics winning out in the light rail issue. It will leave an expensive legacy for your children and grandchildren to deal with. I know that’s not intentional on your part, but it’s a fact that has to be addressed.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
You may be interested to read the Freakonomics article that’s coming out in Sunday’s NYT about an alternative to congestion pricing: Pay As You Drive Insurance that rewards people who put low mileage on cars by giving them lower insurance premiums because they are less risky (more miles drive by default puts you at a greater risk for an accident).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-freakonomics-t.html
April 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Freakonomics? You actually take that stuff seriously?
That type of insurance pricing has been around a long time. I’ve been getting a break on my insurance for working at home for years.
By the way, insurance pricing isn’t as clear-cut as some might think. A lot has to do with politics, legislation, and enforcement. For years there was nothing done about joy-riding and car theft so rates were driven up because of that (affected by zip-code of course).
For years liberals in this area have been trying to drive people out of their cars and on to buses (and now trains) to advance their liberal agenda (and to justify the waste of money) by showing how many people use them.
One of the ways that they tried to force people out of their cars was to drive up the cost of driving a car. Ridiculous fees on car tabs (mostly cured by I-695) was just part of it. Insurance laws in this state also reflected the effort to artificially make cars more expensive to operate.
Then, after the money was paid they used it for other things so roads got neglected, and without the additional lane miles congestion set in. With congestion came pollution and greenhouse gases. So it’s really liberals who are responsible for polluting the air and contributing excessive greenhouse gases to the problem.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
A couple more thoughts. First, do consider at the Atlantic article. Demographic trends are certainly indicating right now that with empty nesters and young people a gravitation toward the urban rather than the suburban.
Second, I tend to think that “carbon” is not necessarily the problem so much as “energy.” One of the benefits of dense urban-ness is that residents will use less energy per person to live. I benefit from the heat generated by the condo below me; my neighbor benefits from mine; whether I’m driving a Prius, a Hummer, or taking the Link, I am using less energy to get to work than I would if I lived miles and miles away.
2a) energy prices are going to be high for a long time. The developing world (mostly India and China here) are sucking up oil and other energy, which means that even if the US dramatically cut its energy or oil use, prices would still stay high (it also helps oil is run by a cartel to keep its price high). Higher energy prices are factored into everything, not just commutes, which is going to push up the price on consumer goods and food. At some point people are going to start making price-conscious energy decisions and do what they can to save money. For those who can afford to do it, I would guess that this means moving closer to work and choosing smaller places in more dense areas. For a lucky few it will mean moving work into the home or even working from home a few days a week.
They may not want to do it, and may believe that they are giving up a certain quality of life to do it, but I do believe that many are going to have to start weighing the costs and making decisions. Many will stay where they are and switch lightbulbs and drive a Prius and do what they can to cut costs. But some are going to move into dense neighborhoods or into downtowns and–as J Moore says–they are likely going to want rail transportation.
I’m not throwing value judgments on suburban vs. urban lifestyles or anything like that, just so I’m clear. As I said before, both choices represent a trade-off of some kind or another. But I would venture to guess that in the next 10 years many many people are going to–in some form–choose the urban side and accept a higher housing cost in exchange for lower transportation and lower energy costs.
Finally, I’m sticking my neck out here, but I think you should consider reading The Skeptical Environmentalist. It was attacked viciously by liberals and environmentalists, so I know you’ll like that part about it. It suggests (rightly I think) that while the human condition will improve over the next two hundred years, most people will think it’s gotten worse. It criticizes the environmental movement for comparing nature to some idyllic future instead of looking at the great gains that have been made in the environment (ie, London has cleaner air now than in the last 500 years). It asks, “with limited resources, where should I spend?” It asserts that saving the environment is important as it relates to keeping it habitable for humans and that saving polar bears or some individual specie is intrinsically worth doing. It does look hard at global warming and the author does conclude that it’s happening. But he also looks at the bright side: a warmer planet means we’ve got a lot more land to grow food on. It’s pretty dense reading, but it’s compelling.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
No thanks on the reading. I am a firm believer in protecting the environment. In the book of Genesis God made man the steward of the Earth by giving him dominion over it. That means that we have to do right by it.
However, I think they way that liberal environmentalists are going about it is all wrong. Mankind’s well-being should never take a back seat to the environment. It’s ours to use. It’s here to serve us, we are not here to serve it.
As an example. Man had upset a balance in North America by removing large carnivorous predators. That has allowed the population of some species to burgeon out of control, such as the whitetail deer. It’s my belief that since we upset the balance by removing the predators, we need to become the predators to keep their population down. If we don’t, in some areas the available food supplies in winter won’t sustain the population and many will die a horrible death by starvation. To put it another way, by killing deer for sport, we are restoring the balance that we upset.
In the case of fossil fuels for internal combustion engines, heat and generation of electricity, we need to be good stewards as well. I think we were wasteful in the beginning as the technology was implemented, but that is changing. Because of high prices caused by OPEC in the 70’s (something I remember clearly) more fuel efficient engines and vehicles were created. With pollution problem cleaner burning technologies were added. Thus restoring balance between man’s needs (and wants) and the effect it has had on the environment.
On the other hand liberals don’t understand balance. They want us to stop drilling and refining fossil fuels in the US, thereby creating a greater dependence on foreign oil which is produced with technology that is less clean and more harmful to the environment. We also have Bill Clinton blocking the mining of clean burning coal in the U.S. so that we have to go to China to get the same grade to burn in certain plants.
Look at biofuels. Liberals don’t understand that pushing for fossil fuels will create a demand that will shift the use of some farmland to produce crops that are used to make the new fuels. When that land is busy with those crops it won’t produce wheat or corn or other crops that are used to make bread and to feed cows. The price of the remaining crops that are available goes up (law of supply and demand) as do the secondary products such as bread and milk, putting a cost burden on the poor in our country and around the world.
My point is that liberals don’t think things through. I agree that the goal is to protect the environment. I just think that liberal, environmentalist wackos are going about it the wrong way and aren’t considering the consequences of their approach.
P.S. You do sound a little judgmental about urban vs. suburban vs. rural living sometimes. You obviously prefer urban living and that’s fine for you. But sometimes you come across as though you think it’s best for everyone. That’s a little of what gets me going in some of our exchanges.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:36 am
The book doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t protect the environment, just challenges us to ask, “with limited means, how can be best protect it?” If you had a million dollars to help fix the environment, where would it go? Air pollution? Water pollution? If removing smog from London saved tens of thousands of lives annually, but caused acid rain in Norway, is that trade worth it or not? I really thought this book addressed those questions well.
I’m totally with you on biofuel.
Second, I’m generally ok with the suburbs. I do want to run transit in to them, and I’m not wacky about continuing to build them out all the way to Eatonville and beyond. But I don’t want to demolish them either. I also believe that too few really look at the choice they have in housing; they “drive till they qualify” as the saying goes and don’t think of their rising transportation costs.
This is especially true in Tacoma, as the option to live in a more urban setting is relatively new (or at least, actually attractive for the first time in a long time).
May 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
[…] construction is part of the cost of the results, both in dollars and in environmental impact. The CATO Institute pointed this out quite […]