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).

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.

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-freakonomics-t.html

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.)

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?)