Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[WildCat]

But not that a high speed train would take.

Yes, you can fly there in 2.5 hours less than the proposed HSR time from LA-SF. I'm not talking about current rail service.

But just because YOU say so doesn't necessarily mean that HSR is something that is still going to be considered for the future of this country.

I have yet to see a single study that shows a need for HSR in the US, nor that it would be viable here. We don't have anywhere near the population density of western Europe, Japan, or China and won't for the foreseeable future.

Of course. Anything having to do with progress in this country looks like a loser to you, WildCat, we all know that by now!

I'm all for progress, but HSR isn't it. HSR will be nothing but a vacuum sucking money from projects that would be atual progress.

I didn't say anything about building walls or castles. I'm talking about building high speed rail systems. I thought you were too??!!

The only reason you offered for US HSR was that China and Europe have it. It's just logical that you would likewise support a 5,500 mile wall and castles dotting the countryside of the US.

Ahh okay, so in other words we should all just live like we did in the 1950's and forget about any further advances in technology. Good solution! Yes, times were better then weren't they??

Uh, you're the one advocating trains from last century. As for transportation technology electric cars are the future of that, not HSR.

Okay then. when everyone on the planet owns an electric car and YOU are stuck in a traffic jam that causes you to be 5 hours late to work, you'll probably say to yourself - "Damn, there's got to be a better way!"

How on earth will HSR relieve traffic congestion within metro areas? local transportation, be it light rail or buses, can relieve that. But we're starving existing local mass transit for funds (here in Chicago the rail and bus lines are reeling from maintenance issues and service cuts) while throwing billions at HSR which doesn't reduce congestion at all.

 

[dc1971]

Uh, you're the one advocating trains from last century.

Uh, No! I'm not! You're the one alluding to the 1950's, not me.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you know? It's not even operating!

This is your worst argument yet. Apparently you think that advocates of HSR can argue its benefits before it's built, but critics can't point out its flaws until afterwards.

 

[WildCat]

Uh, No! I'm not! You're the one alluding to the 1950's, not me.

HSR was first done in the 1950s, and here you are advocating HSR.

 

[dc1971]

HSR was first done in the 1950s, and here you are advocating HSR.

Yeah...

And...

...technology has changed since the 1950's...

If you want to use that logic, we are currently, or have surpassed, using this 1950's technology in our modern mass transit system.

 

[dc1971]

This is your worst argument yet. Apparently you think that advocates of HSR can argue its benefits before it's built, but critics can't point out its flaws until afterwards.

Um...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying!

 

[mhaze]

Um...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying!

I heard this somewhere before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

 

[TimCallahan]

The Big Dig, and the Shoreham nuclear reactor are examples. Of course the New Orleans levees with their substandard materials used qualify.
Hmm....all those were in Leftist territory...

In point of fact, the levees had been neglected, not repaired and not upgraded, for years. Physical infrastructure has to be maintained. That may be costly, but it's a lot cheaper than the alternative of levee failures. IIRC, the levees were a federal project and built by the Army Corps of Engineers. It was the failure of conservative governments to spend the money on their upkeep and upgrading that caused them to fail.

ETA: Go here for a thorough discussion of the levee failures. It appears to a mix of bad design, failure to maintain and people settling in lower areas that were more easily flooded. While I would concede a point to you on poor design, that doesn't mean that all public projects are poorly designed and, thus, shouldn't be undertaken. Also, failure of governments at federal, state and local levels to maintain and upgrade them - because they might (gasp!) have to raise taxes to do so, and the failure of local regulators to contain real estate development in easily flooded areas contributed to the level of death and destruction.

 

[Minoosh]

Being against improved rail isn't something I associate specifically with the Tea Party but with a longer-standing and peculiarly American tradition. It's the idea that, why should I plan my travel route around a collectivist vision? I should be able to fire up the V8 from anywhere, and get to anywhere, without regard for the herds using mass transit. It's the glorification of car culture, the romance of the open road, vs. a line with a fixed route.

I like environments built pre-car culture because I like the pedestrian scale. But I think there's a countervailing culture that we have a right to our own home on the range, a right to commute 40 miles in SUVs and do errands at our own convenience and no one else's - essentially a right to not mix, to not compromise. To not carpool.

Found myself really resenting an HOV lane at rush hour recently, when traffic was jammed in the other lanes and all that extra capacity was just sitting there. The attempt at social engineering just annoyed me. And I think there's a strain of that in most of us - resentment at infrastructure that's out to mold me rather than responding to what my gas-guzzling wide open spaces sensibility.

ETA: Meanwhile l suspect people all over the world take it for granted they sacrifice convenience for sustainable transport. This seems the more practical and I'm tempted to say more mature view.

 

[mhaze]

In point of fact, the levees had been neglected, not repaired and not upgraded, for years. Physical infrastructure has to be maintained. That may be costly, but it's a lot cheaper than the alternative of levee failures. IIRC, the levees were a federal project and built by the Army Corps of Engineers. It was the failure of conservative governments to spend the money on their upkeep and upgrading that caused them to fail.

ETA: Go here for a thorough discussion of the levee failures. It appears to a mix of bad design, failure to maintain and people settling in lower areas that were more easily flooded. While I would concede a point to you on poor design, that doesn't mean that all public projects are poorly designed and, thus, shouldn't be undertaken. Also, failure of governments at federal, state and local levels to maintain and upgrade them - because they might (gasp!) have to raise taxes to do so, and the failure of local regulators to contain real estate development in easily flooded areas contributed to the level of death and destruction.

Yes, it's true that primary causation of levee failure varied between the several greater areas of New Orleans. The levees were poorly designed. That alone qualifies them as "boondoggle". If anything the continued reliance on them with the population movement to low areas and the negligence in maintenance created a bigger "boondoggle".

 

[HoverBoarder]

The attitudes expressed in this thread by those who lean leftwards well illustrates the blind faith, reckless spending, and total disregard for business realities that shows why someone...

...such as the Tea Party...

....is needed to stand up and point out the irrational attitudes of Greenies.

Actually it is quite the opposite.

For green projects to be successful, they need to have a rational cost benefit analysis of the project's positive and negative impacts. Which is basically taking the word "green" out of it and analyzing the project just like any other project.


Many people on both sides are unable to take the word "green" out of projects and rationally consider the cost/benefit analysis of the project.

However, a group like the Tea Party that prides themselves on being overly irrational due to their deep rooted political extremism is one of the worst groups to weigh in. The Tea Party's political extremism causes them to act irrationally in many cases, including with the economy, where their ideas to "fix" the economy includes raising taxes on the middle class (the "fair" tax), and cutting educational and other economy supportive programs. The Tea Party's core irrationality definitely covers projects with green impacts as well.

The Tea Party's abhorrence of anything green has a lot more to do with a desire to avoid responsibility by ignoring or opposing it. The anti-Green response is similar to the Right-wing refusal to seriously address or be honest about the Global Warming issue.

It is basically akin to pretending that your bed doesn't exist so you don't have to make it.

 

[mhaze]

Actually it is quite the opposite.

For green projects to be successful, they need to have a rational cost benefit analysis of the project's positive and negative impacts. Which is basically taking the word "green" out of it and analyzing the project just like any other project......

I have no problem with that, but that means you don't get any "extra special consideration" for being "green".

And that would seem to mean that by your criteria, no solar pv and no windmills would go up. I'm okay with that, if that's what a rational cost benefit analysis shows.

 

[johnny karate]

I have no problem with that, but that means you don't get any "extra special consideration" for being "green".

And that would seem to mean that by your criteria, no solar pv and no windmills would go up. I'm okay with that, if that's what a rational cost benefit analysis shows.

Would that "rational cost benefit analysis" be the same one being employed that some how justifies spending $10 billion on something that costs only $3 billion:

Meanwhile, looks pretty much like a budget of 3B for a private company would do for that moon base, hence a tidy profit could be made on the 10B prize money.

When it comes to "lefty liberal" proposals you think the government purse strings needs to be cinched up tight, but when it comes to a proposal championed by Newt Gingrich, you advocate for the wasting of several billions of dollars.

Why is that?

 

[TimCallahan]

Yes, it's true that primary causation of levee failure varied between the several greater areas of New Orleans. The levees were poorly designed. That alone qualifies them as "boondoggle". If anything the continued reliance on them with the population movement to low areas and the negligence in maintenance created a bigger "boondoggle".

Again: Is it your position that all such projects are boondoggles? Would that include the Hoover Dam and projects overseen by the TVA? As to the levees, Hoover dam and projects of the TVA, do you think private corporations would have even bothered building them?

Again: There was failure on the part of governments to raise taxes required to maintain and upgrade the levees.

Again: Is it okay with you that real estate developers have little governmental oversight to stop them from developing in hazardous areas. Here in southern California they are free to develop areas expanding out into the desert without any responsibility toward future water supplies. They also want to develop an area along the "Grapevine" that will, if realized create massive traffic hassles and, in the bargain, sits on the confluence of two major earthquake faults the San Andreas and Garlock faults).

 

[TimCallahan]

Yes, it's true that primary causation of levee failure varied between the several greater areas of New Orleans. The levees were poorly designed. That alone qualifies them as "boondoggle". If anything the continued reliance on them with the population movement to low areas and the negligence in maintenance created a bigger "boondoggle".

Again: Is it your position that all such projects are boondoggles? Would that include the Hoover Dam and projects overseen by the TVA? As to the levees, Hoover dam and projects of the TVA, do you think private corporations would have even bothered building them?

Again: There was failure on the part of governments to raise taxes required to maintain and upgrade the levees.

Again: Is it okay with you that real estate developers have little governmental oversight to stop them from developing in hazardous areas. Here in southern California they are free to develop areas expanding out into the desert without any responsibility toward future water supplies. They also want to develop an area along the "Grapevine" that will, if realized create massive traffic hassles and, in the bargain, sits on the junction of two major earthquake faults the San Andreas and Garlock faults).

 

[mhaze]

Again: Is it your position that all such projects are boondoggles? Would that include the Hoover Dam and projects overseen by the TVA? As to the levees, Hoover dam and projects of the TVA, do you think private corporations would have even bothered building them?

Again: There was failure on the part of governments to raise taxes required to maintain and upgrade the levees.

Again: Is it okay with you that real estate developers have little governmental oversight to stop them from developing in hazardous areas. Here in southern California they are free to develop areas expanding out into the desert without any responsibility toward future water supplies. They also want to develop an area along the "Grapevine" that will, if realized create massive traffic hassles and, in the bargain, sits on the confluence of two major earthquake faults the San Andreas and Garlock faults).

Private subdivisions in CA on those rolling hills that have always been understood to be unstable and the resulting mudslides and destruction is definitely in the boondoggle-by-government-negligence category. Same is true of development in likely forest fire zones, or for various structures on the major fault lines. This is part of the civil engineer's job in developing the plan, which would then be submitted to the governmental unit for approval or consideration. State regulations usually limit the decisions of the country (or parish) on these matters. As I understand it, the state of CA is both negligent in this, and secondly, provides insurance pool to allow the people to rebuild in those areas at essentially no cost.

 

[Nosi]

I'm glad that you've answered questions for me from Private-Dectective-Marlow-AKA-Tim_Callahan. Solar increases net electric costs, hybrid cars never show a net profit after investment cost is considered, and HSR...oh, we're talking about that one.

As for now, solar for large applications is expensive I agree with you. Solar for small applications (such as night lights or street lights) are cost-effective. That street light in your parking lot you gotta pay for, if it has a solar panel, it's small to maybe bigger than a pizza, just provides enough for that light and cuts most of your cost to run that light.

More cash strapped counties are ditching streetlights or tossing them off to the businesses to fund. Streetlights do prevent crime, as 'rats' like it dark, not lit up like Christmas.

Hybrid gas/electric cars and or trucks are for now expensive to obtain. Even so, businesses such as FedEx is biting the hybrid bullet.

Of the 30 million miles, FedEx, operator of the largest fleet of commercial hybrid parcel delivery trucks in the U.S., accounts for more than five million miles on its Eaton-powered hybrid trucks and vans.

 

[Nosi]

Certainly I see a lot of them on routine long 20-30 mile transits, which is their weak, not their strong, point. The advantage is start and stop traffic with duty cycle matched to battery capacity, where I use the phrase duty cycle to relate to ratio of drive vs start/stop.

A driver of a hybrid who was giving me a ride said this: "When we go down to Phoenix, we only have to pay one way. The car runs electric down hill to Phoenix, than uses gas to climb back up to Prescott." So from that anecdotal evidence I got that if you drive downhill on a freeway for 100 miles, your coasting electric. Gas comes in for climbing the return 100. Regular cars making the trip pay for 200 miles of gas. That is probably what you are seeing in your travels.

Cannot provide link to spoken word.

 

[Nosi]

Many people on both sides are unable to take the word "green" out of projects and rationally consider the cost/benefit analysis of the project.

However, a group like the Tea Party that prides themselves on being overly irrational due to their deep rooted political extremism is one of the worst groups to weigh in. The Tea Party's political extremism causes them to act irrationally in many cases, including with the economy, where their ideas to "fix" the economy includes raising taxes on the middle class (the "fair" tax), and cutting educational and other economy supportive programs. The Tea Party's core irrationality definitely covers projects with green impacts as well.

The Tea Party's abhorrence of anything green has a lot more to do with a desire to avoid responsibility by ignoring or opposing it. The anti-Green response is similar to the Right-wing refusal to seriously address or be honest about the Global Warming issue.

I think there is one "Green" idea that's going to slip in like a fart to the Tea Party's blissful idyl. It will blast their asses to things green and sensible. That is the 'smart car' and the 'smart road'.

Cars are getting 'smart' in that they have "Tom Tom" road map service either inbuilt or a little dashboard box, collision prevention built in on high end models, All Star, and in the extreme, driverless cars. Tea Baggers are grabbing these smart cars as they are status symbols with hidden "green" under the sheen.

True "Smart Roads" are in the future. Right now, you can tune in on the radio and recieve real time traffic reports telling you which way has less congestion brought to you by cameras pointed at the traffic. Cameras also catch speeders and irratic drivers.

Real smart road tech can be found on the on ramp to a freeway. That green light knows how many cars passed, and the correct number to allow at each green. This cuts congestion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Um...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying!

So you get to use projections of future costs and benefits, but I don't. Just making sure I understood your hypocrisy, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to play by these rules from now on, but I'm such a terrible person I might not be able to.