thin end of the wedge here

[Kitchen]

Two and half hours is, in my humble and always correct opinion, a very reasonable amount of time to force one to travel by train instead of air.  And I am sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the good politicians of France will not even dream of bumping that time frame up in the coming years.  

I never foresee a time in the future when I wake to hear you may not fly to a location in France that take more then 12 hours to travel by on land, which is how long it takes to drive across France by the way.  

 

21 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

In the meantime let's enjoy the higher crop yields and the fewer deaths from cold. 

I've been doing a lot of research on wine production in the last year and read that in 1994 most of southern PA was in USDA zone 6a, which is just too cold to grow most of the popular wine varietals.  The USDA recently updated their zone map and now much of the south is in zone 7a, with some areas in 7b, just warm enough to grow the popular varietals.  Given that the terroir of PA is similar to Burgundy, the warmer temps could very well increase the popularity of wine in PA, could ...

Suffice it to say I was quite surprised by the recent statement coming from former White House chef Sam Kass that we may soon be without wine, or chocolate or rice, in 30 years due to climate change.  To think the estimable Sam Kass is not only a renown chef, but farmer and agriculture scientist to boot.  

I just hope the the poor vintners in my state got the memo they are living a pipe dream.  Oh the humanity ...

[Corylax18]

3 Routes. Of the thousands of routes flown around the world on a daily basis. Just like most French things, its pretentious bullshit. The Unites States has 18 times more land mass than France or put another way is 1,680 times larger. Australia is about 14 times larger than France. It takes about 5 hours to fly the busiest Air Route in the US. New York(or Newark, NJ) to San Francisco. It takes nearly 4 days by train, for more money. I fully agree the we're ruining the planet for future generations with our current habits, but I also think pretend "greening" like this contributes to the problem more than it helps. Just like Carbon offsets and Recycling its all smoke and mirrors that only makes us feel better, it doesnt even begin to solve the problem.

For a business person making a day trip or even a week trip, 8 days of transit just doesn't cut it. You can easily fly around the world twice in 8 days. Think about a family of 4 making a trip for Christmas. Do you want to spend 8 days cooped up in a sleeper cabin with your wife/kids before/after you spend a long weekend with the in-laws? No Thanks! Vladivostok to Moscow is 10 days by train, 13ish hours by plane. Is there any kind of passenger rail connection from Brisbane or Sydney to Perth? 

So, Great for France. I guess. But for huge countries like the US, India, China, Russia, Australia, hell Brazil. The economics dont make sense and they never will. Watch the video below, then tell me china has done some amazing, wonderful, ground breaking thing with their high speed rail. They've wasted hundred of billions of dollars. Despite population densities that the western world would never want to get anywhere near. 

I also posted another good video with more details about the rail system in Europe and how vastly different it is from most other western countries. 

P.S. "Economics Explained" is a very interesting Aussie based Youtube channel that does a good job explaining a lot of the Macro and Micro economic events. 

 

[El Presidente]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

In this case "leading" is forcing people at the point of a gun into a lower standard of living for moral posturing. Good luck with that, and no thanks. 

Viote them out. Otherwise suck it up or privately protest or a mix of the two. It is the way the democratic system that has been designed. 

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

It's well understood that estimating deaths due to 2 degrees of warming is highly problematic and totally unreliable. And the connection between climate change and extreme weather events simply is not there. At best they can say it "may be" linked and that it is "expected to" increase severity. Also, higher standards of living can do a lot to protect people from extreme weather. And again, are they subtracting the lives saved from greater crop yields and less deaths from cold? 

Good corporations  run through "pre-mortems" that assume differing scenarios including worst case. They then plan for them. 

I have no problem planning for the worst case scenario. It makes sense from a planning perspective. 

In relation to "higher standards of living can do a lot to protect people from extreme weather. And again, are they subtracting the lives saved from greater crop yields and less deaths from cold?"   Well that smacks of ...dare I say it..... "WHITE PRIVILEGE!" God I have always wanted to play that card!!!! 

Maybe, just maybe the family from Malawi is not quite at the "higher standard of living" to cope with climate change as the family from Carmel. 

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Here's an argument that I actually heard: there are now more hospital admissions and injuries due to climate change since people are more active when it's warmer and get hurt during activities. You can't win. 

No figures, no points 

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Maybe, just maybe the family from Malawi is not quite at the "higher standard of living" to cope with climate change as the family from Carmel. 

Yes, so let's try to elevate the Malawian standard of living instead of telling them where and how they can get their energy. 

 

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I have no problem planning for the worst case scenario. It makes sense from a planning perspective

I love planning but that's not what's happening here. You don't spend millions fireproofing your house because the worst case scenario is that it could burn down. That's not "planning." Planning is if X happens we do Y. As in if sea levels rise I will not build a house on the beach. Or if temperatures increase I will move north. Or if hurricanes increase in intensity I will not stay in my mobile home in the Florida panhandle.

Of course, if you're referring to central planning I agree that's certainly a lot closer to what's going on. 

[01Vert]

  I have taken high speed trains in Europe and Japan.  They make sense on short haul.  A 45 minute flight means 1.5 hours minimum waiting to check baggage and get in the plane to get going then debarkation and getting your bags and a train can be faster.   
 

After taking a connecting flight from Rome to Naples I was told by our driver to next time just take the train from The airport to Naples and I would get there faster.  After taking the train from Naples to Rome then Rome to Florence and then to Venice all those hops are easier on a high speed and cheaper.  Plus no security lines wasting time.  Bigger seats, more leg room and we brought decent food aboard.  
 

Japans trains are even nicer. 
 

The US doesn’t have the rail infrastructure and is too large to make most short train rides better than a plane.   
 

I still think the minor changes aren’t enough to make a difference but I can see in countries with a good rail system that the train can be an alternative. 

[El Presidente]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yes, so let's try to elevate the Malawian standard of living instead of telling them where and how they can get their energy. 

Well it hasn't yet happened in human history......but I do applaud you for your optimism 

[Shrimpchips]

2 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

3 Routes. Of the thousands of routes flown around the world on a daily basis. Just like most French things, its pretentious bullshit. The Unites States has 18 times more land mass than France or put another way is 1,680 times larger. Australia is about 14 times larger than France. It takes about 5 hours to fly the busiest Air Route in the US. New York(or Newark, NJ) to San Francisco. It takes nearly 4 days by train, for more money. I fully agree the we're ruining the planet for future generations with our current habits, but I also think pretend "greening" like this contributes to the problem more than it helps. Just like Carbon offsets and Recycling its all smoke and mirrors that only makes us feel better, it doesnt even begin to solve the problem.

For a business person making a day trip or even a week trip, 8 days of transit just doesn't cut it. You can easily fly around the world twice in 8 days. Think about a family of 4 making a trip for Christmas. Do you want to spend 8 days cooped up in a sleeper cabin with your wife/kids before/after you spend a long weekend with the in-laws? No Thanks! Vladivostok to Moscow is 10 days by train, 13ish hours by plane. Is there any kind of passenger rail connection from Brisbane or Sydney to Perth? 

So, Great for France. I guess. But for huge countries like the US, India, China, Russia, Australia, hell Brazil. The economics dont make sense and they never will. Watch the video below, then tell me china has done some amazing, wonderful, ground breaking thing with their high speed rail. They've wasted hundred of billions of dollars. Despite population densities that the western world would never want to get anywhere near. 

I also posted another good video with more details about the rail system in Europe and how vastly different it is from most other western countries. 

P.S. "Economics Explained" is a very interesting Aussie based Youtube channel that does a good job explaining a lot of the Macro and Micro economic events. 

 

Isn’t the French thing more like proposing (in a theoretical world where the US has high speed rail networks already set up) not allowing flights between NYC and DC? Amtrak takes 3.5 hours - but a proper high speed rail could cover that route in less than 1.5 hours while making a brief stop in Philly.  Tokyo-Osaka is about the same distance from SF to LA, and the Shinkansen covers it in 2.5 hours.  Seems pretty reasonable, although with the car culture in the US, it’s just not set up to facilitate the end to end rail trip.  Might be a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, but it’s a step in the right direction nonetheless.

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, Shrimpchips said:

but a proper high speed rail could cover that route in less than 1.5 hours

Is this high speed rail we're talking about in France? I'm pretty sure it's regular trains. If it was already faster I'm sure people would be taking the train instead of flying. 

There's also the consideration of shifting energy from fossil to the grid which trains do. Greater strain grid increases the likelihood that you'll have to fall back on or supplement with fossil. 

And if you go battery/full electric trains the carbon footprint generated to produce these batteries is massive. 

And no one is mentioning the increased risk of trains vs. planes. It may not be many but statistically speaking more people will die. 

There's hidden costs and unintended consequences to just about every one of these policies. And there's never a free lunch. 

By the way, China just opened a new coal-fired plant since my first post about them opening a coal-fired plant. That will be followed by China opening a coal-fired plant which will be celebrated by opening yet another coal-fired plant.  

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Well it hasn't yet happened in human history......but I do applaud you for your optimism 

What gets me is that the same people who say we're destroying the planet for future generations have no problem incurring massive debts that will crush these future generations. Not to mention reductions in the standard of living now will obviously affect future generations as well. 

The best thing we can do is do our best to improve the standard of living for all people thus making it easier for the future generations to adapt to any situations that may arise if and when they arise. If poor people are affected most by this prospective disaster then help them become less poor. 

[El Presidente]

3 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The best thing we can do is do our best to improve the standard of living for all people thus making it easier for the future generations to adapt to any situations that may arise if and when they arise. If poor people are affected most by this prospective disaster then help them become less poor. 

That can't happen in our democratic  systems unless their vote (Malawi etc) is counted in your/our elections. 

herzog's hierarchy of needs. We are predominantly isolationist. USA more than most but certainly not alone. 

Re China. it is estimated that by 2050 global energy from Fossil Fuels will still be 70%. (EIA forecast 2021) 

We are a magnificent race in many areas. Shithouse in others. This is one of those areas. 

[Bijan]

4 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Is this high speed rail we're talking about in France? I'm pretty sure it's regular trains. If it was already faster I'm sure people would be taking the train instead of flying. 

Don't know about all routes but Paris to Amsterdam is 3 hours 19 minutes by train, 1 hour and 20 minutes by plane and 6 hours and 26 minutes by car.

So it is high speed, as it's about twice as fast as driving.

The cost of train tickets vs flying is about the same. $150 to $170 USD for train, $160 to $200 if bought sufficiently in advance. (I checked what either option would cost booking now for mid January).

[Corylax18]

15 hours ago, Shrimpchips said:

Isn’t the French thing more like proposing (in a theoretical world where the US has high speed rail networks already set up) not allowing flights between NYC and DC? Amtrak takes 3.5 hours - but a proper high speed rail could cover that route in less than 1.5 hours while making a brief stop in Philly.  Tokyo-Osaka is about the same distance from SF to LA, and the Shinkansen covers it in 2.5 hours.  Seems pretty reasonable, although with the car culture in the US, it’s just not set up to facilitate the end to end rail trip.  Might be a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, but it’s a step in the right direction nonetheless.

The "fastest" trains in the US actually run sections of DC to Boston, the only real passenger rail corridor we have in the states. But its an inconvenient PITA so orders of magnitude more people fly between t hose cities than drive or take the train. 

Take a look below at California's Rail to nowhere between LA and SF. Politicians have been "trying" to build that route for almost 20 years now. They wasted 10s of billions of dollars in the last 17 years making ZERO progress. We could have spent that money on a couple nuclear power plants, electrified other forms of transportation and eliminted millions of tons of carbon emmisions. Instead we're playing around with trains like a kid in the 1890s. They'll need to waste at least another 100 billion more just to get the rail line from LA to Merced, a completely worthless route.  

So as I said above, this kind of pretend greening is an active determent to actually solving a very real problem. Im all for solving the problem, I'm not for 17 more years of playing multi billion dollar patti cake like we're seeing here.  

Let me copy a quote from the article. Stated by one of the Earliest proponents of the Rail project, going back to the mid 90's. It perfectly sums up my thoughts:

 “Who cares about going from Merced to Bakersfield? I am appalled and angry over the bastardization of the promise to taxpayers … It’s a stupid waste of money. All this is doing is making contractors and engineers and bureaucrats fat and happy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train

 

12 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

What gets me is that the same people who say we're destroying the planet for future generations have no problem incurring massive debts that will crush these future generations. Not to mention reductions in the standard of living now will obviously affect future generations as well. 

Its crazy, right? Not only are we not solving any problems, but we're pissing away money like its air doing it. Talk about burning the candle at both ends. 

[helix]

18 hours ago, El Presidente said:

(The under 40 vote is rapidly moving away from right wing politics).

Good but stay centered. 

[NSXCIGAR]

15 hours ago, El Presidente said:

That can't happen in our democratic  systems unless their vote (Malawi etc) is counted in your/our elections. 

Well, we don't vote in Cuba either (not that they do there) but we try to do everything we can for them. 

[PuroDiario]

Another government sponsored pseudo-socialist conscious moralist move by the government that nationalizes or controls National companies, runs one of the most rigid labor market in the world, rtc.

also, polluting with carbon clearly jets win. But Railroads are also highly polluting just different form and the most obvious one usually completely omitted and is that they effectively create a permanent physical barrier between both sides of the rails which has major impacts to fauna and ecosystems regardless of mitigating actions such underpasses, wildlife bridges, etc. noise, vibrations, dust contamination and leakage from freight are also considerable.
 

That said, is the friendliest and most effective mode of transport. But would be great to let the market speak for what the market wants. 
 

the main problem with short flights is rather than those routes are not self sustainable and are extraordinarily subsidized by governments to spur Econ development. But so is railroad freight and high speed retail train tickets. 
 

so I would imagine the measure (without having done any research so I will likely be wrong) comes from a short term budget control perspective in a highly challenging macroeconomic environment rather than green conscience. The question is how real savings are and what’s the long term impact of it beyond the next term. And what it really mascarades is making the middle class live in lower options environment at the expense of their convenience and thriving to 1) have a political slogan against the rich and their jets and 2) have an excuse to tax the private jets owners and users to collect more revenue while they can’t ban them from travel in their private aircrafts. 
 

should ask all the small business owners around French Riviera and Bourdeaux and the Alps around how good for them it is to limit the ability of the rich and not so rich to commute to their areas to spend their money. ..