Hand Over Your Job If You Want to Dream in Green

There may be nothing so dangerous as a policy fantasy. A good one is like the H1N1 virus. It spreads on contact and threatens to infect everyone in its path.

. . . Right now, one of the most dangerous policy fantasies is the distracting notion that government can create so-called green jobs and should strive to do so enthusiastically. While the principal proponent of the green jobs hokum, Van Jones, is now out of government, . . . President Barack Obama, of course, has been a veritable Typhoid Mary of the green job virus, . . . The analysis to back that up, and spread by green job enthusiasts . . ., is that transferring society’s resources to the green sector leads to a net creation of jobs. And it provides a tasty free lunch by cleaning the environment.

Economics teaches, of course, that there are no free lunches. A key force driving such calculations is that alternative-energy production or energy conservation are fairly labor intensive . . .. But if the alternative-energy sector were really economically more efficient than other forms of energy, it would create all the wonderful jobs all by itself, without . . . Uncle Sam.

If, even after all the subsidies that government already provides to green technologies, we have to also subsidize training for workers in that industry, that suggests we are throwing money at an industry that can’t pass the market test.

The notion is that we make ourselves better off by transferring resources from one sector, . . . with regard to job creation, the argument is nonsense.

Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster recently wrote that the same logic would recommend an even better and greener plan: , . . we all move about in rickshaws. . .

A key force driving such calculations is that alternative-energy production or energy conservation are fairly labor intensive relative to, say, the oil industry. But if the alternative-energy sector were really economically more efficient than other forms of energy, it would create all the wonderful jobs all by itself, without the assistance of Uncle Sam....

The notion is that we make ourselves better off by transferring resources from one sector, which is fairly efficient, to another, which isn’t. Such an assertion might be correct if we account for the damage done by greenhouse gases. But with regard to job creation, the argument is nonsense.

Rickshaw Express

Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster recently wrote that the same logic would recommend an even better and greener plan: the federal government could require that we all move about in rickshaws.

IMHO, Hasset is blowing smoke with this ludicrous example.

"Rickshaws" my butt. There is absolutely no doubt that modern, electrically powered mass-transit systems (light rail, high-speed rail and Maglev) are more energy efficient and evironmentally friendly than most of our petroleum fueled transportation infrastructure. And yes, construction of this infrastructure WOULD create many skilled jobs and long term benefits for our domestic economy.

Granted, I think the "Green" plans to supply power to the grid from "sustainable" sources like windmills and solar are half-cocked junk science. The truth is, we should be building Nukes to supply power to the grid to reduce our dependence on petroleum fueled transportation.

But "rickshaws"???

Cripes, cut me a break...

Sounds to me like Hasset is a Big Oil partisan flunky, just as bad as the "Green" whacknuts whom he criticizes.

“IMHO, Hasset is blowing smoke with this ludicrous example.

“Rickshaws” my butt”

This is a “heritage foundation” purposely absurd example, which makes a simple point. That is, creating jobs - if done by mandate - isn’t terribly difficult, nor is it terribly desirable. Any “jobs” created need to pass some level of market feasability.

“There is absolutely no doubt that modern, electrically powered mass-transit systems (light rail, high-speed rail and Maglev) are more energy efficient and evironmentally friendly”

Sorry, but there’s lots of doubt.

1. The electricity has to be generated from somewhere.
2. People need to ride them to be efficient.
- Sure, it’s easy to say a train load of people moves more efficiently per mile than a comparable number of people in cars.

but. . .

- What about inverting the analysis to reflect real ridership? In my city, if you took the 4 or 5 people off of mass transit and put them in cars, it would easily be more efficient to travel by car.

Again, if we create a bunch of jobs to build a system that goes widely unused . . .

We might as well be using rickshaws !

1. The electricity has to be generated from somewhere.
Build nuclear power plants.

2. People need to ride them to be efficient.

Over 12 million Americans ride passenger rail daily.
Many more would ride if more such systems were available.

In my city, if you took the 4 or 5 people off of mass transit and put them in cars, it would easily be more efficient to travel by car.

I don't know where your city is.
If it is a small city, odds are that a car is more "efficient" in terms of travel time.
In larger, more densely populated areas, you've incrementally added cars to existing traffic congestion. So compared to passenger rail, car travel could be even less efficient timewise than it already is.
In terms of energy efficiency, passenger rail is always more efficient than individual automobiles. (Unless, of course, you concoct some partisan scenario where passenger rail is constucted so far out in the boonies it's going to have zero ridership no matter what.) (On second thought, if you're that far out, rail might be your only option anyway since it's not worth building a paved road out there. LOL!)

Again, if we create a bunch of jobs to build a system that goes widely unused . . .

Then build it in a densely populated region or urban area where it WILL be used.
Doh!
Cripes Almighty... no wonder the GOP got its collective butt whooped during the last election.
They don't call it "The Stupid Party" for nothing....

“Build nuclear power plants.”

- Good idea. 10 year approval process, 5 year funding, 5 year construction - So, we start considering this idea becoming “ecological” in 20 years.

“In terms of energy efficiency, passenger rail is always more efficient than individual automobiles.”

Your “absolutes” are simply not valid. If a passenger rail system is moving only a handful of people, the handful of people could be moved much more efficiently by auto.

“Then build it in a densely populated region or urban area where it WILL be used.”

There’s no guarantee it WILL be used. The fact that you believe it will be used is not significant. The concept of “consumer acceptance” is possibly the most difficult thing in all business enterprises to predict.

It’s likely that large densely populated areas are the only place that success is possible for “light rail.” However, the acquisition cost of right of way and construction easements are astronomical. This generally pushes such projects to existing (usually abandoned) railway easements that tend to push the rail and boarding locations at less than optimal points, which of course discourages ridership.

I’m all for a “better mouse trap”, but so far - the commuter rail, as well as most of the proposed “green energy” sector have proven to be miserable failures. (apologies to Dick Gephart)

There is absolutely no doubt that modern, electrically powered mass-transit systems (light rail, high-speed rail and Maglev) are more energy efficient and evironmentally friendly than most of our petroleum fueled transportation infrastructure.

I'm sure you can prove this claim right? I mean you've got all that right at your fingertips of course.

Of course if we do somehow assume that such systems are more energy efficient and environmentally friendly, one is left wondering how the current systems in such categories in the U.S. have to be subsidized because they operate at a loss. Yes, even the much hyped TGV operates with plenty of subsidies.

I'm quite sure there's some miraculous solution out there just waiting to be freed from the vile clutches of the big mean oil companies. Also all the money for the research necessary and the huge amount of eminent domain issues are trivial right?

I assume you also have a bridge to sell me.

I’m all for a “better mouse trap”, but so far - the commuter rail, as well as most of the proposed “green energy” sector have proven to be miserable failures. (apologies to Dick Gephart)

That's OK, you can remain in denial all you want.
I'm just an old geezer with no reason to expect that GOP polidiots will abandon traditional partisan position for a commonsense approach to addressing our nation's future energy and transportation requirements.

So as I see it, that means posterity is doomed to be driving dinky little solar Obamamobiles, building windmills, Cap & Trade carbon, and maybe the Messiah might even nationalize our Oil Reserves.

C'est la vie...
At least ya can't say I didn't try to warn ya.

It does little for ones argument to simply categorize the opposing argument as “partisan.” Likewise, the connection between advocating for light rail and the success of the GOP seems strained at best.

If every Republican were to begin chanting in unison “Light Rail, Light Rail” and continue to do so until 2012 I can’t believe that it would have a significant effect on elections. Somehow you believe that such action would be the salvation of the Republican party . . . and you call me “in denial”

Funny, in the several “tea party” and Health Care events I attended - I don’t recall any of the masses yearning for “Light Rail”.

I’m also confused about how advocating for light rail will have any impact on the push for windmills and carbon taxes?

“At least ya can’t say I didn’t try to warn ya.”

I will consider myself warned.

Folks, Willie has long been a mass transit cheerleader.

Unfortunately, the facts are that mass transit trains are losers. And have been losers nearly everywhere compared to automobiles.

There was an excellent series of articles on the issue in Machine Design. Analysis by engineers (not politicians or fans) exposed the dirty underwear of the “rail” crowd’s arguments - they take massive tax subsidies to avoid prohibitive ticket costs.

They’re also marginal on “green” as well.

It does little for ones argument to simply categorize the opposing argument as “partisan.”

Simply calling a spade a spade, (regardless of whether that phrase upsets the PC crowd.)

When the 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, I was entering my senior year of college, majoring in engineering. I had already worked the two previous summers on an engineering internship with the nuclear power division of Westinghouse Electric.
The price of Oil quadrupled, from $3 a barrel to $12.
The Wiki says that gas pump price rose rose from a national average of 38.5 cents in May 1973 to 55.1 cents in June 1974. But I clearly recall paying 29¢ for cheap crap gas at a no-name discount chain before the Arab $hit hit the fan. And we lived through the long gas lines, and the even/odd rationing, etc, etc, etc,

And the politicians promised "Energy Independence".

So if you refuse to understand what I mean when I call it "partisan" B/S, then that's you're problem, not mine.
I've followed this issue too many years, and I'm not putting up with GOP idiocy anymore. If they can't come up with some commonsense approaches for our nation, then let the stupid 'Rats Cap & Trade and nationalize their oil. See if I give a hoot anymore. Believe me, it's no skin off my butt.

We need to start developing electrically powered transportation infrastructure that is independent of petroleum fuel supply. Period.

If we had a private rail system for passenger transit, I’d be all for it, but we don’t have it. The government put an end to that a long time ago.

Actually, there is substantial credible evidence that the automotive and oil industries conspired to kill private urban passenger rail systems (Great American streetcar scandal)

Of course, there are other factors involved that cloud the issue.

As for long distance passenger rail, yes, government essentially killed that back in the '50s~'60s (when oil was cheap and plentiful) by subsidizing construction of the Interstate Highway System and expansion of the modern Airline Industry. During that period, private RailRoads shed passenger service in favor of freight, leading to the creation of Amtrak. The freight lines now hold a monopoly on the existing rail rights-of-way, refusing to upgrade the rail to modern standards required for competitive passenger service.

So it is actually the currently dominant private sector special interests who are feverishly trying to maintain the status quo by preventing passenger rail competition in the market.

Actually, there is substantial credible evidence that the automotive and oil industries conspired to kill private urban passenger rail systems (Great American streetcar scandal)

If that link was your credible evidence, it wasn't very compelling. The ultimate court case on the issue said they were colluding to supply buses, but there was no proof of collusion to remove the trams.

Of course, there are other factors involved that cloud the issue.

You mean like the fact that such trolleys went out of business everywhere, even places not touched by the 'conspiracy'(which only touched a small portion of said market)?

As for long distance passenger rail, yes, government essentially killed that back in the '50s~'60s (when oil was cheap and plentiful) by subsidizing construction of the Interstate Highway System and expansion of the modern Airline Industry. During that period, private RailRoads shed passenger service in favor of freight, leading to the creation of Amtrak. The freight lines now hold a monopoly on the existing rail rights-of-way, refusing to upgrade the rail to modern standards required for competitive passenger service.

Interesting way of twisting things. The Rail industry has to pay property tax on all that right of way you know. They have to own it to run freight on it. This is one of the reasons rail lines declined as opposed to air travel and highway travel. The latter users didn't have to pay for the path they traveled on while railroads did. In fact the latter had their infrastructure subsidized by the government, while rail did not.

You make some sketchy claim that the rail companies don't relay their track to suit passenger service, but why should they? Their business is freight, and passenger service is a state owned monopoly (Amtrack). Why would it be vaguely sane to redo their track which is currently to their needs, thereby disrupting their service, to help out a business which they are not allowed to enter?

So it is actually the currently dominant private sector special interests who are feverishly trying to maintain the status quo by preventing passenger rail competition in the market.

Wow, tin foil hat time here. You can't just refer to an industry as an industry, but they have to become a 'special interest' because they dare to do rational business moves. They aren't willing to subsidize changes to their property on which they cannot make a profit, and will in fact cost them money due to disruptions in their current activities. They currently have to allow Amtrack right of way (in preference to their own trains in fact), for a fee (which I have to assume is nominal since this is the government).

While I personally like rail travel, I don't see it beating out air travel any time soon. The speed and convenience of air travel is too great to overcome at the moment. Sure, high speed rail can be nice, but it's not very flexible and requires a very commonly traveled route, and a large set up cost. The current rail companies aren't even allowed to get involved in such things, so don't expect them to want to get stuck footing any of the bill for it.

Their business is freight, and passenger service is a state owned monopoly (Amtrack).

Amtrak is not a monopoly.
Amtrak was formed merely as a means of continueing passenger rail service when 20 out of 26 eligible Railroads voluntarily opted to discontinue passenger service. In return, they actually became Amtrak shareholders or recieved tax breaks. Six railroads opted not to join and continued operation of their own, private passenger service. As far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting the freight lines from reintroducing passenger service if they want.

But the freight railroads are the real monopoly, since they own and control access to most of the track and rail right-of-way in our nation. Passenger service suffers at their whim.

Besides Amtrak, American Rail Excursions, Inc. (a private company), also offers national passenger rail travel, albeit in the high-end luxury niche. Unfortunately, their service is also restricted by the whims of the freight lines. Similarly, AAPRCO (American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners) provides information on other opportunities to enjoy travel by private rail car in the U.S.

Frankly, I think the freight line monopoly over the railroad track right-of-way in the United States should be abolished. It's as if the trucking companies owned the Interstates and wouldn't allow improvements to accomodate passenger cars. We'd be much better off if the Government owned the rail, and private companies only owned and operated the rolling stock, passenger or rail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.