Railway is cheaper because it is cheaper, energy wise etc. As I pointed out several times now: the subsidizes are extremely low in relation to the effect (billions of passenger kilometers per year).
Germany is under EU investigation over its massive subsidies for rail service (in addition to postal and energy). Germany's rail system also enjoyed a government-granted monopoly for a century.
Energy savings from rail are modest because trains are often not filled to capacity.
Here is an excellent summary of the history, financing, and cost of transportation:
Also keep in mind: the number is per capita not per student/pupil so the amount of money for a student/pupil in the USA is even lower as the ratio between adults and youngs is bigger.
The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.
hat's some crazy thinking. You realize sea levels were 550 feet higher then as well?
Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps. And it would take thousands of years for our ice caps to melt, more than enough time for humans to adapt without even noticing.
So you started by saying that you don't deny the science, you just don't like the proposed solutions.
Correct, because the solutions are far worse than the warming.
You've been watching too many movies. "Eliminate" in this context is not to kill,
You can kid yourself into believing that it doesn't, but it does: because people refuse to fall in line with the government-mandated version of reality, governments escalate their efforts to "eliminate" their views, all the way until they start killing. That's the problem when governments start deciding truth. And it's what you advocate, even though you don't realize it.
According to the actual scientists who are studying AGW, you are incorrect
Scientists are not qualified to assess the economic impact of AGW and mitigation.
Seeing as you have no evidence for your position (and those counter to you have lots of evidence), to believe you would seem to be a terrible idea.
The evidence is the same as the evidence climate scientists present; the difference is in the interpretation of the economics and the cost of mitigation.
I'd rather take the predictions of scientists and experts working in the field if it's OK with you.
It's perfectly OK: what I'm saying is that even if the IPCC predictions are correct, their predicted impact is small compared to the cost of mitigation.
how should anyone figure that you suddenly swapped numbers?
You could learn to read, perhaps?
and checking the same routes by car and public transit. Worms to Wittenberg 4:30h vs 7h, Trier to Gotha, 3:40h vs 5:50h, Poole to Cardigan, 4:10h vs 7:30h.
You could follow the link and do some searches yourself instead of simply spewing your preconceived ideas?
If the cars are faster than trains those connections are obviously no high speed train connections. You should have figured that yourself:D
Most of those trips do involve high speed train at some point, but because getting to/from the high speed train line takes feeder lines, the overall trip time is slow anyway. In addition, even if you don't need to switch trains, high speed rail is still usually slower than car for overall trip times.
It actually went as high as 1700 ppm during the Cretaceous era; mean global temperatures were about 4C above modern temperatures, but the sun was a few percent weaker. Generally, when mean global temperatures go up, the higher latitudes get warmer, leading to an overall more gentle climate.
The way fossil fuels were deposited and the fact that a lot of them are not recoverable also pretty much tells you that we couldn't reach anywhere near those atmospheric carbon concentrations by burning fossil fuels even if we wanted to.
The factory owner will only clean up if required to do so by law or regulation, or if some sort of cost of pollution is imposed. This is normally done by government.
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
You're missing the externality problem.
Externalities only exist because government created them. Take water pollution. If the body of water being polluted belongs to a private party, that party bears those costs. It becomes an "externality" (a cost effectively born by all people) when the government makes that body of water "public property".
think about it for two seconds, how is a market even possible without property law?
If you thought about it for two seconds, you could realize that there are plenty of markets that don't even involve property, let alone property law, like, for example, all the markets in services. For many private and commercial transactions, property law is irrelevant because it's effectively enforceable. Black markets and markets in illegal goods or services also function perfectly fine without any kind of property law, and they are a large part of most economies. Most markets function well not because of laws and rules, but because of reputations and repeat business.
So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
Quite the opposite: I care a great deal in minimizing harm. Even based on the rather biased IPCC reports themselves, it is clear that the cost of action on AGW is staggering, while the cost of doing nothing is small.
Why are you complaining about our way of doing things? Why don't you fix the problems in your country instead?
See TFA? This entire discussion is about California high speed rail. Why are you butting into American political and infrastructure discussions?
The only reason Europe enters the picture is because some Americans say that we should emulate what Europe does. And as a former European I simply say: hell no!
Munich - Berlin by Train is the fastest: 6:16 if you switch a train or 6:30 as direct connection. In a car you need: 6:23, nearly the same time as the train
You're comparing apples and oranges. The train times are station-to-station and you are constrained by schedule. The drive time is origin-to-destination and you can go any time. The difference ends up making train travel much slower even on direct routes.
Trier to Gotha, 3:40h vs 5:50h, Poole to Cardigan, 4:10h vs 7:30h. Even on direct routes, isn't much of a win: Sorry, I would say saving 2h in the first case and nearly 50% in the second is a huge win.
You got the number backwards; it's the cars are faster by nearly 50% compared even to station-to-station trains, let alone home-to-destimation.
Did I say anywhere that I wanted no government? I talked specifically about government intervention in the economy.
As for slavery, you really need to learn some history. Slavery is a construct of governments. In the US, slavery only continued to exist until the civil war because state and federal governments guaranteed and enforced property rights in slaves. That's why the fugitive slave act was such a hot issue.
If it wasn't for government action, people would still be hauling coal out of the ground and burning it in the dirtiest (i.e. cheapest) ways.
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention. The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking, an innovation driven by the market trying to increase the supply of a scarce resource, not government.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited. Nothing the US or foreign governments can politically accomplish is going to be a bigger incentive than that.
Yes, something like that. I think the re-education camps should be basic physics and reasoning courses, with as a graduation exercise the formal delivery of a reasonably plausible climate model that takes anthropogenic CO2 increase as a forcing term and explains how that would NOT lead to climate change.
Of course anthropogenic CO2 increases lead to "climate change". The debate is about how much, whether it's worth worrying about it, and whether we can do anything about it. From your remarks, it appears you don't even understand why it's called "forcing".
Or, if not interested in taking that up, a big dose of STFU.
Well, dearest, it looks like you and your ilk are on the losing end of this debate, because nothing effective is being done about climate change, and nothing effective will be done. So, if you want to slow climate change, the best think you can do is STFU because that will reduce carbon emissions from you.
So the only thing you have in defence is an ad homenim attack?
Where is my "ad hominem" attack supposed to be?
I simply reminded people, in a somewhat sarcastic way, that progressives and the left have a long history of declaring scientific matters as clearcut (though they later turn out wrong) and committing state violence against people who disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, output from the IPCC models specifically: even taken at face value, what they predict doesn't matter compared to the cost of mitigation.
About half of the rides on German public transport are by bus:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pre...
Even according to the UK government, railway passenger subsidies are around $ 0.10 per kilometer, https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Germany is under EU investigation over its massive subsidies for rail service (in addition to postal and energy). Germany's rail system also enjoyed a government-granted monopoly for a century.
Energy savings from rail are modest because trains are often not filled to capacity.
Here is an excellent summary of the history, financing, and cost of transportation:
http://www.downsizinggovernmen...
No, sorry, not true: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us...
The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.
Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps. And it would take thousands of years for our ice caps to melt, more than enough time for humans to adapt without even noticing.
Correct, because the solutions are far worse than the warming.
Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia" or any form of organized crime.
Where is your "game theory suggests" reference?
You can kid yourself into believing that it doesn't, but it does: because people refuse to fall in line with the government-mandated version of reality, governments escalate their efforts to "eliminate" their views, all the way until they start killing. That's the problem when governments start deciding truth. And it's what you advocate, even though you don't realize it.
That's no the economic cost, and it's ludicrously low. Economic costs include costs to everybody in the economy, opportunity costs, and discounting.
Scientists are not qualified to assess the economic impact of AGW and mitigation.
The evidence is the same as the evidence climate scientists present; the difference is in the interpretation of the economics and the cost of mitigation.
It's perfectly OK: what I'm saying is that even if the IPCC predictions are correct, their predicted impact is small compared to the cost of mitigation.
You could learn to read, perhaps?
and checking the same routes by car and public transit. Worms to Wittenberg 4:30h vs 7h, Trier to Gotha, 3:40h vs 5:50h, Poole to Cardigan, 4:10h vs 7:30h.
You could follow the link and do some searches yourself instead of simply spewing your preconceived ideas?
Most of those trips do involve high speed train at some point, but because getting to/from the high speed train line takes feeder lines, the overall trip time is slow anyway. In addition, even if you don't need to switch trains, high speed rail is still usually slower than car for overall trip times.
The underground economy and black markets are large scale markets that operate just fine without property rights or government regulation.
I don't see why you think that game theory suggests that "this would fail on any large scale".
How do you know it's safe? You look at Earth's history and see when it was that high last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
It actually went as high as 1700 ppm during the Cretaceous era; mean global temperatures were about 4C above modern temperatures, but the sun was a few percent weaker. Generally, when mean global temperatures go up, the higher latitudes get warmer, leading to an overall more gentle climate.
The way fossil fuels were deposited and the fact that a lot of them are not recoverable also pretty much tells you that we couldn't reach anywhere near those atmospheric carbon concentrations by burning fossil fuels even if we wanted to.
Save from what? AGW is not a serious threat to human interests; it's at most a small inconvenience decades from now, and probably actually a benefit.
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
Externalities only exist because government created them. Take water pollution. If the body of water being polluted belongs to a private party, that party bears those costs. It becomes an "externality" (a cost effectively born by all people) when the government makes that body of water "public property".
If you thought about it for two seconds, you could realize that there are plenty of markets that don't even involve property, let alone property law, like, for example, all the markets in services. For many private and commercial transactions, property law is irrelevant because it's effectively enforceable. Black markets and markets in illegal goods or services also function perfectly fine without any kind of property law, and they are a large part of most economies. Most markets function well not because of laws and rules, but because of reputations and repeat business.
Quite the opposite: I care a great deal in minimizing harm. Even based on the rather biased IPCC reports themselves, it is clear that the cost of action on AGW is staggering, while the cost of doing nothing is small.
See TFA? This entire discussion is about California high speed rail. Why are you butting into American political and infrastructure discussions?
The only reason Europe enters the picture is because some Americans say that we should emulate what Europe does. And as a former European I simply say: hell no!
You're comparing apples and oranges. The train times are station-to-station and you are constrained by schedule. The drive time is origin-to-destination and you can go any time. The difference ends up making train travel much slower even on direct routes.
You got the number backwards; it's the cars are faster by nearly 50% compared even to station-to-station trains, let alone home-to-destimation.
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
I suggest you do the math on that. I did, and I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
We aren't saying that it isn't happening, we are saying that it doesn't matter whether it's happening or not.
Yes, and so will you. And it's not a problem.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong. (Rail is cheaper only because it is subsidized)
Yes, the amount of money is irrelevant to educational outcome. But Bruce was arguing that we are spending less than Europe, which is wrong.
Did I say anywhere that I wanted no government? I talked specifically about government intervention in the economy.
As for slavery, you really need to learn some history. Slavery is a construct of governments. In the US, slavery only continued to exist until the civil war because state and federal governments guaranteed and enforced property rights in slaves. That's why the fugitive slave act was such a hot issue.
Are you kidding? Coal is such a big source of energy today in large part because of government subsidies and government exemptions from liability for its environmental impact.
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention. The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking, an innovation driven by the market trying to increase the supply of a scarce resource, not government.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth. But global economic growth is the best way of combating global warming and protecting the environment because the wealthier a nation is, the slower its birth rate and the better its environmental record.
In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited. Nothing the US or foreign governments can politically accomplish is going to be a bigger incentive than that.
Of course anthropogenic CO2 increases lead to "climate change". The debate is about how much, whether it's worth worrying about it, and whether we can do anything about it. From your remarks, it appears you don't even understand why it's called "forcing".
Well, dearest, it looks like you and your ilk are on the losing end of this debate, because nothing effective is being done about climate change, and nothing effective will be done. So, if you want to slow climate change, the best think you can do is STFU because that will reduce carbon emissions from you.
Where is my "ad hominem" attack supposed to be?
I simply reminded people, in a somewhat sarcastic way, that progressives and the left have a long history of declaring scientific matters as clearcut (though they later turn out wrong) and committing state violence against people who disagree.