gildone

"After 2013, all bets are off..." Peak oil 2014 – the year of transition by Tom Whipple The key remaining question of the peak oil crisis is just when world production is going to start on an unstoppable decline. A few years ago those analysts who were deeply enmeshed in the problem were saying that 2011 or 2012 looked like the fateful year. But then the unexpected happened -- a great recession came along and the demand for oil plunged. Although global oil production set a nominal high during the great price run-up back in the summer of 2008, production soon fell away as the deepening recession cut demand by some 4 million barrels a day... http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52020

But the oil companies and car companies can throw their political clout around to make sure the government implements policies to keep the transportation marketplace skewed toward driving. More accurately, the financial system can make sure they wield enough influence over Congress to they can make sure when they $#@% up that their losses are socialized. They can also wield enough influence to make sure they get deregulated enough to do as they please for short-term gain and cause a financial meltdown in the process. Again, the problem here is corporate influence over government, not that government exists. We have a corporatocracy more than anything in this country anymore. The problem isn't whether or not the government has a role to play but who has influence over that role. KJP brought up some good example from the more distant past. By the way, Henry Ford did more than enforce a morality code-- he had people beaten and shot for striking and trying to organize. And, those company towns were brutal (there was a reason for that line in the Tennessee Ernie Ford song 16 Tons: "I owe my soul to the company store"). More recent ones: How about Wal-Mart's problem with "off the clock" overtime? Enron? The S&L's getting deregulated then deliberately making all kind of risky investments and successfully working Congress over to have their losses socialized?

Fair point about this one politician. Although, the incremental approach has proven to be a sound one, as KJP and others have explained. In addition, the Republican Party has never shown any real leadership on HSR or shown itself to be willing to fund the many billions of dollars it would take to build true HSR. My problem with Mica is that he doesn't understand that the nation needs both HSR (in California, for example and a few states like Illinois that are getting closer to "ready" for that step) and conventional rail.

The information is not that difficult to find if you take the time to look for it. (Eighth and State helped out here some). As I said, the tangible, visible proof is in the falling production of fisheries (well documented), the rates of deforestation and desertification (well documented), the rate of species extinction (well documented in more science oriented sources), rate of topsoil loss (well documented), acidification of the oceans (this has been getting recent attention, info easy to find), fossil aquifers being depleted from the Great Plains to the Southwest and Mexico to the Middle East to India and China (well documented), the plastic in the Pacific Gyre (and other areas of the oceans) that is now being found in the stomachs of fish and birds, etc (more recently discovered problem, but there is ample information about this too). There is no single solution, but a whole host of them that involves every economic sector-- private, public, NGO, etc. You're seeing in in the whole sustainability movement in Cleveland that involves the public, private, and NGO sectors. The private sector is doing a lot on its own see various articles at www.greenbiz.com. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development website: www.wbscd.org is another. You can also read Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution by businessman Paul Hawken-- available for free on the net at: www.natcap.org. Hawken also wrote a book called The Ecology of Commerce. Then there is Winning the Oil Endgame by Amory Lovins, also available for free at www.oilendgame.com From the viewpoint of a CEO of a multinational corporation: Mid-Course Correction and Confessions of a Radical Industrialist by CEO of Interface Corporation, Ray Anderson. One area where we disagree is that you think government is always the enemy. I take a more moderate view: government clearly has its problems, sometimes go to far, and sometimes doesn't get it right, but it has a role. Markets do a lot of things well, but they don't do everything well, and they clearly aren't perfect either. Sometimes it's the rules the government sets for the economy that are the source of problems, sometimes they can be part of the solution. Often the "bad rules" are the result of influence peddling by moneyed interests who really want to protect themselves from competition and want to divert money from the public treasury to their industries (i.e. corporate socialism, which is rampant in this country and the real socialism problem in this country-- but you'll almost never hear anything about corporate socialism in the mainstream media or from either political party-- both political parties depend on corporate money). But, I'm getting off topic, back to peak oil and someone else's quote: It's a little of both... it's about flow rates... how fast you can get it out of the ground, how cheaply you can get it out of the ground, and how much energy it takes to get it out of the ground. It's not about running out of oil, it's about running out of cheap, easy oil. It's probably more accurate to say the supply will not be able to keep up with demand at the prices we've become accustomed to for the past several decades.

We're more likely to see micro-hydro which is small-scale, distributed hydro-electric energy that doesn't require expensive dams. And dams are an expensive way to control flooding anyway. It can be done far more cheaply with greenspace, wetlands, better design on developed land, etc. Read the chapter about Napa, California in the book: The New Economy of Nature

Why not argue with the facts rather than just provide more empty rhetoric? There isn't a single peer reviewed paper out there that can dispute that virtually all living systems on this planet are in decline. And as I said, we started spending down the earth's natural capital 25-30 years ago. The things I listed which you dismissed with the empty statement I quoted above are real and they are clear signals of the limits of the planet. And these things are a problem because they are the planet's life support system. Your entire argument is science fiction. And, no we're not bacteria, but we have plenty of hubris, of which humans unfortunately have in abundance-- that hubris has gotten human civilizations in trouble in the past and just because we're more technologically advanced now, doesn't guarantee that we won't again. Besides, the promise of some unknown future technology(ies) isn't a wise thing on which to bet our future. You're assuming that we will be able to do this, but even if we are someday, what the Earth can provide as far as its natural systems go is finite. All those ecosystem services I listed and you dismissed with one line of empty rhetoric are every bit as necessary for human life to thrive as all the other species on the planet-- and technology can't replace them. First of all, past performance is not indicative of future results. Second, not only is technological growth highly dependent upon cheap energy, and as I said, technology can't replace the Earth's life supporting services-- all of which the planet provides to us for free. So, even if there were technological solutions to declining ecosystem services (which there aren't), why pay for what we are already getting for free? It's far more cost-effective to become better stewards. Anyway, I can see it's pointless to have this discussion with you. Cheers...

Most people who accept peak oil aren't apocalyptic about it. As for the carrying capacity of the planet, there's more to it than energy. Somewhere between 1980 and 1985 (depending upon which figures you look at) human beings began consuming "natural capital" faster than the earth can replenish it. Virtually every living system on this planet is in decline and we're seeing the results of that in the falling production of fisheries, the rates of deforestation and desertification, the rate of species extinction, rate of topsoil loss, acidification of the oceans, aquifers being depleted from the Great Plains to the Southwest and Mexico to the Middle East to India and China), the plastic in the Pacific Gyre (and other areas of the oceans) that is now being found in the stomachs of fish and birds, etc. Yeah, right. So many people in the peak oil crowd would just be gleeful about this... give me a break. This is exactly the kind of dismissive, unsubstantiated, B.S. statement that gets made whenever anyone wants to try to acknowledge any sort of physical limitation to the finite physical system that is this planet. I had to laugh when I read this one.... Show me the scientific data that says infinite growth is possible in a finite system.

If that happens, about all AAO could do is work with the Congressional delegation in northern Ohio, and with groups in surrounding states--Erie PA, upstate New York, northern Indiana and Chicagoland to try to increase service along the Lake Shore Limited's route. Ohio has become dysfunctional. It's really sad.

Probably. That's still a narrow-minded view, though. They should advocate for a local effort to get the funding from the state and/or feds to do just that. It's just easier to slam something than do the work that would bring about a positive outcome.

All the Cincinnatians on this forum who support the project need to flood the Enquirer with e-mails.

People in the districts of the other two need to contact them and ask them to vote yes. We need an effort like the one that happened last year that generated 5,000 calls to the legislature, except we need to target all three of these guys.

The 3C Start-Up couldn't happen at a better time: Virgin's Richard Branson takes on peak oil A report out of Britain funded by Virgin Airlines owner Richard Branson and other British business leaders warns that peak oil is looming in 2015. The controversial idea that growing oil demand will soon outstrip more finds is capturing the attention of governments. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0215/Virgin-s-Richard-Branson-takes-on-peak-oil

Re: The proposed schedules posted above... I understand that what Amtrak proposed is a DRAFT schedule. However, it is being treated like it's set in concrete. I blame the messaging from ODOT on this point. They are doing a lousy job so far in staying ahead of the criticism. Still, I see two problems that need to be corrected: Amtrak's draft is overly conservative as far as average speed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that once $400 million is invested in the infrastructure, those running times will actually be faster than the draft. I know that I've been one of the one's saying that other states' trains are started in the 40-50 mph average speed range and many are still in the low to mid 40s, but why dumb it down as much as they did, even for a draft? That's one of the things that's killing this thing in the press. The other problem is those circa 3:30 pm afternoon departures from Cleveland and Columbus. They are too early. Even a start-up schedule shouldn't leave a gaping hole in the 4:00-5:00 pm time slot during weekdays. One the weekends, the schedules need to be timed better for sporting events like Buckeye games. Other states' schedules are different on the weekends, why not propose at least propose a draft for the 3-C that does the same thing? Bottom line: regardless of whether or not this is a "start-up", or that the schedule is just a draft at this point, it ultimately must be better than what Amtrak currently proposes. And.. ODOT/ORDC need to do a better job with the messaging.

Can't we get one of the major papers in Ohio to go to Oklahoma or North Carolina (Piedmont) and do a story about their 79 mph trains that take longer than driving and serve mostly car-friendly cities?

^there are a couple of neighborhoods in Cleveland that I've been in (lower east side) that seem eerily semi-rural now. They were quiet with little traffic. Lots of vacant lots. Lots of trees and greenery (It was in the middle of the day in summer on the occasions I was in them). The population of NE Ohio is the same now as it was in 1949. All we did was spread out creating more infrastructure per capita to maintain. It's no wonder communities are having such a hard time keeping up with everything from schools to streets to sewer and water lines... I wonder if there is a way to find out how many miles of roads and streets, sidewalks, sewers and water lines and school buildings per capita we have now compared to back then. That might be a real eye opener for people to see.

25 million cars to 140 million in 10 years... and that's just in China. Upward pressure on oil prices for sure... Why we’ll pay for China’s car obsession Stuart Fagg, ninemsn (Australia) The world’s most populous country has caught the car bug, and we’ll be picking up the tab. By 2020 there will be around 140 million cars in China and according to Chinese government estimates there will eventually be 250 million cars traversing China’s rapidly growing network of highways. There are currently 25 million cars in China. In the western world, car ownership boomed in the 1950s. Mass production drove prices down and cities were planned around the private motor car. As Japan emerged from the ashes of World War II, it too was planting the seeds of global car market domination. Back then, if you’d suggested that China would one day be the world’s biggest car market you’d more than likely have been carted off to the local loony bin. But as we enter the second decade of the 21st Century, China has just overtaken the US as the world’s number one buyer of cars. And they’re buying big, western cars, helped in part by the Chinese government, which has been subsidising sales of SUVs and pickups as part of its economic stimulus package... [snip] Read full article here: http://money.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogentryid=584880&showcomments=true

Well, $8 billion was a nice down payment, but it only went so far. We need to be investing that much every year for the foreseeable future.

Scrabble: Uncle Rando: So following the same, successful approach used in North Carolina, Maine, Oklahoma etc is going to lead to failure? None of those states are much farther ahead than Ohio, their average speeds are 40-50 mph and the funny thing is, their ridership keeps going up (although Oklahoma is hitting a wall because they need to make infrastructure improvements and add frequencies). Meanwhile the zero to European-style HSR approach has failed in Ohio 4 times over the last 35 years. ORDC isn't pulling the current plan out of its rear end. A lot of work has gone into it over the past decade. It's designed to do what these other states have successfully done. Noozer's comment that the FRA says Ohio's application was perhaps the strongest received speaks volumes. Anyway, this discussion is just going around in circles now.

I don't understand why some folks have such a difficult time understanding that Ohio is using the same approach that has been used successfully in other states for their state-funded intercity corridors. The average speeds are similar. We're not doing anything new or in a lesser way-- and our population density is higher than all but one of those other states. From CivviK: Actually it's not. What the other states that are doing this have found out is that speed isn't the top concern. KJP has discussed this over and over here. Look back through this thread and you will see that this concern has been covered. All the other state funded projects went through the same bickering that is currently going on here and around Ohio. This is what happens when you have a mode of transportation that so many Americans have so little experience with.

And they are both apples and oranges comparisons with respect to the 3-C. I already explained why the Kentucky Cardinal is. Your other example-- The Music City Star is a commuter train. You can't compare a commuter corridor with an intercity corridor. No, what I can't accept are meaningless comparisons-- which the Kentucky Cardinal and Music City Star are. Give us a comparison that is actually comparing apples to apples.

I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses. I have been involved in passenger rail advocacy in Ohio for about a dozen years. I know what ORDC has been doing, how they've been doing it, and why they are taking the approach that they are. As I said, it doesn't matter how the state got the money, because what they asked for is pretty much what they've been wanting to do all along-- an incremental start-up on the 3-C, then improve it from there. If you're going to spend money on something in times like this, you do it on things that are going to have an economic payback. Ohio's plan is to mimick the successes of other states which have all seen positive economic returns on their 40-50 mph average speed corridors. Most are improving the speeds and the economic returns keep coming.

Because that approach has been tried 4 times in Ohio and has failed every time. Ohio is following the lead of other states that are doing the same thing and succeeding.

^ Read what I said carefully. I asked for STATE-FUNDED routes. That was not a state-funded route, therefore it is not comparable to the 3-C. That route was started so Amtrak could ship express freight. It wasn't put on primarily for passengers, it was put on for freight. It wasn't studied like the 3-C, there was no economic impact analysis, there was little if any consideration of ridership potential, and there were no plans to upgrade the track before the trains were put on or at any time after. Ohio has studied the 3-C to death and the current plan is calibrated to mimick the successes in the dozen or so state funded corridors I keep referring to. So, this is not a route that is comparable to the 3-C. Try again.

I'm speaking of the dozen or so states that have state-funded, intercity corridor trains running NOW. They are all successful. You can easily look up the Amtrak schedules of these corridor trains and calculate what their average speeds are. Some of them started out slower than what they are running now. The 3-C start-up and a 49 mph average speed is right in the ball park with them at start-up, and it's in the ball park with most of them still. I'm not cherry-picking anything. I'm looking at what's out there right now. So, tell us which of these state-funded corridors operating today are failures?

I wouldn't say the Dispatch editorial means they are reversing course. They are understandably concerned about our nation's debt-load. The thing is, this is the kind of spending that will have an economic payback. It's the kind of thing that is ok to finance with debt. Where was the Dispatch when we financed the Iraq war with debt???