4 ms·

Goodbye, bullet trains and windmills

4 points by kqr2 16y ago

russell 16y ago
These are all good points, but pretty shortsighted. Yes, convert from coal to natural gas. Yes, build cleaner nuclear. But we cant continue to build dams.. the good spots are gone and we need the few remaining wild rivers because they are part of our heritage. What he dismisses is technological progress. Maybe, solar aren't cost effective now. but they are getting better by the year. The subsidies are worth it to get there. And he doenst even talk about conservation measures like more fuel efficient cars or painting all the roofs in America white. He dismisses bullet trains too easily. Sure, cross continent maglevs dont make sense, but SF to LA is faster than airplanes + security theater. I shudder to think of the highway construction necessary to support 500 million people. Maybe telecommuting and self-driving cars are a better alternative.
- nickpinkston 16y ago
  In a round about way, I think he's dismissing thinking current technology is a panacea - as the (mostly idealistic) environmental movement would have us believe. The real issue though of is what should we target the ratio of deployment versus R&D of of such tech. Whenever I hear a politician brag about how many solar panels they installed, it sounds like corporatism. How about an X-Prize / grants for alternate energy with REAL metrics. Maglevs don't really make any sense compare to standard high-speed electric rail (BulletTrain, TGV, etc.). However, I will agree with you 100% that reducing consumption is rarely mentioned, and is probably the cheapest way of reducing economic and environmental costs. However, it's more popular to fund wiz-bangery than to impose un-sexy fuel/water/etc. taxes.
chasingsparks 16y ago
I understand articles like this are meant to introduce ideas to a very wide swath of people, but I really dislike them. There are too many disparate points. It started with unemployment; wadded into Keynesian economics; took a shot at Wall Street; invoked FDR; and hinted that governments are required for scientific progress. That's way too much for one article. If you want to say trains and windmills are not the best form of investment with regards to the environment and economic costs, talk about that. All the added political weight just makes the article divisive. Part of his policy prescriptions are predicated upon infrastructure spending, so you could say the "added weight" was required. I think it just makes the article weaker.

4 points by kqr2 16y ago

These are all good points, but pretty shortsighted. Yes, convert from coal to natural gas. Yes, build cleaner nuclear. But we cant continue to build dams.. the good spots are gone and we need the few remaining wild rivers because they are part of our heritage. What he dismisses is technological progress. Maybe, solar aren't cost effective now. but they are getting better by the year. The subsidies are worth it to get there. And he doenst even talk about conservation measures like more fuel efficient cars or painting all the roofs in America white. He dismisses bullet trains too easily. Sure, cross continent maglevs dont make sense, but SF to LA is faster than airplanes + security theater. I shudder to think of the highway construction necessary to support 500 million people. Maybe telecommuting and self-driving cars are a better alternative.

nickpinkston 16y ago
In a round about way, I think he's dismissing thinking current technology is a panacea - as the (mostly idealistic) environmental movement would have us believe. The real issue though of is what should we target the ratio of deployment versus R&D of of such tech. Whenever I hear a politician brag about how many solar panels they installed, it sounds like corporatism. How about an X-Prize / grants for alternate energy with REAL metrics. Maglevs don't really make any sense compare to standard high-speed electric rail (BulletTrain, TGV, etc.). However, I will agree with you 100% that reducing consumption is rarely mentioned, and is probably the cheapest way of reducing economic and environmental costs. However, it's more popular to fund wiz-bangery than to impose un-sexy fuel/water/etc. taxes.

chasingsparks 16y ago

I understand articles like this are meant to introduce ideas to a very wide swath of people, but I really dislike them. There are too many disparate points. It started with unemployment; wadded into Keynesian economics; took a shot at Wall Street; invoked FDR; and hinted that governments are required for scientific progress. That's way too much for one article. If you want to say trains and windmills are not the best form of investment with regards to the environment and economic costs, talk about that. All the added political weight just makes the article divisive. Part of his policy prescriptions are predicated upon infrastructure spending, so you could say the "added weight" was required. I think it just makes the article weaker.