4 ms·

I don't understand how Newsom's decision argues against nationwide high speed rail or is in any way ironic - the decision is not that it was tried and found wan

by geofft 8y ago

I don't understand how Newsom's decision argues against nationwide high speed rail or is in any way ironic - the decision is not that it was tried and found wanting, but that it "would cost too much and take too long." The Green New Deal is specifically about applying massive funding and political will towards projects that are generally considered politically unrealistic today but are quite technically feasible, not about trying ideas that are inherently novel.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
"Cost too much" for what? For what it would provide. That argues against at least this specific high speed rail. And behind "politically unrealistic" - there is another problem waiting - "economically unrealistic". If it's a project that won't pay back the investment in it, calling it "green" doesn't make it a good idea.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  All of which is true. Issue is, it's also true for EVs. Infrastructure for EVs costs money too. As do electric airplanes. (Which I didn't know were going to be passenger planes in 10 years?) That's the thing, ANYTHING the Green New Deal spends money on, will cost money. You may say that's obvious, but my point is that I doubt whatever the GND ends up pushing will make actual economic sense. And imagine spending money on electric planes, and they don't become passenger worthy in ten years. Is that a bust? Do we just spend more GND money on electric planes and wait longer? What if we can not quite get there even in 20 or 30 years? What if the right choice was not electrically powered traditional planes, but big, slow, air ships? Do they make sense for "short haul" commutes given their lack of speed? Or what if air ships are a boondoggle as well, and that technology can't be perfected in ten years? We have to either be willing to potentially waste federal money on Green New Deal projects that may never pan out, or, if we are disinclined to do so, we need to accept that the politician will be extremely risk averse with Green New Deal money. And guess what that means? Yep, you guessed it, trains and lots of them. Why? Because as that old saying goes, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
- wukerplank 8y ago
  > If it's a project that won't pay back the investment in it What would be an idea in the economical/environmental equilibrium?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Good question. I don't know a good answer. Converting cars to LNG might be a good answer, but I don't know enough to know.
    - pas 8y ago
      LNG is just as nasty all things considered. ( https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 )

by geofft 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

"Cost too much" for what? For what it would provide. That argues against at least this specific high speed rail. And behind "politically unrealistic" - there is another problem waiting - "economically unrealistic". If it's a project that won't pay back the investment in it, calling it "green" doesn't make it a good idea.

bilbo0s 8y ago
All of which is true. Issue is, it's also true for EVs. Infrastructure for EVs costs money too. As do electric airplanes. (Which I didn't know were going to be passenger planes in 10 years?) That's the thing, ANYTHING the Green New Deal spends money on, will cost money. You may say that's obvious, but my point is that I doubt whatever the GND ends up pushing will make actual economic sense. And imagine spending money on electric planes, and they don't become passenger worthy in ten years. Is that a bust? Do we just spend more GND money on electric planes and wait longer? What if we can not quite get there even in 20 or 30 years? What if the right choice was not electrically powered traditional planes, but big, slow, air ships? Do they make sense for "short haul" commutes given their lack of speed? Or what if air ships are a boondoggle as well, and that technology can't be perfected in ten years? We have to either be willing to potentially waste federal money on Green New Deal projects that may never pan out, or, if we are disinclined to do so, we need to accept that the politician will be extremely risk averse with Green New Deal money. And guess what that means? Yep, you guessed it, trains and lots of them. Why? Because as that old saying goes, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."
wukerplank 8y ago
> If it's a project that won't pay back the investment in it What would be an idea in the economical/environmental equilibrium?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Good question. I don't know a good answer. Converting cars to LNG might be a good answer, but I don't know enough to know.
  - pas 8y ago
    LNG is just as nasty all things considered. ( https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 )