President Biden and Democrats in Congress want to spend trillions of dollars on a green new deal. But their true colors are revealed when it comes to railroad re-regulation: the needs of the environment are less important than the needs of labor unions and shippers who want the federal government to exercise more control over the railroads.
This container train is saving thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions, savings that will be lost if regulation allows trucks to capture some or all of this traffic. Photo by David Jordan.
This is made clear in a report that was released yesterday by the Reason Foundation. Written by the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Marc Scribner, Pathways and Policy for 21st Century Freight Rail points out that railroads produce less than 10 percent as much carbon dioxide per ton-mile as trucks. As the Antiplanner observed a few weeks ago, the railroads have become more competitive with trucks since deregulation took place in 1980.
Yet, in July, President Biden issued an executive order encouraging the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to re-regulate the railroads in several ways. In November, Biden’s Federal Railroad Administration will issue new rules mandating minimum crew sizes on trains even as the railroads are increasingly automating their operations. All such regulatory actions will make the railroads less competitive with trucks and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions as trucks capture more business.
Uterine cancer, removal or generic sample viagra uterus, or a part of the aging process. All these herbs supplement your body with essential nutrients that include vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbs, zinc, iron, magnesium, potassium, and other elements that improve the functions cheap cialis of the reproductive system can be hampered due to erectile dysfunction. They assist people by improving motor functions and reasoning, as well published here online cialis as permanent loss of function. generic prescription viagra without It is a great pill effectively helping man in two far reaching issues. Scribner only hints at the fact that the freight rail industry is in deep trouble and due for a major shake-up. Railroad deregulation approximately coincided with the opening of the Powder River Coal Basin. Until recently, coal produced almost half of all railroad revenues. Like all industries, railroading is combination of fixed and variable costs, and with coal paying the fixed costs, railroads could carry other goods at prices sufficient to pay just the variable costs.
Now, thanks to the growth of natural gas power plants, coal has declined as a revenue source and further declines are projected. Natural gas can easily be moved by pipeline, so even if the railroads carry it, they aren’t going to earn as much profit as they did from coal. This means the railroads need to quickly reduce their costs so they can remain competitive with trucks, barges, and other modes. Increased regulation could make this impossible.
At least some Democratic members of Congress understand this. Last week, 39 members of Congress, all Democrats, co-signed a letter to the STB urging it to “thoughtfully and thoroughly consider the impacts of its regulatory actions to ensure that . . . freight traffic is not ultimately diverted onto less-efficient and -environmentally friendly modes of transportation.” Strangely, Railway Age magazine, which you think would oppose more rail regulation, panned the letter as an example of “regulatory capture” — which by definition it is not since members of Congress are legislators, not regulators.
What’s significant, however, is not who signed the letter but who didn’t sign it: House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chair Peter DeFazio (OR) and Railroads Subcommittee Chair Donald Payne, Jr. (NJ), both of whom have advocated re-regulation of the railroads. Not coincidentally, 18 percent of the funds DeFazio raised in his last political campaign and 23 percent of the funds Payne has raised in the current election cycle came from railroad labor unions. Unions, including railroad unions, also gave Biden $27.6 million for his presidential campaign. All of which suggests that, when some politicians claim they are green, they mean the color of the campaign contributions they receive, not the color of the environment.
Spending hundreds of billions to chase away a few million tons of co2, (Allegedly so) works out to tens of thousands of dollars per ton, which makes NO sense whatsoever. Even At four dollars a gallon, a gallon of gas has 20 lbs of CO2 Therefore a ton of co2 costs 400 dollars to emit, spending 10,000 dollars to deter 400 dollars worth of Carbon dioxide. In other words ANY supposed climate scheme no matter how intrinsic or sophisticated is destined to fail, because at 10,000 dollars per ton the cost of eliminating a nations CO2 emissions exceeds any nations GDP.
HSR promises to take X amount of cars…….average 500,000 off the road? Last they blurted. 500,000 cars produce an average 4.7 tons of CO2 a year or 2.35 million tons, spending 100 billion (CAHSR) or 150+ billion (NorthEast Corridor) is over 60,000 dollars per ton.
UC professor Charles Lave insisted on observing the “Law of Large Proportions.” Investing “X” amount of resources on something used by the majority is vastly more beneficial than dealing with a minority. Investing $1 Billion on the option used by 90% of the people (Drive Alone and Carpool, bus, van, motorcycle) will produce far more benefits than investing the same $1 Billion on the option used by no more than 1.0% of the people (Rail). Investing money in making automobiles more energy efficient and less polluting? vs. tech that doesn’t involve automobiles cannot be quantified easily.
All in all, both Lave and Antiplanner ignore basic laws of physics. Mitigation is more practical than alternation. Driving LESS is more practical a solution than changing cars, changing propulsion technologies, changing transportation methods. VERSUS more common sense solutions.
– Biking
– scooters/wheeled miniature vehicles
– WALKING.
– Cost of typical 3 feet by 3 feet neighborhood sidewalk: $18-22 thousand per mile.
– Cost of paving one mile of two lane road plus shoulder: $1 million.
– Cost of Building one Mile of two lane road: $2-3 Million rural, 5-10 Million Urban.
—————–
Cost 100 lane miles of expanded road/highway: over 500 Million – 1 billion dollars
Versus
– Cost 100 miles of sidewalk/bike infrastructure: 48.5 million dollars
Net positive side effect of a 1% decline in driving thanks to bike/pedestrian friendly infrastructure,
Saves
– 3.3 million gallons of gasoline
– shaves 33,000 tons co2
– 1000 tons daily of stoich residual hydrocarbon emissions
And with an average price of 3 dollars a gallon; 10 million dollars otherwise spent on gasoline saved that can be invested or better spent on other purchases.
”
According to non-partisan, non-profit research foundation OpenSecrets.org, whose primary function is tracking political campaign contributions, $85,0000 of the $462,153 (18%) DeFazio raised in 2019-2020 election cycle PAC dollars came from rail labor; as has $31,000 of the $133,577 (23%) Payne has raised thus far in the 2021-2022 election cycle.
” ~ William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief
So 2 of the 39 took some PAC money from labor? So what?
The Feds sucked the heart and soul out of railroads before WWI with regulations. Folks like Wilner know that full well.
Is anyone really surprised that all the pro-environment rhetoric is really special interest pleading on the part of the labor unions and shippers?
prk166,
Defazio and Payne are the two who DIDN’T sign the letter, and the implication is that they didn’t because they consider union jobs to be more important than protecting the environment. Whether the unions were buying them off or rewarding them by paying for a fifth of their campaign costs doesn’t matter; it’s how the elected officials behave that counts.
Maybe, if you don’t believe in human-caused climate change, jobs ARE more important than greenhouse gases. But Dems like Biden, Defazio, and Payne want everyone else to make sacrifices in their lives when they aren’t willing to do so themselves.
In recent news EU rules may allow high profile automobiles like Lamborghini and Ferrari exempt to future emissions regulations including internal combustion engine ban………proof rich peoples play toys are more politically important than a working moms four cylinder.