Louisiana BP/Transocean Oil Spill

[The Stig]

Back on the drilling issue, one prominent GOP supporter of offshore drilling has already turned against it: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8658825.stm

[SirSaxa]

While there are lots of good points in this thread, we've gotten off the real issue -- the US needs a national energy policy. There are three, equally compelling and overlapping reasons.

1. National Security -- the US needs to achieve energy independence to avoid enabling other countries to exert undue influence on American foreign policy.

2. Economic Strength and growth. We send $700 billion/year out of our US economy to foreign countries -- many of whom are not friendly to us. Draining $700 billion out of the US economy annually is a huge cost that can be seen in lost American jobs, wealth creation, and opportunity.

3. Climate Change. This is a serious and growing threat to the entire planet. Yes, I realize there are those who don't believe this. For those, reasons 1 and 2 should be more than sufficient.

Unfortunately, due to lack of foresight and the undue influence of the Oil, coal and auto industries, the US has not even attempted to create a long term, national energy plan since the Carter administration. Yes, we all know that was not a wildly successful presidency, but one thing they did get right was to start the US Dept. of Energy and to focus on long term energy solutions. Every administration since - Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and -- so far at least -- Obama, has either failed to develop a long term energy plan, if they even tried.

Leaving things to the "Free Market" is not a solution either, though market principles must be included to achieve the fastest and most efficient transition. One major reason why the "Free market" alone cannot provide the long term solution in this case? The global energy market isn't free in the first place. OPEC exerts undue influence. And the Free Market alone is not capable of determining what is in the long-term, best interest of the country.

As for which technology is the "silver bullet"? None. or, All.
Govt. policy needs to encourage an array of technologies:
Nuclear should be a part of the mix -- France already gets 80% of their electricity from Nuclear, and Japan gets a high % as well.

Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel, but much cleaner than oil and coal. And the US has enormous quantities of Natural Gas... we are often referred to as the "Saudi Arabia" of Natural Gas. First efforts should be to emphasize Gas fired electrical utilities to replace aging coal and oil fired plants. We should also be switching Trucks and buses -- big fleets -- to gas. Start with government vehicles -- City, State and Federal. City buses and dump trucks would be easy as they all return to a central location everyday to be refueled so the initial stages would not require building out Nat Gas service stations everywhere. Our fleet of Semi-trailers that prowl our nation's highways daily should also be converted. Semi's use an inordinately high amount of oil/gas compared to autos -- so you can get a much bigger bang for the buck by converting them first.

Beyond that, we should be pursuing all kinds of alternatives -- solar, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, and so on.

Of course, this will be a huge political battle. We have the coal states that don't want to lose jobs. We have the vested interests in oil. We have political parties trying to gain advantage from every issue -- what we need for them ALL to do is focus on devising a smart, long-term, energy plan for the nation.

[jgalt]

Government intervention caused the death of trains, increased the road network, created the US reliance on cars, and has put us in a terrible position energy wise.

Not saying I told you so, because I wasnt there in 1950 screaming about the terrors of the highway bill, but it has created the largest inefficiency in the market of any government intervention.

[TC]

May 4, 2010 9:27:04 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Government intervention caused the death of trains, increased the road network, created the US reliance on cars, and has put us in a terrible position energy wise.

That's absurd. Government intervention did not create "the US reliance on cars". The market did. The government did not force people to go out and buy cars.

Government intervention did create the first transcontinental railroad though.

[Filo]

May 4, 2010 9:27:04 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Government intervention caused the death of trains, increased the road network, created the US reliance on cars, and has put us in a terrible position energy wise.

Not saying I told you so, because I wasnt there in 1950 screaming about the terrors of the highway bill, but it has created the largest inefficiency in the market of any government intervention.

Yes, John Galt, where is Dagny Taggart when we need her to get the railroads built and running efficiently? ;D

[Boz]

As someone who works in the natural gas industry, Sir Saxa, I thank you for your endorsement.

;D

No, seriously, I don't have any problem with anything you've posted. Well, except maybe the climate change part. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, climate change is 100% myth with no facts behind it at all. I think we still want to move towards cleaner energies because, if nothing else, it makes for a more pleasant life experience. I can tell you one thing. If BP had been drilling for natural gas and had this accident, we'd be a lot better off than we are right now down in the Gulf Coast.

As for the coal jobs, let's be realistic. Even with a truly comprehensive and sound national energy policy that envisions a future of entirely clean and renewable energy, we are going to be on coal to some extent for the next 50 or more years anyway, at least. It's really just not feasible to think that we can get off that fuel in 10-20 years (sorry, Al Gore, but it's the truth). Those jobs will be there for quite a while.

[Bando]

May 4, 2010 9:27:04 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Government intervention caused the death of trains, increased the road network, created the US reliance on cars, and has put us in a terrible position energy wise.

Not saying I told you so, because I wasnt there in 1950 screaming about the terrors of the highway bill, but it has created the largest inefficiency in the market of any government intervention.

You are perhaps the first libertarian I've ever met who's actually acknowledged this. Not saying you're the only one, just that the Cato types tend to see the car culture as a completely natural result of the free market. My thanks.

As for HSR in general, while I support it in general and it's really about time, I will be happy the day this isn't held up by political considerations. In reality, all that HSR money in the stimulus should have gone to the one place it really could have made a difference: the Northeast. Here you have a number of dense metropolitan areas close to one another with populations that already ride the trains quite frequently, with businesses concentrated in downtown areas. There really should be no reason for anyone to fly anywhere between Boston and DC, and removing those flights will do wonders for overcrowding at airports in those cities.

Austin people: I thought that one of the reasons the commuter rail isn't working is because they stupidly built the terminus station outside of downtown Austin. Is that right, or am I thinking of something else?

[Bando]

May 4, 2010 10:03:13 GMT -5 TC said:

May 4, 2010 9:27:04 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Government intervention caused the death of trains, increased the road network, created the US reliance on cars, and has put us in a terrible position energy wise.

That's absurd. Government intervention did not create "the US reliance on cars". The market did. The government did not force people to go out and buy cars.

Government intervention did create the first transcontinental railroad though.

*cough* ROBERT MOSES *cough*

[jgalt]

Highway bill of 1951 created the funding that lead to the extensive network of highways and interstates in this country. This made travel by car and shipping by truck much easier. This promoted the development of suburbs which were not serviced by rail in many midwestern and southern cities (north eastern cities like NY and Philly had more extensive rail net works). The development of these suburbs created the need for residents to commute long distances to work and the availability of a quality road networks made cars the sensible choice.

The same was true of rail and trucks as frieght. As people moved out of city centers it was not as economically feasible to use the old rail lines that ran into and out of major cities. It because easier to use the high way system to transport goods by truck.

With highways running across the country it became easier to for people to move to cities in Texas, Florida, and other southern states that did not have commuter rail systems in place. These cities still dont because they were largely developed after the construction of highway and favored sprawl over density.

Hence I conclude the Highway bill killed the rail industry (though it creeps back because it is still the low cost freight provider) and created the American love affair with cars.

What i am surprised about is that more environmentalist have not made the same point. Dense urban cities use much less energy (and use the energy they do consume more efficiently) than suburbs do.

Finally, Bando, i dont characterize by self as a libertarian, but i greatly appreciate the compliment anyway ;D

[SirSaxa]

May 4, 2010 10:20:55 GMT -5 Boz said:

As someone who works in the natural gas industry, Sir Saxa, I thank you for your endorsement.

;D

No, seriously, I don't have any problem with anything you've posted. Well, except maybe the climate change part. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, climate change is 100% myth with no facts behind it at all. I think we still want to move towards cleaner energies because, if nothing else, it makes for a more pleasant life experience. I can tell you one thing. If BP had been drilling for natural gas and had this accident, we'd be a lot better off than we are right now down in the Gulf Coast.

As for the coal jobs, let's be realistic. Even with a truly comprehensive and sound national energy policy that envisions a future of entirely clean and renewable energy, we are going to be on coal to some extent for the next 50 or more years anyway, at least. It's really just not feasible to think that we can get off that fuel in 10-20 years (sorry, Al Gore, but it's the truth). Those jobs will be there for quite a while.

Boz, I didn't know you work in gas [insert favorite joke about spewing a lot of gas] ;D

Nat Gas should be a priority bridge-fuel to a non-fossil fuel future.
Some hard core environmentalists don't like it because it is yet another fossil fuel.
My take is, it helps solve issues #1 and #2 above, and has far fewer emissions than coal and oil. A pragmatist would jump all over Nat Gas. Yet, as far as I know, no US Administration (including Obama) has ever embraced it as a solution we should emphasize

As for coal, I agree we won't be off coal for a long time to come. But that doesn't stop politicians from fomenting concern among coal workers. The reality is, even if coal is de-emphasized and we start to phase it out, it will take a long time -- as you mentioned. And, coal exports are still growing. But coal workers and their communities see the long term decline as negative for them.

[DFW HOYA]

The highway bills of the 1950's were originally sold as a military purpose: troop movements in WWII were exceeding slow using rail/bus and faster deployments would be necessary in the case of Soviet aggression. The government also realized that passenger rail was dying and air service was not up to speed (this is before commercial jets) so highway construction satisfied the needs of a lot of folks: defense, construction, GM, etc. Highways did not kill rails, the rails killed themselves. Even today, Amtrak owns very little of its own track and cannot build high speed rail where it must defer to UP or BNSF trains on the same tracks.

As to other means of travel, buses declined when their ownership did not invest in infrastructure (which is why many bus stations today look like WPA projects from the 1930's), whereas airlines successfully leveraged infrastructure and capital improvements to airports to make them the preferred providers.

Finally, people did not move to Sun Belt states because of the highways. Older folks will tell you that only air conditioning made the South suitable for growth, not the highway system. As to density, a city grows to the space allowed--if Manhattan was the size of Rhode Island it would have expanded thusly.

The oveall problem with a national energy policy is that it's not something that people can rally to--we can tell people that X million an hour are going to Saudi Arabia, but as long as people are filling up at Exxon or Chevron it doesn't seem that way. Similarly, national consensus on offshore drilling or coal or nuclear will engender lots of congressional in-fighting which inevitably pushes it out to another election cycle...think health care x 10.

[AustinHoya03]

May 4, 2010 11:38:45 GMT -5 Bando said:

Austin people: I thought that one of the reasons the commuter rail isn't working is because they stupidly built the terminus station outside of downtown Austin. Is that right, or am I thinking of something else?

It's downtown, but it's not in a super-great location.

allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital-metrorail-stations.shtml

Back to offshore drilling, it looks likely Congress will (significantly) raise the $75M liability cap. Good idea?

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/robert-menendez-pushes-bi_n_561011.html

[EasyEd]

Back to the topic, the oil spills. Interesting article that says oil booms, capable of containing spills and burning it off, could have saved the Gulf Coast from all or almost all the damage.

blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html

[Bando]

Jgalt, I'm one of those environmentalists, which I why I'm very skeptical of things like urban farming and carving out large tracts of parkland in cities.

DFW, I can't disagree more. I think you're overlooking the pile of subsidies the government throws at suburbia to encourage that style of development. This includes, among others, highway building (which has less regulatory hurdles than transit building), the homeowner tax credit, free parking and use of the roads, free infrastructure for suburban development, a low gas tax, zoning in most of America that prohibits anything but single-use detached structures, anti-trust officials looking away as car companies bought out and dismantled transit companies, the bulldozing of urban neighborhoods to build highways and "urban renewal", etc., etc., etc. The thumb's been on the scale for 50 years now.

[DFW HOYA]

May 4, 2010 14:12:58 GMT -5 Bando said:

DFW, I can't disagree more. I think you're overlooking the pile of subsidies the government throws at suburbia to encourage that style of development. This includes, among others, highway building (which has less regulatory hurdles than transit building), the homeowner tax credit, free parking and use of the roads, free infrastructure for suburban development, a low gas tax, zoning in most of America that prohibits anything but single-use detached structures, anti-trust officials looking away as car companies bought out and dismantled transit companies, the bulldozing of urban neighborhoods to build highways and "urban renewal", etc., etc., etc. The thumb's been on the scale for 50 years now.

There's certainly evidence of that in many eastern/rust belt cities (see the link below for what urban renewal would have done to DC) but this is less of an issue in the Sun Belt, as many highways are built before the people get there, whereupon the suburbs fill in the gap. As there was no "urban" Dallas or Phoenix or Olkahoma City to bulldoze, the freeways essentially followed railroad right of way to the suburbs. (In a bit of irony, the reasonably sucessful light rail in Dallas followed the same strategy and the development is beginning to follow.)

But realistically, the Sun Belt planners of the 1950's could not institute strict land and transit politicies in those places where vacant land and natural resources were abundant. Houston is the classic example of no-zoning gone wild, but with hundreds of square miles of available land around, it would been impossible sell a restrictive set of land and transit policies in these places, the same policies that newcomers were leaving back East. Also, as Texas was a 99.9% Democratic state in this era, expansive growth was considered good political capital by Democratic (and later, GOP) politicians.

Did freeways tear up some communities? Absolutely. For those who never heard about plans to put a number of freeways right through DC in the late 1960's (including an Interstate 266 just below New South), check these links:

www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html

Larger image:
www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Area_Map_XL.jpg

I-266:
www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/266.html

[Bando]

Houston doesn't have zoning, in that you can build any type of building anywhere, which is good, but it has plenty of other restrictions, such as high limits, setback requirements, and parking minimums. I find it weird that you refer to policies leading to higher density as restrictionist when all the actual laws on the books go the other way, restricting urban development.

Just because there's no old urban Dallas doesn't mean Dallas didn't develop in the way it was explicitly subsidized to develop.

[The Stig]

There were a lot of things that killed off railroads in the US. There wasn't a magic bullet.

A few of the factors:

- Highways. This was more of a side effect than a deliberate plot. As DFW said, highways were initially built for military purposes. The commercial aspect was a major side effect. But other countries have extensive highway networks, and they still have strong passenger railway networks as well.

- Air travel. This did a lot to kill off long-distance intercity rail. This was simply a product of enhanced technology. Even the best trains conceivable can't beat out a plane from LA to NYC.

- Auto makers. The automakers did more than just build better cars, they also deliberately sabotaged the railroad industry. GM and others bought up commuter rail and streetcar companies, then immediately disbanded them, thus making people more reliant on cars. The automakers also pushed through car-friendly legislation, such as mandatory parking lots. It seems like a small issue, but this required more space to build a business, thus forcing companies away from dense city centers, and creating more spread-out cities that needed cars.

- Government regulation. The government badly hindered railroads with over-stringent safety regulations. For example, passenger trains in the 1940s were often faster than today's Amtrak trains on the same routes. The Amtrak trains are capable of going much faster, but the government imposes blanket speed limits on trains that don't take into account the conditions of specific routes. It would be like the government putting a mandatory 35 mph speed limit on ALL American roads, from residential roads to interstates. American rail crash regulations are also far more stringent than those around the world. When Amtrak ordered the Acela, they couldn't just take a European or Japanese design and put it on our rails, because no existing design could come close to meeting our safety regulations. Yet these foreign trains still have a tremendous safety record in their own countries. The end result was that Amtrak had to spend a ton more money commissioning a purpose-built design that was way more expensive than it had to be.

The result of all these factors created a vicious cycle that continues to this day. Railroads lost money, which meant they couldn't invest in new technology, build new rails, or even keep their existing track in good repair. This resulted in obsolete trains running on poorly-maintained tracks, which caused the railroads to lose even more money, which made the problems that much worse.

[Boz]

Also...Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

[hoyainspirit]

May 4, 2010 16:17:07 GMT -5 Bando said:

Houston doesn't have zoning, in that you can build any type of building anywhere, which is good...

I know several Houston residents who disagree with you on this point.

[TC]

May 4, 2010 16:19:52 GMT -5 The Stig said:

There were a lot of things that killed off railroads in the US.

You're missing the #1 reason in my mind - cheap oil.