"Your radiation gown lies in rags at your feet..."
"Your radiation gown lies in rags at your feet..."
As noted in the comments section earlier today, Your Blogger is one Dirty (expletive deleted) Hippie who totally supports a revival of nuclear power in America, with President Obama announcing some baby steps in that direction earlier today. In 2010, the case for nuclear power is obvious: 1) The threat from greenhouse gases to our planet is real, and safe nuclear plants are a solution and 2) Unlike, say, the coal industry, where Americans die in order to produce energy every year, there have been operating nuclear plants for decades in the country with no fatalities from radiation.
But it wasn't always a slam-dunk issue. It's not surprising that in 1979 there were a lot of Americans who opposed nuclear power, considering that the near-meltdown at Three Mile Island took place that year. Also, what to do with spent nuclear fuel remains a problem, although today the issues are as much political as they are technological. So it's a little silly, in my opinion, for Matt Drudge to come out and make fun of all the artists who played at a "No Nukes" concert 31 years ago. Times change -- global warming wasn't even on the radar screen then. The only thing we can say with any certainty today about a "No Nukes" concert is...that it produced some great music. Here's the best video online from that show: a Young Elvis-ish Bruce doing "Thunder Road." Enjoy it -- regardless of your political persuasion:
Comments (77)
/////Times change -- global warming wasn't even on the radar screen then./// Well, according to Time Magazine, we were on the cusp of an Ice Age 31 years ago.— General_Turgidson- Hmm, but you don't believe we are on the cusp now? How can that be? Could it be the scientific method? The same thing scientists use to prove global warming? Aww. Sucks to be disproved with your own words.— HandNik
- You know, even if you don't believe carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is going to heat the planet to death, coal-fired power is still some pretty nasty stuff. But it occurs to me that the usual assumption that liberals hate nuclear power is actually pretty silly. After all, France currently produces 78 percent of its electricity in nuclear plants. And everyone knows that we liberals LOVE the French and pretty much anything they do, right?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
Will, you really should compare coal mining to uranium mining, not to power plant operation, and read up on the Navajo miners' experience. There's also the waste issue and the lovely legacy of places like Fernald, Ohio. Your solution?
Comment removed.- French farmers rioted when l'Etat thought it could bury the country's prodigious nuclear waste in rural underground sites. The waste is just being warehoused until science catches up. Meantime, the French have been secretly shipping their waste to Siberia. Let that sink in for a minute, pun intended.
This is a good thing. I hope Obama is really waking up to nuclear power and not just throwing a bone to Republicans, who he now really needs to get anything done. For years liberals have pushed different large scale alternative energy solutions and fought against the one that actually worked. Though some liberals are on board, most on the left are not going to like this. Times change, but liberals don't.— jmc- jmc, this lib is actually hopeful we'll soon achieve clean nuclear fusion. The laser lab in Livermore is set to begin tests this year.
- Are the left wing wacko environmentalist nazis going to roll over for Obama on this?????????? Will they swallow their usual diatribes normally spewed at Republicans on this issue?????? Kudos to Wilbur for saying the spent fuel isn't as bad as greenhouse gases. That is a position you must take if you really believe in global warming. Let's see how many line up behind Wilbur on this one. (to TPS: I mean that figuratively).— WriteWinger
- I think there are a lot less folks now that can remember first-hand what nuclear devastation looks like today -- folks like Vonnegut, which is part of the reason there's less resistance. I barely remember TMI and the Soviets did such a good job of hiding Chernobyl initially, no one in the west got to see the devastation for years. So, yeah, go Nukes! That does not mean we should abandon other energy solutions that don't hve the long-term problems nuclear power has.— etotheb
- "The same thing scientists use to prove global warming?" You mean the same science in which they refused to release the data for others to test, and finally admitted to destroying it? Yep, thats one heck of a scientific method.— RG
- "I barely remember TMI" . . . . . Way back when the Inky still had investigative journalists and won a Pulitzer for exposing Met Edison's dishonesty? Yep, just barely. The ultimate cleanup cost to taxpayers is fresher in most minds.
- Comment removed.
- RG must hate the fact that the nuclear industry is so dependent on government to first figure out and then finance the storage of waste. So now Obama nixes Yucca Mtn, the subsidy the nuke industry needs so badly to be economically viable into the future and get all that waste off its hands. Whatever will it do?
- Yeah, times change but environmental extremists rarely. Nuclear power has been safe since the 1950's when Adm Rickover started the Navy Nuclear power program. People like Attytood boy have finally arrived at the party and want us to celebrate? Had Attytood boy and his ilk stopped protesting long enough to become informed about nuclear power, we could be like France (of all places) in terms of being energy independent. Instead, we are 30 years behind the curve. Still addicted to middle eastern oil, still supporting dangerous middle eastern dictators all because ignorant liberals refused to actually learn about nuclear power due to their extremist environmental agenda. Even the co-founder of Green Peace, Patrick Moore, has embraced nuclear power. He was quoted saying the following: "I lost my fear of nuclear energy when I started studying it more closely," Moore said. "It is one of the safest technologies we ever invented - it's an excellent job-creation technology." Welcome to the 21st century Attytood boy. Now, if only you and the rest of your extreme leftists could convince the extremist soon-to-be ex-senator from Nevada to stop obstructing the construction of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mtn. Yes, that would be the waste repository in which power companies have paid billions in fees to the federal government to design and build in order to have a safe, remote location to store this waste centrally. Currently, all commercial nuclear power waste is held onsite. That is 104 separate waste repositories--potential terrorist sites all because environmentalists with an extremist agenda with the support of Sen. harry reid refuse to allow this site to be built. These extremists file lawsuits continuously and demand more studies wasting untold billions. Lastly, Chernobyl cannot happen here--we use water as a moderator and have concrete containment structures. If you don't understand what either of these are, start doing some research.— g18188
- ---}}} Well, according to Time Magazine, we were on the cusp of an Ice Age 31 years ago. {{{--- LOL! And we all know, Time Magazine is the place to go for comprehensive scientific analysis. Actually, the vast majority of scientific predictions were for global warming in the '70s. But don't let that get in the way of your bogus spin, General. And besides, we all know that because a MINORITY of scientists were wrong about ONE thing, we should completely discount ALL scientists for the rest of eternity. Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the logic of today's Republican Party.— Talking point sleuth
- You misunderstand RG, MSL. He doesn't believe that the impact to society of waste needs to be accounted for. He ridiculed the idea of considering "externalities" such as pollution and increased medical/police costs associated with automobile travel as compared to other forms of transportation.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} You mean the same science in which they refused to release the data for others to test, and finally admitted to destroying it? {{{--- Good point, RG. Because each and every scientist that thinks GW is A refused to release data and "destroyed" data. And of course, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of global warming outside of the data that were destroyed. LOL! "the same science." Hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- "He ridiculed the idea of considering "externalities" such as pollution and increased medical/police costs associated with automobile travel as compared to other forms of transportation." Nope, just don't think that governments and taxpayers should handle/pay for it.— RG
- "Because each and every scientist that thinks GW is A refused to release data and "destroyed" data." Nope, just the stuff coming from East Anglia CRU, which was a centerpeice for the IPCC report. Oh, and that unreseached, lifted quote about the ice melting.— RG
- The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” In other words, Rose says, Lal “last night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”— RG
- Montani, I share your hope that science will soon give us usable fusion technology, but in the meantime, I'm not all that worried about the waste issue because everything I've read says it can be and is being solved. I'll take localized deposition of nuclear waste over the venting of carbon-fuel effluents into the atmosphere any day. Full disclosure: I'm from a town in Washington where all the best-paying jobs are with federal contractors who clean up nuclear waste. (And yet most of the same people habitually complain about big government and came out to see Palin when she came through town recently. Sigh. Cousins of the "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" crowd.)— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- How about a blog post on Obama and his debacle first year? You seemed obsessed with the last president and VP- yet these two jokers The Titan of the Telpropmpter and Clueless Joe get a free ride? How about a little something on Pelosi and Reid- those giants of political thought?.............or should we expect another "Bad songs from the 1980's" post?— Manny Trillo
- I cannot wait till the Global warming fools HAVE TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG- should be enjoyable to watch.— Manny Trillo
- ---}}} Nope, just don't think that governments and taxpayers should handle/pay for it. {{{--- Wow! So, governments and taxpayers should not pay for, say, the medical and pollution costs of automobile travel. Ok, let's play that out a bit. If they don't pay for those externalities, and there is no government to regulate the industries that cause those externalities, just what do you propose? Just let the families come up afterwards and clean up the bodies of the people who die on the highways? You know, those folks voluntarily bought those cars and chose to drive on those roads at that particular time, right? And of course, if the families don't come pick up the bodies, they can just rot on the side of the road - because if other motorists found it bothersome, they could just voluntarily bury them. And as for the pollution - the entire population could just decide to not use automobiles because they're polluting. I'm sure the economy would have done just fine if everyone in America had decided to not use autos whereas other countries had governments to help manage the related costs. If the population decides to use the autos, they just have to suck it up and live with polluted air and water, right? What a bizarre world you want to live in, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- ///LOL! And we all know, Time Magazine is the place to go for comprehensive scientific analysis. Actually, the vast majority of scientific predictions were for global warming in the '70s. But don't let that get in the way of your bogus spin, General.//// 'Bogus' spin? Are you even familiar with the article I am referencing in Time Magazine? Have you read it? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html) They quote a half dozen prominent scientists in it. According to Will, global warming "wasn't even on the radar screen" 31 years ago. And now you're claiming that a "vast majority" of scientific predictions were for global warming? Wow, how did everyone miss that "vast majority," considering global warming wasn't even a topic of conversation?— General_Turgidson
I cannot wait till the Global warming fools HAVE TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG- should be enjoyable to watch. Manny they wont , liberals never admit when they are wrong , they just move the goalposts , change the name , ie liberal-progressive , global warming-climate change and carry on with their goal of one world government.— PAEnglish- Does anyone know why deniers are so obsessed about a grand total of four conclusions coming out the the IPCC reports that have been refuted - only one of which actually made it into the report summary? In only one year's report? And only in the one part of one report that talks about projected consequences of global warming, not the parts in any of the reports that document data? Do they not realize that the information they're so obsessed with is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the information that is in the reports? Or do they realize that, and they're just total frauds? OK. You make the call.— Talking point sleuth
- Keep digging, Buck. You'll reach China eventually. --snip-- In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Science: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom. In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus... * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration * Environmental Protection Agency * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies * American Geophysical Union * American Institute of Physics * National Center for Atmospheric Research * American Meteorological Society * The Royal Society of the UK * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society * American Association for the Advancement of Science --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "Just let the families come up afterwards and clean up the bodies of the people who die on the highways?" What does this have to do with pollution? I'll assume you are talking about motor vehicle accidents, I don't recall advocating a ban on hospitals, police, or EMS, who would normally handle this. You are really stretching the idea of an externality.— RG
- And there's this, Buck: --snip-- However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. --snip-- Here, go to this website. It has a nice picture where you can see the amount of peer reviewed papers published that talk about global warming compared to global cooling. LOL! "But, but, Time Magazine had an article in the '70s. That proves AGW theories wrong." You boyz are hilarious. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} I don't recall advocating a ban on hospitals, police, or EMS, who would normally handle this. {{{--- I talked of two externalities of just one issue - automobile travel. The costs of traffic accidents and fatalities are an externality of automobile travel. Your hated government spends plenty to keep the cars rolling, and taxes all Americans in order to make that happen. Your registration costs don't pay for the police needed to enforce traffic, the time lost in productivity due to traffic accidents, the costs to society for medical care (in particular for those who don't have private insurance). So, just who do you think should pay for all those costs in your perfect, Shangri-La utopia free market world that has never existed in the history of the planet?— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Nope, just the stuff coming from East Anglia CRU, which was a centerpeice for the IPCC report. {{{--- First, you characterized the entire "science" as built on "destroying data." Second, do you have ANY idea how much of the IPCC report's conclusions are based on the data that has been called into question in the bogus "climategate scandal?" Any idea whatsoever? I thought not.— Talking point sleuth
- "Your hated government spends plenty to keep the cars rolling, and taxes all Americans in order to make that happen." Ummm sure. Or people who buy gas and register vehicles fund the roads and subsidize mass transit.— RG
- Gotta say, RG, it's nice to see that you've completely reversed your position on "externalities," given that you completely ridiculed the concept (after wrongly stating that pollution and such are not considered externalities - when in fact, they are the textbook case used to illustrate the concept).— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Or people who buy gas and register vehicles fund the roads and subsidize mass transit. {{{--- Given that we have the reverse now, that would only be fair. In fact, what we have now is the "government choosing winners and losers." Government is taking taxes from those who don't use autos to pay to set up a service for those who do - at a way, way, disproportionate scale when compared to the money they take from those who use automobiles to pay for transportation for those who don't. It is funny that your outrage about government "choosing winners and losers" is so selective, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility. Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming. Africagate http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece— RG
- ///Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" //// Eh, that was pretty much the point of my mentioning of the time article, Talking. Glad to see you finally caught on. It's not to refute global warming or cooling, obviously, but simply to state that scientists just don't know enough about climate to know the true cause. Thanks for backing that up.— General_Turgidson
- "Government is taking taxes from those who don't use autos to pay to set up a service for those who do" Wrong. Read up on the highway trust fund, instead fo citing some study by a quack with an agenda mathematical models that states that drivers don't pay their way. If that were true, please explain why gas taxes are used to fund mass trnaist instead of the pay for the roads.— RG
- "Gotta say, RG, it's nice to see that you've completely reversed your position on "externalities," given that you completely ridiculed the concept" I ridiculed the notion that the government can properly calculate and price them. You know, like the absurd idea that 600 people in DC can pinpoint the exact amount of pollution that we can emit and then ration it out via carbon credits. Or your notion that highway polcie are an externality to driving. Does this mean that transit police are an extenrality to buses and rails? If so, are they properly figured into the already heavly subsidized cost? what about Septa unuion pensions, are they externalities? Or do you just hate people with cars.— RG
- You must be kidding, RG. First, there is the legacy of the costs of building the majority of the highways in the first place. What do you think, we just all woke up one day and found that they had all spontaneously appeared? Building them cost taxes, RG, paid for by all American citizens. Licensing and gas taxes pay for federal highways, and 10% of those costs go to the states which raise the funds through various taxes levied on people who don't drive. And that doesn't even cover the question of local roads, which are funded through property and other taxes. But yeah, if you ignore the massive costs incurred in building the roads in the first place, 10% of the costs of maintaining those roads and building new roads at the federal level, AND the costs of local roads - it is all paid for through licensing and gas taxes. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Does this mean that transit police are an extenrality to buses and rails? If so, are they properly figured into the already heavly subsidized cost? what about Septa unuion pensions, are they externalities? {{{--- Of course it does, RG. Those costs, absolutely, should be figured as a cost of public transportation. Why would they not be?— Talking point sleuth
- Here you go, RG: ---}}} One problem with your thinking, RG, is that you ignore externalities (as well as decades of disproportionate subsidization of automobile travel). You fail to account for benefits and costs not mediated through the market system. The reduction in air pollution caused by increased public transportation is a positive externality. As is the reduction in traffic fatalities and the associated medical costs. As is the reduction in time people waste sitting in traffic jams (and the accompanying increases in productivity). As are the associated increases in employment. As are the associated increases in foot traffic and the related benefits in urban communities....{{{--- ---}}} TPS, most of those supposed benefits are not externalities. You may want to bone up on your understanding of the term before tossing it out there. {{{--- ---}}} LOL! That's absolutely false, RG. Wikipedia: --snip-- Externalities In addition to providing benefits to their users, transport networks impose both positive and negative externalities on non-users. The consideration of these externalities - particularly the negative ones - is a part of transport economics. Positive externalities of transport networks may include the ability to provide emergency services, increases in land value and agglomeration benefits. Negative externalities are wide-ranging and may include local air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, safety hazards, community severance and congestion. The contribution of transport systems to potentially hazardous climate change is a significant negative externality which is difficult to evaluate quantitatively, making it difficult (but not impossible) to include in transport economics-based research and analysis. --snip-- http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Our_natural_habitat.html?viewAll=Y&text=— Talking point sleuth
- "And that doesn't even cover the question of local roads, which are funded through property and other taxes." Yes, because mass transit users, bikers, and walkers never use local roads. Brilliant. And 70% of the fundign is from user fees, and ti would be higher if they didn't divert funds to mass transit. So the subsidization is pretty darned low for the roads. And it could be reduced further if the government sold them off, but that would blow your statist mind.— RG
- Traffic jams and noise pollution are not extenralities that require government intervention, no matter what wiki tells you.— RG
- ---}}} but simply to state that scientists just don't know enough about climate to know the true cause. Thanks for backing that up. {{{--- LOL! In the 70s, the majority of scientists said there were inconclusive data to make predictions with a sufficient degree of certainty, but those who felt there were enough data predicted warming by a large margin. Now, the vast majority of scientists think there is enough data, and the vast majority of them say that they can predict warming with reasonable certainty. And to make that point, you talked about the 1970s Time Magazine article, and to say that "scientists just don't know enough?" Hilarious, Buck.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} Traffic jams and noise pollution are not extenralities that require government intervention, no matter what wiki tells you. {{{--- LOL! Traffic jams are a huge cost associated with a lack of productivity. It is real, RG, whether you want to ignore it or not. When you're comparing costs and benefits of various systems of transportation, it only makes sense to compare their relative efficiencies in moving people. Public transportation policy and highway policy makers must consider the relative efficiency of what their building before they built it. That you think that isn't the case is laughable. What business doesn't consider the efficiencies of what they invest in? Sound pollution is an externality depending on whether it affects the health of the local community (no different than other forms of pollution in that regard). When a community decides to spend tax money to build sound walls to control for noise pollution, it is definitely an externality of highway traffic. Your ability to seek out a free lunch, and your concern about "moral hazard," is highly selective, RG. You rail in thread after thread about irresponsible people who are looking for handouts, yet you think that automobile drivers should not have to consider the costs of their activities to those around them - and further, you think the burden of those costs should be carried by people who don't even drive.— Talking point sleuth
- "Traffic jams are a huge cost associated with a lack of productivity. It is real, RG" My goodness, what nonsense. Yes, traffic jam delays compltetely outweigh the prodcutivity increases that came with increased car ownership. "Public transportation policy and highway policy makers must consider the relative efficiency of what their building before they built it." Or they might want to consider if there is a demand that can sustain it. "and further, you think the burden of those costs should be carried by people who don't even drive." Good point, because people who don't drive don't use goods shipped on highways. They are simply burdened by those awful externailites like noise pollution and receive no benefits from road transportation.— RG
- ---}}} Yes, traffic jam delays compltetely outweigh the prodcutivity increases that came with increased car ownership. {{{--- Wow! I never said any such thing, RG. But the point remains, when you're talking about investing money, today, in various modes of transportation - you have to consider the efficiencies of what you're investing in. But I am glad to see that you are finally realizing the huge benefits we received as a country FROM GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN A HIGHWAY SYSTEM THROUGH TAX DOLLARS.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Or they might want to consider if there is a demand that can sustain it. {{{--- The fact that you think that no such consideration is made just goes to show how little you understand about policy development. Talk to a city or transportation planner some time, RG. A huge portion of their work includes measuring differences in the likely usage of various projects. It is a huge factor in determinations of what does and doesn't get funded (although it is also often heavily influenced by vested interests such as the interests of a wealthy community versus a poor community, the interests of union construction, etc.) And there are thousands of miles of roads that were build where the demand could never have justified the construction costs on a profit basis. If you didn't include externalities, such as access for emergency vehicles, those roads would never have been built - and our country would have been that much worse off as a result.— Talking point sleuth
- "Wow! I never said any such thing, RG." I believe you are arguing that this isn't priced into driving but should be, however you faled to account for the positive externalites that occur from driving. And all of this shows why the idea of pricing externalities is nonsensical. It is impossible to measure and price them, because virtually anything can be considered an externality and they would effect individuals is different ways.— RG
- "Talk to a city or transportation planner some time, RG." Bridge to Nowhere. Johnstown airport. Very efficient. Or Cali's high speed rail. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/project-225878-speed-high.html— RG
- Or you could look at Japan's infratructure spending the past two decades, which has led to new, barely used roads and bridges. All to "stimulate" their economy.— RG
- Or we could look at the recent BART defections. Once considered an example of mass transit success, BART ridership is declining as they raise prices to reflect actual costs (although BART is still heavily subsidized). http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-transportation/ci_14142274%29— RG
- ---}}} I believe you are arguing that this isn't priced into driving but should be, however you faled to account for the positive externalites that occur from driving. And all of this shows why the idea of pricing externalities is nonsensical. It is impossible to measure {{{--- I'm not saying those costs should be calculated in and costed out at this point, retroactively. I said that you ignore the costs associated in the building of roads in your conclusions about whether or not government investment in infrastructure is valuable. You claim that drivers assume the full costs of roads, and while that isn't true in any account, it certainly isn't true if you consider how much money was invested by non-drivers to build the roads that are currently in use. They would never have been built if your "private sector only" Shanrgi-La existed. They didn't just drop down from the sky, RG. There were also costs associated with the benefits of public transportation which currently exists. But I'm not claiming that they should be accounted for at this point, nor am I saying that past productivity benefits should be accounted for retroactively. Yes, that would be ridiculous. On the other hand, I absolutely say that relative efficiency should be factored into costing investment in highways versus public transportation. That is the entire point. Pollution effects going forward should be accounted for also. As many externalities as possible should be accounted for as well as possible. That is what any reasonable investor would do when the consider an investment. Instead, you just want to pretend that very real externalities don't exist, and then rely on other people to assume the burden of their costs. Talk about "moral hazard." LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "They would never have been built if your "private sector only" Shanrgi-La existed." As Billy Ray already pointed out, there were private roads in England. And the railroads were originally privately built. This would offer the solution of true pricing, as it would be paid for by users only. "Instead, you just want to pretend that very real externalities don't exist, and then rely on other people to assume the burden of their costs" Translation: only factor in externailites that raise driving costs and push forth your agenda.— RG
- The situation with BART is perfect for illustrating the moral hazard of not accounting for the costs of externalities. When you don't account for those costs, you wind up subsidizing automobile travel in an indirect fashion. When you don't account for the local taxes people pay on the roads that get them to the highways. When you don't account for the tax money that goes to pay for traffic control, EMTs, medical costs, the impact of pollution (increased asthma in city kids caused by suburban drivers that don't assume the costs of how the cars they sit in on city highways affect the health of people in the surrounding community). If you isolated that money, say, and labeled it as a "road tax" that people could not pay if they chose to take public transportation, using automobiles would be far less popular. Also, in the situation with BART, decisions were made to spend funds in inefficient ways that had differential benefit to wealthy communities. (I never said that government was perfect - only that your hatred of government incorporates an unrealistic fantasy about the alternative). Agreed, however, that into the mix you need to try to calculate the fact that people in the city buy products that are transported over highways. But if those costs were pegged and labeled accurately, it would only highlight the benefits of more efficient means of transportation.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} As Billy Ray already pointed out, there were private roads in England. And the railroads were originally privately built. This would offer the solution of true pricing, as it would be paid for by users only. {{{--- LOL! And you really think that we would have gone from private turnpike only travel to the highway system we built - which undoubtedly supported the economic growth of the country - without government investment in our roads systems? You can't be serious, RG. Just as it is just completely illogical to think that the intercontinental railroads would have been build without massive government investment. You're just throwing anything at the wall now, RG. And a for-profit system would only be "true pricing" if you ignore very real external costs to the larger community. That is like you saying that an article that shows that meat companies actively fought against testing meat is proof that companies will self-regulate the safety of their profits because they consider long-term costs and benefits. ---}}} Translation: only factor in externailites that raise driving costs and push forth your agenda. {{{--- And that would be completely wrong. I have stated over and over that both positive and negative externalities, on both sides, should be figured in to investment decisions as comprehensively as possible. You, on the other hand, think that externalities should just be ignored so that you can leave the burden of the costs of externalities to others.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS, you enver cease to amaze me. Guess you ignored the negative externailites of transit, which meant longer commute times, delays, etc. And you once again ignore the positive externalities of driving, which is increased productivity.— RG
- "You, on the other hand, think that externalities should just be ignored so that you can leave the burden of the costs of externalities to others." Or I see the complete folly in trying to calculate and net the effects of nosie pollution vs the benefits of productivity and access to goods. And they are just two of your externalities, there could be thousands more. Past weighing the net costs/benefits of untold amounts of externalities, we'd then have o run the exercise for each and every person who may be affected by them. Yeah, thats a reasonable goal.— RG
- Heck, even the people who push for mass transit don't take it. http://reason.com/archives/2007/09/17/politicians-love-transit-just— RG
- ---}}} Guess you ignored the negative externailites of transit, which meant longer commute times, delays, etc. {{{--- Not at all, RG. That is definitely a factor, and should be accounted for when investment decisions are made. You keep saying that I am being selective about which costs and benefits should be accounted for, and I have NEVER supported that conclusion. I am saying that ALL costs and benefits should be accounted for as accurately as possible. Driving has historically increased productivity. As to whether it increases productivity at this point is a function of such factors as commuter time. Absolutely, commuter time should be part of the calculation of weighing costs and benefits of various transportation alternatives. I never said it should be done on only one side. That would make no sense. I said that earlier, and your absolutely ridiculed the idea of productivity being relevant - and now you say that the impact of productivity is a relevant factor. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Or I see the complete folly in trying to calculate and net the effects of nosie pollution vs the benefits of productivity and access to goods. {{{--- ---}}} So, instead, you are perfectly content to drive on roads that would never have been built without GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT, and just letting the local residents affected by your automobile travel just suck it up and deal with it. Nice, RG. Real responsible. I'm sure you'd fee that way if a private company bought the land right next to your house and built a noisy highway or some kind of noisy, polluting industry. Yeah. I'm sure. You'd never be clamoring for government controlled zoning laws, or for enforcement of nuisance laws or environmental impact laws. After all, you voluntarily invested in a house right next door to where someone eventually decided to build. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "I said that earlier, and your absolutely ridiculed the idea of productivity being relevant - and now you say that the impact of productivity is a relevant factor. LOL!" I'm playing by your rules and assuming these are all externalities that require intervention. Do me a favor, list all of the externalities, positive and negative, caused by driving. Then put together a plan on how to accurately account for their net costs/benefits and apply it to a diverse society of thousands of individuals.— RG
- "After all, you voluntarily invested in a house right next door to where someone eventually decided to build." Yep, I could have bought the surrounding land if I wanted to prevent anyone from acquiring it. I could lobby the gov to stop it from being built, of course this has potentially negative consequences, such as loss of jobs, loss of whatever service the new building may provide, reduced tax burden, etc, etc, etc.— RG
- LOL! Did you read the title of the book written by the author of the article you linked, RG? "Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think and What We Can Do About It."— Talking point sleuth
- The book is partially about the misguided public policy of favoring mass transit over roads. Might want to read the summary TPS.— RG
- ---}}} The book is partially about the misguided public policy of favoring mass transit over roads. Might want to read the summary TPS. {{{--- I'm all for a level-headed analysis done considering various perspectives and weighing various alternatives, RG. Apparently the book does that, and concludes that private auto travel wins out in the end. But it also apparently advocates for (1) some investment in public transportation, and (2) government investment in infrastructure development along with private sector investment, and (3) using European countries as models for what we should do. Hey, bring on the analysis. What I'm against is people sticking their heads in the sand, pretending that externalities (like congestion) don't exist, and waiting around for someone else to clean up their mess. It's a moral hazard.— Talking point sleuth
- "It's a moral hazard." Sure, the gas tax, registration fees, and tolls I pay lead to moral hazard 'cause non drivers clearly suffer from the existence of roads. And since you already admitted you couldn't properly calculate and apply externalities, lets just assuming driving is a net negative and raise the costs. Meanwhile, bailing out banks and autos, detaching cost from consumption in healht care, and various other social welfare programs don't cause moral hazard.— RG
- First federally funded road was the Cumberland Road (or National Road) in 1811, still in existence, with a few original milestones and toll booths standing, as US 40 from Cumberland to Wheeling. It was critical to the rapid settlement of the West and growth of the nation until the railroads took over. It seems even our freedom loving founding fathers took the "General Welfare" of the nation seriously. They even gave Congress tax and spend authority to provide for it. Were they marxists?
- Holy cow. When I see the RG/Talking Point Sleuth back and forth, I just tune out. You two should either meet for a debate, or meet for a boxing match. Either way, end this, please.— General_Turgidson
Outfit such as the Sierra Club will never allow this to happen in our lifetimes, and Barry knows it.— ocjones
I would be more supportive of nuclear power if it weren't for the waste issue. This has been a problem for years, aided by the NIMBY issue as to where to put it. If a way of developing a method for the radioactive waste's disposal can be found, I'll be more open about it. I do agree that nuclear power needs to be on the table given the imminent problems from climate change (deniers not withstanding), but I think more research needs to be done on how to safely dispose of the waste. I also worry about a Chernobyl like disaster and would like to see the government quell those worries by discussing safety measures at plants.- "I cannot wait till the Global warming fools HAVE TO ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG" What will it take for you fools to admit you are wrong? Being under water on Times Square?
- Comment removed.
- Mr. Bunch, if you had been spread-eagled - stark naked - on the chain link fence just beside the main gate throughout the entire course of that "near melt-down at Three Mile Island" in 1979, you would've absorbed less ionizing radiation than you would've gotten in the course of a routine chest x-ray. ### The TMI incident demonstrated that prevailing light-water fission reactor design was so damned reliable that in spite of operator error, the bloody thing was safer than Luddite losers like you could ever imagine. ### I recommend the late Petr Beckmann's *The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear* (1976, continued without significant revision after TMI) to put power generation into perspective. Light water nukes employ what is indisputably the SAFEST modality for industrial-level power generation, the most cost-effective, and the most efficient. ### And "global warming" STILL isn't "on the radar screen." Reference Climategate if nothing else, folks. -30-— Tucci78
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: