Quote:

The EPA Tier system does nothing to reduce carbon emissions, and a Tier 4 diesel is thermodynamically pretty much just as energy-inefficient as a Tier 1 diesel. Once carbon emissions are priced properly to reflect their effect on our future habitat, the business case for electric transportation infrastructure will make a lot more sense financially, not just on the basis of performance. (Those armadas of 737s and A320s will be priced out of the skies too.)

Clem, who said Tier III and IV do anything about greenhouse gas emissions? And, why exactly does that make Caltrain electrification a good investment for greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to other more cost effective investments and strategies?

Once again, the need too cheer lead about Caltrain's "great leap forward" doesn't really seem to respond to the actual question that I've raised. Is it cost effective compared to other investments and strategies. And, that conclusion you came to, and presented to us as an argument or "fact", using aggregate cost averages in the National Transit Data Base, as proof of no difference in operating costs, was a clever bit of sophistry, too. Since, as was pointed out by someone else who really knows, that it doesn't actually say or prove anything of the sort.

I have no problem with reducing carbon emissions, I think the evidence of recorded level of carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere and rising temperature are based on sound physics, and a good history literally millions of independently collected temperature observations worldwide for the last 170 years or so.

What I have aa problem with, is believing that science denial, pseudo-science, and/or emotion laden visionary rhetoric like yours, from either fringe, will answer my question of how to reduce those emissions most efficiently, and with the least intrusive, disruptive, and potentially even destructive unintended consequences, from costly, wasteful, and/or unwise choices, that can occur to us, our society, and our economic well being, when we are wrong and/or make unwise choices.

So since you claim to know Caltrain electrification is such a wise investment because of this future, in which we shall all be charged an optimal carbon tax, which will reduce emission levels enough to stabilize currently rising atmospheric carbon levels, within the limits of the earth's natural carbon cycle. What is the optimal future cost estimate for the marginal o for a ton of CO2 emissions reduced?

And, what is the estimated cost for a marginal ton of CO2 emissions removed from the electrification of Caltrain?