 |
Re: Aha. Money in the pocket trumps clean air? LMAO.... Or maybe sad as hell at the hypocrisy?
Author: BOB2
Date: 11-16-2024 - 11:55
* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For Bay Area policy makers, it's fine if their
> dirty diesels run in another country.
>
> "When Caltrain put their 1985 F40 diesel
> locomotives on the market,
> the fine print noted that the engines had to be
> inoperable due to
> a state grant funding agreement. When building out
> the $2.4 billion
> electrification project, Caltrain agreed to
> decommission and disable
> the locomotive engines to receive funding. To send
> the trains to
> Lima for further use, Caltrain had to first
> procure a waiver from the
> Bay Area Air Quality Management District so the
> trains could still
> return to service."
The hypocrisy and pseudoscience in this transfer of locomotive greenhouse gas emissions to another country on the same frickin' "planet" is not lost on me.
As someone who understands that the meaning of a 2-degree mean global temperature rise recorded in just 200 years (the last time earth did this, it took about twenty thousand years, and Chicago was no longer under a half a mile thick ice sheet), I would be exporting Monterey shale fracking gas to India, to make those "green" Indian electrified railroads about four times cleaner, than burning the dirtiest coal in the world to make the electricity. That is if we were really serious about the "troubles" we already now have coming our way from this near-term irreversible scenario.
Now, someone from one of these rail "advocacy" outfits, or, of course, Clem, can point out to me just how "evil" "dirty" and "dangerous" hydrogen really is. And why we should oppose it's use on the Arrow, as an insidious dastardly attempt to save taxpayers a lot of money to save the "planet".
-------------------------------------------------------
> For Bay Area policy makers, it's fine if their
> dirty diesels run in another country.
>
> "When Caltrain put their 1985 F40 diesel
> locomotives on the market,
> the fine print noted that the engines had to be
> inoperable due to
> a state grant funding agreement. When building out
> the $2.4 billion
> electrification project, Caltrain agreed to
> decommission and disable
> the locomotive engines to receive funding. To send
> the trains to
> Lima for further use, Caltrain had to first
> procure a waiver from the
> Bay Area Air Quality Management District so the
> trains could still
> return to service."
The hypocrisy and pseudoscience in this transfer of locomotive greenhouse gas emissions to another country on the same frickin' "planet" is not lost on me.
As someone who understands that the meaning of a 2-degree mean global temperature rise recorded in just 200 years (the last time earth did this, it took about twenty thousand years, and Chicago was no longer under a half a mile thick ice sheet), I would be exporting Monterey shale fracking gas to India, to make those "green" Indian electrified railroads about four times cleaner, than burning the dirtiest coal in the world to make the electricity. That is if we were really serious about the "troubles" we already now have coming our way from this near-term irreversible scenario.
Now, someone from one of these rail "advocacy" outfits, or, of course, Clem, can point out to me just how "evil" "dirty" and "dangerous" hydrogen really is. And why we should oppose it's use on the Arrow, as an insidious dastardly attempt to save taxpayers a lot of money to save the "planet".
