Western Railroad Discussion > Supreme Court gave coal a break today.

Perhaps a temperary break but a break non the less. 

"Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?_r=0

Yay to Mercury Poisoning!

Vernthecat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yay to Mercury Poisoning!

Which has been a non issue for decades!! Yay

howeld Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps a temperary break but a break non the
> less. 
>
> "Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia
> wrote: “It is not rational, never mind
> ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars
> in economic costs in return for a few dollars in
> health or environmental benefits. Statutory
> context supports this reading.”"
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court
> -blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?_r=0

So, could this same logic be applied to the mandate that forced RRs to purchase Tier 3 or Tier 4 locos?  Was there actual analysis that included the cost of the purchase of all the new locomotives (likely in the billions of $) compared against the savings associated with improved air quality of the reduced emissions locos?  

How about PTC - was the implementation cost included in the analysis of the mandate that forced the RRs to install a system that would have saved 250 lives over 40+ years (I think that was the stats that were quoted a couple of days ago in a thread)?

I'm sure there are many other cases where orders or laws were established where the cost of implementation was not considered against the "benefit" of the regulation.  I wonder if some midnight oil will be burning in RR's attorneys' offices to understand this ruling and how it might affect some of the current regulations.

You don't know what that crazy bunch of judges will do.  Remember they just said that words do not mean what they say in the health care ruling.  Its gotten so that personal beliefs of the judges mean more than the rule of law.

NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vernthecat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yay to Mercury Poisoning!
>
> Which has been a non issue for decades!! Yay

If mercury pollution is a "non-issue," when why are scientists and doctors urging FDA & EPA to update advisories concerning mercury in fish?

Scientists, doctors & consumer groups urge FDA & EPA to update mercury in fish advisory

Why are state health departments issuing advisories on fish consumption, particularly some types of tuna?

Washington State Health Department advisory on fish consumption



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/15 19:35 by RuleG.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't know what that crazy bunch of judges
> will do.  Remember they just said that words do
> not mean what they say in the health care
> ruling.  Its gotten so that personal beliefs of
> the judges mean more than the rule of law.

Don't hate on the Affordable Care Act. Check the non disclosure of campaign funds the supreme court passed a several  years back. And did the court take into consideration the cost to railroads regarding the  Positive Train Control mandate?  Probable not. I don't see this as a win for coal. Most coal-fired power plants long ago have installed equipment that greatly reduces mercury released into the environment. This ruling merely acknowledges the EPA may not have considered the cost of such installations. Nothing more.

SantaFeRuss

The bad news for climate deniers and Mercury lovers like yourself is that Coal is dying and it will never come back. This ruling isn't even a speed bump in that process. I work from a railroad that makes a lot of money shipping coal.  One day some of us may lose our jobs and I don't care one bit.  A job that benefits a few while harming the many is not sacred.  I'm a citizen of the Earth first and a railroader somewhere after that.  
NS19K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vernthecat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yay to Mercury Poisoning!
>
> Which has been a non issue for decades!! Yay

Vernthecat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bad news for climate deniers and Mercury
> lovers like yourself is that Coal is dying and it
> will never come back. This ruling isn't even a
> speed bump in that process. I work from a railroad
> that makes a lot of money shipping coal.  One day
> some of us may lose our jobs and I don't care one
> bit.  A job that benefits a few while harming the
> many is not sacred.  I'm a citizen of the Earth
> first and a railroader somewhere after that.  
> NS19K Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vernthecat Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yay to Mercury Poisoning!
> >
> > Which has been a non issue for decades!! Yay


Hmmm..... I think I'll turn a few more lights on. 

Soon you'll be turning your lights on with the Tesla Powerwall.  A technology that immediately renders coal useless, obsolete, not to mention a burden on public health.  I'll take the free energy from the sun while you and the other knuckle draggers slurp the coal companies, use their 1800's technology, and most boring off all, repeat their "Don't you like having your lights on?" argument as if we haven't innovated past coal 10x over. 

Elon Musk's Tesla Powerwall. Game Over. Goodnight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k


> Hmmm..... I think I'll turn a few more lights
> on. 

Vernthecat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bad news for climate deniers and Mercury
> lovers like yourself is that Coal is dying and it
> will never come back.

Then you better explain why the BLM is looking to issue 28 new coal leases in the Powder River Basin over the next 20 years.  That's info current as of last month.

While you're at it you better call the governments in Australia, Canada, Columbia, Russia, South Africa, ect and tell them to stop selling coal to China and India...

Yes,  American coal high in sulfur is a dying commodity.  But that doesn't mean low sulfur coal is.  If all the coal burning power plants in the world switched to low sulfur coal it would have an immediate positive impact.  To think otherwise is foolish.


Allen

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/15 20:32 by bradleymckay.

Railfool03 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, could this same logic be applied to the
> mandate that forced RRs to purchase Tier 3 or Tier
> 4 locos?  Was there actual analysis that included
> the cost of the purchase of all the new
> locomotives (likely in the billions of $) compared
> against the savings associated with improved air
> quality of the reduced emissions locos?  

Yup, the double standard is blinding me here. We had a discussion several months ago that Tier 4 regulations that control diesel emissions come at a expense of fuel economy, which means it doesn't help (but actually hurt) the reduction of greenhouse gases.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,3675429

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NS19K Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vernthecat Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yay to Mercury Poisoning!
> >
> > Which has been a non issue for decades!! Yay
>
> If mercury pollution is a "non-issue," when why
> are scientists and doctors urging FDA & EPA to
> update advisories concerning mercury in fish?
>
> Scientists, doctors & consumer groups urge FDA &
> EPA to update mercury in fish advisory
>
> Why are state health departments issuing
> advisories on fish consumption, particularly some
> types of tuna?
>
> Washington State Health Department advisory on
> fish consumption


Surprising that dentists are still cramming mercury laden amalgam into mouths of
countless patients world wide.  The WHO feels that 5% of the world's mercury
emissions are from dental offices into sewers, and that crematories add 1% to the
world's mercury emissions up the stack.  I don't fear mercury emissions from coal
fired power plants as much as I do the gunk in my mouth placed by dentists.
 

> The bad news for climate deniers...
I'm a denier because it's never been explained how the greenhouse gas thing works.  This is what I do know, if a million equal parts of atmosphere were scaled to a inch long and placed end to end.  The parts would stretch from Los Angeles, down the Surf line to just outside San Diego CA.  190 miles.  Of that million parts, 385 of them would be CO2, or 32 ft.  Of these 385 parts, the majority by far are caused by the oceans and volcanos.  Man is responsible for 4% of the CO2 or 15.4 inches.  So how do 15.4 particles per million drive climate?            

 

Verntheshill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I work from a railroad
> that makes a lot of money shipping coal.  One day
> some of us may lose our jobs and I don't care one
> bit.  


Thanks, 'Brother'...

Thje greenhouse effect was discovered some 100 or more years ago. Light at the wavelength of sunlight passes through the atmosphere. This warms the earth which reflects the received heat upwards but at a lower infared wavelenth This infared heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. Somebody did an experiment using a glorified glass jar and showed that air with 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide traps more of the reflected heat than air with a carbon dioxide concentration of 250 parts per million. These concentrations are roughly what was in the air in 2015 and 1800 respectively. Don't worry about the theory. The heat-trapping greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an experimental fact.

CajonRat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The bad news for climate deniers...
> I'm a denier because it's never been explained
> how the greenhouse gas thing works.  This is
> what I do know, if a million equal parts of
> atmosphere were scaled to a inch long and placed
> end to end.  The parts would stretch from Los
> Angeles, down the Surf line to just outside San
> Diego CA.  190 miles.  Of that million parts,
> 385 of them would be CO2, or 32 ft.  Of these 385
> parts, the majority by far are caused by the
> oceans and volcanos.  Man is responsible for 4%
> of the CO2 or 15.4 inches.  So how do 15.4
> particles per million drive climate? 
>           

I would start here

To find this


 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/15 01:14 by portlander.

tomstp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't know what that crazy bunch of judges
> will do.  Remember they just said that words do
> not mean what they say in the health care
> ruling.  Its gotten so that personal beliefs of
> the judges mean more than the rule of law.

It ironic that when the court rules against one groups beliefs, they are "legislating from the bench"...and when they rule in favor...well...then it's judicial protection of the Constitution.

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vernthecat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The bad news for climate deniers and Mercury
> > lovers like yourself is that Coal is dying and
> it
> > will never come back.
>
> Then you better explain why the BLM is looking to
> issue 28 new coal leases in the Powder River Basin
> over the next 20 years.  That's info current as
> of last month.
>
> While you're at it you better call the governments
> in Australia, Canada, Columbia, Russia, South
> Africa, ect and tell them to stop selling coal to
> China and India...
>
> Yes,  American coal high in sulfur is a dying
> commodity.  But that doesn't mean low sulfur coal
> is.  If all the coal burning power plants in the
> world switched to low sulfur coal it would have an
> immediate positive impact.  To think otherwise is
> foolish.
>
>
> Allen
>
>  
You can reduct the contaminates from coal, but you can never eliminate all the particulates or the CO2 it emits. "Clean coal" is an oxymoron.

portlander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CajonRat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > The bad news for climate deniers...
> > I'm a denier because it's never been
> explained
> > how the greenhouse gas thing works.  This is
> > what I do know, if a million equal parts of
> > atmosphere were scaled to a inch long and
> placed
> > end to end.  The parts would stretch from
> Los
> > Angeles, down the Surf line to just outside San
> > Diego CA.  190 miles.  Of that million parts,
> > 385 of them would be CO2, or 32 ft.  Of these
> 385
> > parts, the majority by far are caused by the
> > oceans and volcanos.  Man is responsible for
> 4%
> > of the CO2 or 15.4 inches.  So how do 15.4
> > particles per million drive climate? 
> >           
>
> I would start here
>
> To find this
>
>
>  

I don't understand bridges. If I drive up to a bridge and there are 100 certified bridge/civil engineers standing in front of it and 93 tell me it is unsafe and could fail at any time, then I would be pretty stupid not to heed their advice.

Besides, the latest reading on co2 shows 400ppm. Volcanos have insignificant emmission of co2. In fact, volcanic eruptions are more likely to cause global cooling. (USGS). Oceans are "carbon sinks", in that they absorb co2. But  as they become increasingly more acidic due to increased levels of co2, their ability to absorb the co2 diminishes. (lots of data out there). Currently, it is estimated that 30-50% of global co2 emissions are absorbed into the oceans. (again, lots of date available).

I'm not here to debate the relative merits of Climate change denial. I leave that up to someone else in another blog where it would be more appropriate. I have discovered that most sceptics will never have enough information to change their minds, and I can certainly understand their concerns if their jobs may be affected by any decrease in fossil fuel usage. But, for me, I accept the general scientific consensus that this is a serious issue and that we are in all likelihood, beyond the point of any easy fixes.