Steam & Excursion > Are steam tourist lines next?

Link

http://www.freep.com/article/20121130/NEWS06/121130045/S-S-Badger-Lake-Michigan-permit-coal-ash?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CMichigan%20news

I don't see how this is related. Steam tourist lines don't dump tons of waste into a lake. That said, weren't there hundreds of ships on the Great Lakes that did the exact same thing in years past? So why is ONE ship a problem now? Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos don't have anything better to do than screw around with something people actually use, want, and enjoy.

I would agree..... But steam locomotive in general are a target to unelected government officials. The C&TS and D&S have both been shut down for periods of weeks some summers by forest service officials who basically decided they didn't like dealing with trains. The Badger scenario is very real for anything that's a financially marginal operation that would need legal help to stop uncalled for regulations.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see how this is related. Steam tourist
> lines don't dump tons of waste into a lake. That
> said, weren't there hundreds of ships on the Great
> Lakes that did the exact same thing in years past?
> So why is ONE ship a problem now? Oh wait, the
> environmentalist wackos don't have anything better
> to do than screw around with something people
> actually use, want, and enjoy.

Steve Krause
Chillicothe, IL

SR_Krause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would agree..... But steam locomotive in general
> are a target to unelected government officials.
> The C&TS and D&S have both been shut down for
> periods of weeks some summers by forest service
> officials who basically decided they didn't like
> dealing with trains. The Badger scenario is very
> real for anything that's a financially marginal
> operation that would need legal help to stop
> uncalled for regulations.
>
> andersonb109 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't see how this is related. Steam tourist
> > lines don't dump tons of waste into a lake.
> That
> > said, weren't there hundreds of ships on the
> Great
> > Lakes that did the exact same thing in years
> past?
> > So why is ONE ship a problem now? Oh wait, the
> > environmentalist wackos don't have anything
> better
> > to do than screw around with something people
> > actually use, want, and enjoy.

They were shut down due to fire danger according to my sources...

The answer, said the canary in the coal mine (and the messenger) is "yes" -- coal-burning tourist railroads have to keep pace with public consciousness, like it or not.

We can slam the EPA or environmentally-conscious officials or use pejoratives like "tree-huggers" all we like on our own time. But what I overheard five years ago in Silverton will continue to be played out in public around smoking artifacts like steam locomotives and ships with boilers, and ever more so as coal continues as a hot-button item in American politics.

What did I hear in Silverton? A woman old enough to have remembered steam locomotives from her childhood, telling her husband the photographer and railfan to move away from "the pollution!" (It was some lazy, sweet smoke from a Mudhen at rest.)

If we don't have ready answers for our kids and grandkids about why that smoke isn't injurious, poisonous, or simply evil and hurting our Planet, we're not being good educators, or forward-looking stewards of our beloved steam power.

And for the record... I love the smell of coal smoke in the morning. And hate that the "Badger" is under the gun, and think that ship deserves a break and a waiver. But you can't wish away a shift in public consciousness, or feel comfortable mocking or diminishing the opposing voices. You have to embrace the issue head on. Hug it, even.

~ Bob Z.

My opinion is that there should ALWAYS be an historical exemption. The use is so small in comparison to daily industrial use that it's laughable.

Unfortunately, a lot of people like to take advantage of the fact that the National Environmental Protection Act is poorly written and has no lower threshold for action, so everything no matter how small is legally actionable.

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..

The problem is the "Public" that voices opinions in opposition of such pieces of History as the Badger is a small minority with a loud voice.

Harlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My opinion is that there should ALWAYS be an
> historical exemption. The use is so small in
> comparison to daily industrial use that it's
> laughable.
>
> Unfortunately, a lot of people like to take
> advantage of the fact that the National
> Environmental Protection Act is poorly written and
> has no lower threshold for action, so everything
> no matter how small is legally actionable.

And perhaps the education Bob refers to should start now, and here. The "National Environmental Protection Act," NEPA, is not the issue. It applies only to actions undertaken by federal agencies, and requires those agencies to undertake an assessment of the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. It sets no numerical environmental standards. As an example, when a company applies for a permit to conduct an activity impacting waters of the United States, the agency that is being asked to issue the permit must evaluate the environmental effects of the permit decision under NEPA. So at most, NEPA would require EPA to consider environmental effects in making its decision whether to issue a new permit, but generally courts have ruled that by its core mission, EPA does such an assessment in all its decision-making, so I don't know if a separate analysis under NEPA would even be required in this instance. I don't know what law or laws govern whatever permit is necessary, though I suspect the Clean Water Act may be one of them. But as Bob suggested, these discussions are best served when the arguments, regardless of point of view, are informed. rather than simply guided by knee-jerk reactions.

For the record, cool ship. However, I'm not keen on dumping several hundred tons of coal ash into one of the great lakes, and it seems likely there is a better way, even if it remains coal-fired.

Elizabeth

The company that runs the Badger has known for years that the dumping permit was going to expire at the end of this season. Instead of converting to fuel oil, they have chosen to fantasize about gas propulsion. AFAIK, there are zero ships powered by LNG, or similar.

The Badger is a neat ride, even better if you stay overnight as we did. But the proprietors knew or should have known that the existing practice couldn't be sustained.

They still have time to install a conventional system.

jc76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is the "Public" that voices opinions
> in opposition of such pieces of History as the
> Badger is a small minority with a loud voice.

I'm going to paraphrase Megyn Kelly of Fox News and ask, is this real arithmetic or just the kind you use to make yourself feel better? Because it appears to be an anecdotal claim completely unsupported by data.

Elizabeth

Let me suggest that the people that VOICE (in public) opposition to (or support of) almost anything, are an almost vanishingly small percentage of the general population of an area. They also very commonly don't have a one to one correspondence to VOTERS of the area, because a lot of these sort of things recruit loud voices from out of the area, and are often organized from people out of the area.

So one might question whether the loud voices really correspond to the beliefs of the general people in the area. The real answer of course is that nobody knows, because in general neither the politicians nor the press attempt to find out the real beliefs of the people that are actually affected. The real voters may or may not agree with the loud people in front of the cameras.