
Goodbye, bullet trains and windmills - kqr2
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/06/08/infrastructure_concrete_rail_lind/
======
chasingsparks
I understand articles like this are meant to introduce ideas to a very wide
swath of people, but I really dislike them. There are too many disparate
points. It started with unemployment; wadded into Keynesian economics; took a
shot at Wall Street; invoked FDR; and hinted that governments are required for
scientific progress. That's way too much for one article.

If you want to say trains and windmills are not the best form of investment
with regards to the environment and economic costs, talk about that. All the
added political weight just makes the article divisive. Part of his policy
prescriptions are predicated upon infrastructure spending, so you could say
the "added weight" was required. I think it just makes the article weaker.

------
russell
These are all good points, but pretty shortsighted. Yes, convert from coal to
natural gas. Yes, build cleaner nuclear. But we cant continue to build dams..
the good spots are gone and we need the few remaining wild rivers because they
are part of our heritage.

What he dismisses is technological progress. Maybe, solar aren't cost
effective now. but they are getting better by the year. The subsidies are
worth it to get there. And he doenst even talk about conservation measures
like more fuel efficient cars or painting all the roofs in America white.

He dismisses bullet trains too easily. Sure, cross continent maglevs dont make
sense, but SF to LA is faster than airplanes + security theater. I shudder to
think of the highway construction necessary to support 500 million people.
Maybe telecommuting and self-driving cars are a better alternative.

~~~
nickpinkston
In a round about way, I think he's dismissing thinking current technology is a
panacea - as the (mostly idealistic) environmental movement would have us
believe.

The real issue though of is what should we target the ratio of deployment
versus R&D of of such tech. Whenever I hear a politician brag about how many
solar panels they installed, it sounds like corporatism. How about an X-Prize
/ grants for alternate energy with REAL metrics.

Maglevs don't really make any sense compare to standard high-speed electric
rail (BulletTrain, TGV, etc.). However, I will agree with you 100% that
reducing consumption is rarely mentioned, and is probably the cheapest way of
reducing economic and environmental costs.

However, it's more popular to fund wiz-bangery than to impose un-sexy
fuel/water/etc. taxes.

