The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah why would you want to fix crumbling roads and bridges when you can build an inefficient, over budget, highly subsidized, not for profit rail system? Seems like a good expenditure of capital to me.

First of all, that isn't the equation here for the governor of WI. His equation is either he gets the rail stuff, with all the jobs and business that go with it... or he gets nothing. That's the way the money was allocated at the federal level.

 

Second, I LOL when people refer to "heavily subsidized" rail. Rail is heavily subsidized, but roads are COMPLETELY subsidized.

 

Now, the NJ governor's decision, at least makes some kind of sense. His state was on the hook for a known few billion dollars, as well as any overruns which also may be billions. So in his case, there is a real decision to make when it comes to best use of funds.

 

But Wisconsin was getting a full federal funding for this project, a billion dollar's worth resulting in many jobs and other positive financial effects... in exchange for a couple million a year going forward. The decision there that he made is idiotic and 100% political to make a point.

 

[southsider2k5]

First of all, that isn't the equation here for the governor of WI. His equation is either he gets the rail stuff, with all the jobs and business that go with it... or he gets nothing. That's the way the money was allocated at the federal level.

 

Second, I LOL when people refer to "heavily subsidized" rail. Rail is heavily subsidized, but roads are COMPLETELY subsidized.

 

Now, the NJ governor's decision, at least makes some kind of sense. His state was on the hook for a known few billion dollars, as well as any overruns which also may be billions. So in his case, there is a real decision to make when it comes to best use of funds.

 

But Wisconsin was getting a full federal funding for this project, a billion dollar's worth resulting in many jobs and other positive financial effects... in exchange for a couple million a year going forward. The decision there that he made is idiotic and 100% political to make a point.

 

Roads to have a tax that is supposed to be funding them.

[Cknolls]

First of all, that isn't the equation here for the governor of WI. His equation is either he gets the rail stuff, with all the jobs and business that go with it... or he gets nothing. That's the way the money was allocated at the federal level.

 

Second, I LOL when people refer to "heavily subsidized" rail. Rail is heavily subsidized, but roads are COMPLETELY subsidized.

 

Now, the NJ governor's decision, at least makes some kind of sense. His state was on the hook for a known few billion dollars, as well as any overruns which also may be billions. So in his case, there is a real decision to make when it comes to best use of funds.

 

But Wisconsin was getting a full federal funding for this project, a billion dollar's worth resulting in many jobs and other positive financial effects... in exchange for a couple million a year going forward. The decision there that he made is idiotic and 100% political to make a point.

 

 

Name me a high speed rail line that is profitable? Not a portion of a line . An entire high speed rail line.

[NorthSideSox72]

Name me a high speed rail line that is profitable? Not a portion of a line . An entire high speed rail line.

Well this is easy - there is only one high speed rail line in the entire US as I understand it, its the Acela, and it is profitable and keeps Amtrak afloat.

 

So I am not sure what you are getting at here.

 

Also, you guys are missing the point - I am not saying this specific rail project made financial sense (because I don't know the data), I am saying the situation the WI governor was in was really quite simple, and he made a stupid decision to make a point.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Roads to have a tax that is supposed to be funding them.

Just like the rail subsidies, except rail actually earns some of that cost back, so its contributing more than the roads are in that regard.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Now, the NJ governor's decision, at least makes some kind of sense. His state was on the hook for a known few billion dollars, as well as any overruns which also may be billions. So in his case, there is a real decision to make when it comes to best use of funds.

 

But Wisconsin was getting a full federal funding for this project, a billion dollar's worth resulting in many jobs and other positive financial effects... in exchange for a couple million a year going forward. The decision there that he made is idiotic and 100% political to make a point.

 

Actually, this is where we disagree. The state of NJ was on the hook for 3 billion over 10 years. This 3 billion would create about 6000 jobs directly over ten years. Construction had started, they'd already spent a couple hundred million. By killing the program a year in, NJ ends up on the hook for another 300 million. For 0 gain.

 

So rather than have the possibility of cost overruns 10 years from now, he took a 600 million dollar hit today.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, this is where we disagree. The state of NJ was on the hook for 3 billion over 10 years. This 3 billion would create about 6000 jobs directly over ten years. Construction had started, they'd already spent a couple hundred million. By killing the program a year in, NJ ends up on the hook for another 300 million. For 0 gain.

 

So rather than have the possibility of cost overruns 10 years from now, he took a 600 million dollar hit today.

I'm actually not saying I agree or disagree with the NJ situation - I am saying that in that situation, the math is more complicated, and I can understand opposing viewpoints.

 

Wisconsin, really, made zero sense.

 

[Cknolls]

Well this is easy - there is only one high speed rail line in the entire US as I understand it, its the Acela, and it is profitable and keeps Amtrak afloat.

 

So I am not sure what you are getting at here.

 

Also, you guys are missing the point - I am not saying this specific rail project made financial sense (because I don't know the data), I am saying the situation the WI governor was in was really quite simple, and he made a stupid decision to make a point.

 

 

Acela is part of a line, only travels high speed part of way. Reading Gartman letter this morning, he mentions a high speed rail line linking VA. Beach to Norfolk. BTW, he lives in VA. The proposed cost five years ago was $300 million, current incomplete rail line cost is 1.7 billion and rising with in his opinion few people likelt to use it.

[Rex Kickass]

Acela is part of a line, only travels high speed part of way. Reading Gartman letter this morning, he mentions a high speed rail line linking VA. Beach to Norfolk. BTW, he lives in VA. The proposed cost five years ago was $300 million, current incomplete rail line cost is 1.7 billion and rising with in his opinion few people likelt to use it.

 

Actually, if you want to get technical, Acela is a brand which refers to a specific type of trainset used by Amtrak to travel high speeds on the Northeast Corridor, the only section of track that Amtrak really controls. This service area stretches between Boston and Washington D.C. Other trains operating with similar schedules in the Northeast Corridor are referred to as "Northeast Regional" and operate and are marketed separately.

 

In as much as you can have a true high speed rail line in the US, the Acela is as complete as you can get.

 

By your logic, the TGV, ICE, Pendolino, X2000 and all the other high speed rail services in Europe are also only part of a line as well, because they operate on tracks shared with lower speed trains, and are run as part of national transportation networks.

[NorthSideSox72]

Acela is part of a line, only travels high speed part of way. Reading Gartman letter this morning, he mentions a high speed rail line linking VA. Beach to Norfolk. BTW, he lives in VA. The proposed cost five years ago was $300 million, current incomplete rail line cost is 1.7 billion and rising with in his opinion few people likelt to use it.

So you're saying that the only high speed rail actually functioning right now in the US makes money, but some other projects to create new ones are experiencing cost overruns. Right? Those are two different issues. That's like saying expressways don't work because some of them cost multiple times over their original estimates, which happens all the time.

 

The fact is that the Acela is the only real high speed rail working in the US right now, and it makes money.

 

[Balta1701]

The Department of Justice has filed its case in the big BP oil spill lawsuit. This is the part where the law explicitly states that the company owes the government a certain amount of money for every barrel spilled, which could total about $20 billion in this case.

The Justice Department on Wednesday is expected to seek to join civil lawsuits stemming from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the first major federal legal action in the disaster, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

By joining the private litigation, Justice Department lawyers are positioning themselves to play a major role in the coming litigation, including depositions of key witnesses. That could aid the government's continuing probe into the disaster aimed at building a civil and possibly a criminal case against the companies involved, these people said.

 

...

The fines under the Clean Water Act could at a minimum amount to $4.5 billion, which would amount to $1,100 for each of the estimated 4.1 million barrels that spilled and wasn't cleaned up into the waters. A maximum fine could be $21 billion if gross negligence is found by the courts. That fine would carry a $4,300 penalty for each of the total of 4.9 million barrels.

[kapkomet]

The Department of Justice has filed its case in the big BP oil spill lawsuit. This is the part where the law explicitly states that the company owes the government a certain amount of money for every barrel spilled, which could total about $20 billion in this case.

 

HANG EM! Now... if this all is going to fund cleanup efforts and that's what it costs, they should pay.

[Balta1701]

HANG EM! Now... if this all is going to fund cleanup efforts and that's what it costs, they should pay.

Well, no, the $25 billion fine is what the law mandates the government must seek under the Clean Water Act in the event of gross negligence on the part of the drilling company. That's basically a punitive fine/money to make up for the fact that the government technically owns that oil and BP decided to dump it.

[kapkomet]

Well, no, the $25 billion fine is what the law mandates the government must seek under the Clean Water Act in the event of gross negligence on the part of the drilling company. That's basically a punitive fine/money to make up for the fact that the government technically owns that oil and BP decided to dump it.

Ok, what do they do with that money?

[Balta1701]

Ok, what do they do with that money?

Estate tax cuts!

 

(Seriously, it's like any other penalty/fee that comes into the government. It goes into the government's coffers. It probably pays for the organization that collects it, so that they need less funding the next year).

[Rex Kickass]

Ok, what do they do with that money?

 

Why should that even matter?

[southsider2k5]

The Department of Justice has filed its case in the big BP oil spill lawsuit. This is the part where the law explicitly states that the company owes the government a certain amount of money for every barrel spilled, which could total about $20 billion in this case.

 

I'm sure the poorest will appreciate this new tax.

[Balta1701]

I'm sure the poorest will appreciate this new tax.

WTF?

[Balta1701]

While we're on the subject of BP, Wikileaks chimed in today.

Striking resemblances between BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster and a little-reported giant gas leak in Azerbaijan experienced by the UK firm 18 months beforehand have emerged from leaked US embassy cables.

 

The cables reveal that some of BP's partners in the gas field were upset that the company was so secretive about the incident that it even allegedly withheld information from them. They also say that BP was lucky that it was able to evacuate its 212 workers safely after the incident, which resulted in two fields being shut and output being cut by at least 500,000 barrels a day with production disrupted for months.

 

Other cables leaked tonight claim that the president of Azerbaijan accused BP of stealing $10bn of oil from his country and using "mild blackmail" to secure the rights to develop vast gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region.

[Soxy]

Illinois also got a chunk of that money, and so did some other states, though CA got the biggest piece. And the IL legislature is looking at a package to woo that rail company to move to Illinois instead of Wisconsin, since Illinois is continuing to do the rail projects and is so near where the current facility is.

 

Not a good start for the new governor of WI - throwing away thousands of jobs and unknown increased tourism dollars to save $2M a year.

 

And he is already pissing off state employees, rejecting contracts for employees and generally being an asshat. He has discussed privatizing the UW system. I call him That Idiot Walker.

[kapkomet]

Why should that even matter?

 

 

Best post of the year, right there Rexy. Thanks for illustrating THE point to all of this nonsense described as how our government works.

[Balta1701]

Best post of the year, right there Rexy. Thanks for illustrating THE point to all of this nonsense described as how our government works.

Huh?

[NorthSideSox72]

Huh?

He's saying it seems wrong to him that the government should be taking money without some purpose for it in mind, and he apparently finds is sad and societally reflective that some people don't agree.

 

Thing is, this isn't a tax, its a punitive penalty. You don't decide punitive penalties based on your need for money, because if you do, then that is far, far worse.

 

[Balta1701]

He's saying it seems wrong to him that the government should be taking money without some purpose for it in mind, and he apparently finds is sad and societally reflective that some people don't agree.

 

Thing is, this isn't a tax, its a punitive penalty. You don't decide punitive penalties based on your need for money, because if you do, then that is far, far worse.

Well, that makes more sense to me about what he's saying...but I stand by my confusion.

[Rex Kickass]

Best post of the year, right there Rexy. Thanks for illustrating THE point to all of this nonsense described as how our government works.

 

I see what you did there. But if you can challenge a punitive fine to BP because you don't agree with where that money is being spent, does that then justify you not paying a parking ticket because you disagree with waste and inefficiency in the police department or whatever it is you feel like pissing on at that moment.

 

The truth is that if BP is found guilty of gross negligence and is given punitive fines according to what the law allows, it absolutely shouldn't make a difference if the government applies the money from that fines to continued cleanup or justice department blowouts at Scores. What should matter is that BP should pay its debt to society just like everyone else in the country would have to do, and comply with the laws that govern it - just like everyone else in this country is expected to do.

 

So I'm going to rephrase my question. If its a fine because BP broke the law, why does the planned expenditure (if any) of the punitive fine as prescribed by law even matter?