by hausen » May 20, 2017, 7:59 pm
Ohio Bob wrote:Bad science wins out and we can all pay a lot more now.
That is certainly one opinion.
If we want to see post-coal shipping on the Great Lakes flourish, though, we might want to consider making it so the true cost of burning fossil fuels / emitting carbon dioxide is priced into the economy more accurately than it is today. If that was the case, you'd see a lot more cargo (and people) moving on North America's waterways (especially the Great Lakes!) and the decline of coal tonnage wouldn't be such a dire prospect for people who like to see ships sailing the Inland Seas.
In our current economy, the least fuel-efficient (and most carbon-emitting) modes of transportation are often subsidized by our tax dollars, while more efficient (and safer, and less intrusive) ways to move goods and people (like shipping) are either ignored or actively left out of favor. The oil and gas industry gets tons of handouts from our governments, which in the long term is something that will likely only benefit a handful of big shots while the rest of us and our descendents are left to clean up the mess and endure continual shocks to the economy from chaotically changing climate. If we were to calculate the amount of damage to the economy that fossil fuel-induced climate change is causing now and is almost certain to cause over the coming decades (something that even the U.S. Military considers to be the facts on the ground!) and if we were to price that into the cost of fuel today, shipping would suddenly look like a great option for a lot of things that currently move by air, government-subsidized roads, or certain parts of land-based transportation. There's certainly a place for jet air freight, personal cars, and freight trucking in a future economy. If we were to simply level the playing field, or even provide some incentives to use more efficient modes, ship traffic, rail transport, and other more cost-effective ways to move people and goods would play a greater role.
Pricing the true cost of burning fossil fuels all at once would probably be a significant shock to the economy, but time is running out to change things enough to prevent massive economic disruption from climate change in the near future. We in the U.S. and Canada have a huge opportunity to come together and work on a goal even bigger than the Manhattan Project or the Moon Shot. If we were to pace such a venture correctly and execute it meaningfully, a really cool side-effect of our labors would likely be a bustling, growing shipping industry. Raw materials for the steel and building industries, food items, manufactured goods, and even people will still need to move around even if coal does not. Letting shipping shoulder its true share of the workload would means job security for our friends, family, and neighbors in the maritime industry as well as plenty of boats to watch from the shores of the Lakes.
[quote="Ohio Bob"]Bad science wins out and we can all pay a lot more now.[/quote]
That is certainly one opinion.
If we want to see post-coal shipping on the Great Lakes flourish, though, we might want to consider making it so the true cost of burning fossil fuels / emitting carbon dioxide is priced into the economy more accurately than it is today. If that was the case, you'd see a lot more cargo (and people) moving on North America's waterways (especially the Great Lakes!) and the decline of coal tonnage wouldn't be such a dire prospect for people who like to see ships sailing the Inland Seas.
In our current economy, the least fuel-efficient (and most carbon-emitting) modes of transportation are often subsidized by our tax dollars, while more efficient (and safer, and less intrusive) ways to move goods and people (like shipping) are either ignored or actively left out of favor. The oil and gas industry gets tons of handouts from our governments, which in the long term is something that will likely only benefit a handful of big shots while the rest of us and our descendents are left to clean up the mess and endure continual shocks to the economy from chaotically changing climate. If we were to calculate the amount of damage to the economy that fossil fuel-induced climate change is causing now and is almost certain to cause over the coming decades (something that even the U.S. Military considers to be the facts on the ground!) and if we were to price that into the cost of fuel today, shipping would suddenly look like a great option for a lot of things that currently move by air, government-subsidized roads, or certain parts of land-based transportation. There's certainly a place for jet air freight, personal cars, and freight trucking in a future economy. If we were to simply level the playing field, or even provide some incentives to use more efficient modes, ship traffic, rail transport, and other more cost-effective ways to move people and goods would play a greater role.
Pricing the true cost of burning fossil fuels all at once would probably be a significant shock to the economy, but time is running out to change things enough to prevent massive economic disruption from climate change in the near future. We in the U.S. and Canada have a huge opportunity to come together and work on a goal even bigger than the Manhattan Project or the Moon Shot. If we were to pace such a venture correctly and execute it meaningfully, a really cool side-effect of our labors would likely be a bustling, growing shipping industry. Raw materials for the steel and building industries, food items, manufactured goods, and even people will still need to move around even if coal does not. Letting shipping shoulder its true share of the workload would means job security for our friends, family, and neighbors in the maritime industry as well as plenty of boats to watch from the shores of the Lakes.