Take the Mac Train

Well it turns out that you can't take the Mac train since he's spent years as a passionate opponent of Amtrak. That's just one piece of the larger, somewhat odd, McCain puzzle on climate change. He's adopted a cap-and-trade proposal, but not really one that's far-reaching enough according to most scientists. And he doesn't flesh out his vision of a low carbon America very much -- there's nothing about increased transit ridership or any other explanation of how emissions will be reduced. Nothing, that is, except a love of nuclear power.

All told, it looks a bit like what you might come up with if you decided you wanted to break with your party on the sexy issue of global warming, but do it in a distinctly conservative way, and then decided that having gamed out the optics you don't need to think any further about the substance.

Comments

"Hope. Change."

Posted by Jaybird | June 6, 2008 1:25 PM

Fantastic point, Matt. Your last paragraph really encapsulates perfectly what drives me nuts about John McCain and the way the media just laps up his bologna because he really does this on almost every "maverick" issue he's got. His criticism of the Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq is another example of this. For years, he kept saying "we need more troops in Iraq," but he never took the time to consider what victory looked like, how following his advice would ultimately reduce our commitment in Iraq, and so-forth. In the end, he "broke" with his party on the image he was presenting of himself, but ultimately his overarching position on Iraq was the same as Bush's: war without end.

Ugh. I hate how he always gets a free pass on this stuff.

Sandy

Posted by Sandy | June 6, 2008 1:41 PM

"Well it turns out that you can't take the Mac train since he's spent years as a passionate opponent of Amtrak."

He's opposed to Amtrak, not passenger trains. And what kind of moron doesn't hate Amtrak? I love trains myself. Amtrak makes me want to kill.

Posted by ostap | June 6, 2008 1:42 PM

Issues. Proposals

Jaybird. Idiot.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 6, 2008 1:44 PM

Mr. Yglesias apparently hasn't read his favorite columnists' take in todays Washington Post on Cap and Trade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by SLC | June 6, 2008 1:48 PM

(Said in Homer Simpson Voice:)

Mmmmmmmmm, Bologna...aggghhhhhh

Posted by Jounralist on the Straight Talk Express | June 6, 2008 1:49 PM

Amtrak seems like a terrible idea for people who like trains. Because of political concerns, it is forced to maintain money-losing routes that should be allowed to die off so that resources can be devoted to improving service on money-making routes. Where is the sense in that?

Posted by Helter | June 6, 2008 1:52 PM

Well it turns out that you can't take the Mac train since he's spent years as a passionate opponent of Amtrak. That's just one piece of the larger, somewhat odd, McCain puzzle on climate change. He's adopted a cap-and-trade proposal, but not really one that's far-reaching enough according to most scientists.

Here we go again. Where may I find the views of "most scientists" on the proper size of a cap-and-trade proposal? Why are scientists qualified to make claims about the best policy response to climate change, anyway, rather than just present the science? Policy is a political matter, not a scientific one.

Posted by Mixner | June 6, 2008 2:08 PM

Matt,

This was also blogged on McArdle's, and as I stated there I will state here: I am a train advocate and I don't like Amtrak. Now, that being said I don't think McCain is on our side on this issue. However, one should be clear that supporting trains doesn't put you in the Amtrak camp. The problem with passenger rail is that the government runs the service end and private industry own the infrastructure end. This is backwards of every other comparable industry (buses, airlines, etc). Usually the government owns the infrastructure and private companies compete for service. I wish more rail advocates would speak up about this craziness.

Posted by freddiemac | June 6, 2008 2:13 PM

"Hope. Change."

Wrong again, dipshit:

This bipartisan legislation establishes an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. It helps states, cities, and towns invest in technologies to reduce energy bills for homeowners, increase energy efficiency, construct green buildings, and expand public transit. It invests in green technology to help our automakers to retool and our fossil-fuel industries to become clean. The bill provides real financial relief to working families. Importantly, the bill restores our great nation’s international leadership role, while including provisions to ensure that all major emitting nations also take serious action to solve this global problem.

Let me clear, this bill is not perfect. Emissions reductions must reflect the scientific consensus, which are reductions of at least 80 percent 2050. We must ensure that more middle-class families reap more of the financial benefits created by this bill. And we must direct greater resources to the regions of the country that will bear the brunt of this critical transition to a clean energy economy.

Man, it must suck not having any leaders in your party.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 6, 2008 2:18 PM

Jesus Finklestein Christ, SLC, Craphammer's even dumber than usual:

You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Right, 'cause the present panic is sooooooooooooo much worse than actually, you know, planning for things. You know, like adults?

The sheer infantilism of "free market" conservatism is just staggering.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 6, 2008 2:22 PM

Why are scientists qualified to make claims about the best policy response to climate change, anyway, rather than just present the science?

If scientists were allowed to present the science, that would be great. The problem is, we've seen over and over that the Bush administration has been distorting the science, rewriting the findings, and penalizing th people who dare say otherwise.

Posted by pol | June 6, 2008 2:22 PM

Matt, That second paragraph perfectly sums up McCain on this issue (and so many others)!

Oh, and Mixner: it's not that scientists are stating what the proper policy response is, in so far as the particular policy instrument by which greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. What they agree on is that to prevent catastrophic climate change, we need not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temps, and that in order to do that Carbon emissions need to peak by 2015, and then drop thereafter, culminating in an at least 80% decrease by 2050. McCain's plan does not even aim to do this (nor, should I add, does Lieberman-Warner, though Obama's plan does).

Posted by Marshall | June 6, 2008 2:25 PM

Gotta disagree with GM Texan. This is the first Krauthammer column I've ever, EVER read that actually is reasonable.

If you ignore the minor digs here and there, his core points -- steep gas tax, price floor of $4, return tax to citizenry via rebates -- makes perfect sense. If we had done this ten or twenty years ago, the whole world would be a lot better off today.

Posted by J | June 6, 2008 2:37 PM

Gotta disagree with GM Texan. This is the first Krauthammer column I've ever, EVER read that actually is reasonable.

Actually, that was my response to it, too ... until I got to the part I quoted.

It reminds me of Malkin writing that the FAA was unnecessary, 'cause a plane crash is bad enough for publicity that the airlines have all the incentive they need to prevent them.

It's "libertarian" thinking at its most infantile.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Check out the Townhall comments on Krauthammer's
WP article (WP article Gist: Raise gas tax to keep the money
here, refund money by lowering various other taxes.)

The moonbats went crazy. On the other hand,
they thought his bomb Iran mode was perfectly sensible.

Amazing.

Posted by catclub | June 6, 2008 3:03 PM

"Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point."

Dead on. This year is the first time gas consumption has declined since 1992. I think around $10 per gallon is a good start, and eventually kick it up to $15.

Posted by mullingitover | June 6, 2008 3:06 PM

Yes, mulling, but he wants to use a regressive tax to offset a progressive one AND he ignores the corruption that has made these high prices even worse.

Look! Over there! While I rob you blind!

The idea that this would reduce world oil prices ...
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 6, 2008 3:16 PM

If scientists were allowed to present the science, that would be great. If scientists were allowed to present the science, that would be great. The problem is, we've seen over and over that the Bush administration has been distorting the science, rewriting the findings, and penalizing th people who dare say otherwise.

Yes, dammit, those IPCC reports freely available on the web, and for a small fee on paper, as well as all the published studies in academic journals, books, magazine and newspaper articles, blogs, etc. written by climate scientists are all just a figment of your imagination. Damn that evil Bush Administration for preventing the scientists from presenting their findings!

Posted by Mixner | June 6, 2008 3:27 PM

Marshall,

Oh, and Mixner: it's not that scientists are stating what the proper policy response is,

Right. Unfortunately, Matt Yglesias and many other uninformed liberals keep falsely claiming that there's a "scientific consensus" on what the proper policy response is.

What they agree on is that to prevent catastrophic climate change, we need not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temps, and that in order to do that Carbon emissions need to peak by 2015, and then drop thereafter, culminating in an at least 80% decrease by 2050.

Nonsense. There is no scientific consensus on either the amount of warming that would be "catastrophic" or the reduction in warming that would result from a given level of emissions reductions over a given period of time. You don't seem to have read what the scientists are actually saying, either.

Posted by Mixner | June 6, 2008 3:39 PM

Well, to quote McCain himself, that's not change we can believe in.

Posted by Lee | June 6, 2008 3:40 PM

Question for Anybody that can Help?

In the DCist article, it links to Paul Weyrich's comment that McCain believes shutting down Amtrak is a "non-negotiable issue" for him.

Does anyone know the true location of this quote. Or is this a fiction of Weyrich's mind. While I am fully aware of McCain's hatred of Amtrak, I really want to know the location/origin of this quote.

Anyone?

Posted by jeff | June 6, 2008 3:52 PM

Well, not to hijack the thread back to somewhere near the original post or anything, but...people who love trains and hate Amtrak just don't get it.

I suppose you can "support trains" without supporting Amtrak. In the US that leaves you with some commuter rail to support, and somewhat more subway and light rail if you call those trains.

As for why more rail advocates don't take freddiemac's viewpoint, somewhat murkily expressed, that the government should own the track and make private companies beg to use it...WTF!?! freddiemac, if you really are so ignorant about all of this, why bother to have an opinion?

For the benefit of those who don't live in fly-over territory, those Amtrak long-distance routes serve hundreds of communities that don't have bus or air service available. If you consider it a crime against nature that Senators and Representatives will cast votes supporting these Amtrak services, take it up with your Constitution.

It's easy for some of our younger babblers to have opinions about how the government oughta do this or that, but the simple fact is that, at the formation of Amtrak, Amtrak assumed the pension obligations, the labor obligations, and the service obligations of a failed national passenger rail service. In many of the years that have followed, Amtrak would have broken even or made a profit if it hadn't been carrying the burden of past bad decisions by private railroad companies.

There's more to the story than this, but I fear exhausting the attention spans of younger readers.

Posted by serial csatowner | June 6, 2008 4:09 PM

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with McCain on the nuclear energy question. You can find a pretty good environmentalist argument in favor of nuclear power here. I seem to remember Obama saying things that were mildly friendly towards nuclear power. The general public needs to be educated on the safety and environmental benefits of modern nuclear power generation, and some of the hard-core old-school environmentalists need to take a second look and not be so knee-jerk anti-nuclear.

Posted by kidcharles | June 6, 2008 4:12 PM

It's not "knee-jerk anti-nuclear"- it's the realization that nuclear just doesn't compete with wind and solar. See Climate Progress for more detailed discussions on this topic.

Posted by serial catowner | June 6, 2008 4:23 PM

the knee-jerk isn't "anti-nuclear", it's "anti-repubs being in charge of anything that requires even the least amount of oversight"

Posted by cha cha cha | June 6, 2008 4:43 PM

I'd consider supporting nuclear power if Boehner cried about it on TV.

Posted by cha cha cha | June 6, 2008 4:59 PM

When Congress created Amtrak, the freight railroads were broke. The legislation permitted the railroads to remain qualified "common carriers" without necessarily carrying people. Now they are not broke. In fact the freight railroads are highly profitable because trains are inherently fuel-efficient. The railroads own many of the depots, and they provide the engineers which run the Amtrak trains in many cases. It would not be difficult for them to rehire the conductors and station agents or for them to take possession of the rolling stock. I think if Amtrak were dissolved, the freight railroads would be obliged to provide the service again, and it would likely be better service.

Posted by Paul Niemi | June 6, 2008 5:16 PM

Some of the freight railroads are probably doing petty well these days. In the 35+ years since the formation of Amtrak, they have shed thousands of miles of unproductive trackage, entirely rebuilt their mains with welded rail to freight standards, and relentlessly merged with probably three or four top railroads now serving 90% of the country. Trains were fuel-efficient when railroads were losing money, and they're fuel-efficient now, but that's not why we have healthy railroads today.

You may rest assured these big railroads will never again be in the passenger business. Railroads never wanted to carry passengers, and the mild enthusiasm they felt when legislators rode trains evaporated entirely with the crashes of the passenger business in the 30s and the 50s.

Freight railroads prosper by moving millions of tons at an economical speed between points that support that type and amount of tonnage. This is different in every possible way, from moving passengers in a regulated market.

The simple fact is you don't get HSR without building a right-of-way that supports the service, and believe it, many people have tried to get around this and failed. OTOH, HSR serving markets in a 400-mile radius will take market share from air travel, so building selected HSR corridors isn't just good for the climate, it's also a cost-effective investment in modern infrastructure.

Posted by serial catowner | June 6, 2008 7:28 PM

There's nothing wrong with amtrak that a few hundred million in refurbishing couldn't fix. we took a family trip cross country a few years ago and aside from some minor glitches it was highly enjoyable and beat the bejesus out of the return trip via car and jet.

Posted by secularhuman | June 6, 2008 10:23 PM

It could be that if it had been properly priced, any long distance travel, by plane, train, bus, or car, was always out of the reach of middle class people. So the government built and maintained the highways, subsidized the airlines, etc. If this wasn't the case in the past, it will be the case in the future if it turns out we have hit world peak oil production.

I happen to think the government should be subsizing long distance travel, but the subsidies have been misdirected to the wrong mode. Private passenger cars are the most convenient mode, trains are the most fuel efficient and give you fewer problems with safety and congestion than passenger car travel. In an ideal world, road and rail networks should be complimentary, trains help reduce traffic on the main routes and roads go to the out of the way places where its not economical to run rail. But what is the justification for subsidizing airlines?

Posted by Ed | June 7, 2008 3:53 AM

Matt's right that McCain hasn't fleshed out his idea of a low-carbon America. But then no Democrat has either. Sure, Obama says we'll have to keep our house warmer (or was it cooler?). But he tells people that gas will be cheaper. And Feinstein, when discussing her climate change bill, promised the same thing. The vision of a low-carbon America that these folks are offering is so transparently dishonest, and so inconsistent with the vision that Matt has in mind, that one wonders why Matt can't bring himself to notice.

Posted by Thomas | June 7, 2008 10:17 AM

... there's nothing about increased transit ridership ... Nothing, that is, except a love of nuclear power.

Hmmm, he doesn't waste time posturing over absurdities and instead focuses on what could actually make a difference right away. How'd this guy get into politics?

Transit to fight global warming. ;-) By far the most used transit system in the US, and the only one that isn't an absolute sinkhole in terms of both money and energy use, is the one here in NYC.

It is what it is because it was built before the automobile was in general use, so the structure of the city grew up along it.

And it's explicit purpose was to promote urban sprawl and reduce population density by getting the 3.5 milllion people who where squeezed into low-Manhattan out of there and into the empty wilds of upper Manhattan (hence the name of "The Dakota" apartment building on 72nd St., where John Lennon was shot -- when it was built it was considered that far away), and to the Bronx, Queens, etc. In achieving that purpose it was fantastically successful, and more than 2 million people moved to the wilds it travelled to right away.

The idea that train transit will promote increased population density defies all actual history and reason. It's ludicrous. So, of course, a politician who doesn't endorse it can't be serious!

OTOH, nuclear power is CO2-free and here right now. You could plug your electric car into it, and get the hydrogen for your hydrogen car from it. France right now gets nearly 80% of its power from nuclear.

Simple test: A person who isn't seriously pro-nuclear isn't serious about being anti-CO2. It's as simple as that.

But what do we get? "Let's not just talk about nuclear, let's talk more about mass transit!" Bwah.

And the oceans will boil.

Posted by Jim Glass | June 7, 2008 3:00 PM

For the benefit of those who don't live in fly-over territory, those Amtrak long-distance routes serve hundreds of communities that don't have bus or air service available.

Only randomly. And if the trains were gone, that would create a market for bus service.

The truth is, Amtrak's long distance routes are land cruises for people with an irrational fear of flying and "foamers"-- nostalgia buffs who love trains.

We do need intercity rail, but it needs to be high-speed. We do not need train service between Los Angeles and Chicago. Anyone who needs to make that trip can fly; anyone who can't afford to fly can take Greyhound. Not one dollar of taxpayer money should go to something like that.

If the residents of these towns along the way need the train service so much, why don't they get together and pay the subsidy?

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 7, 2008 9:09 PM

I used to work at Amtrak. For starters, what serial catowner said. Don't forget that the much-maligned long distance routes run on the freight rr's tracks for nominal fees. The ostensibly "profitable" NE corridor is owned by Amtrak, who maintains its track, catenary, stations, bridges, etc. If profitable means EBITDA, the NEC is profitable; if profitable means net income, nothing is really profitable... kind of like Interstate highways.

For all the lovers of passenger rail but haters of Amtrak, much of what you hate stems from the Railway Labor Act; the bankruptcy chapter specifically for railroads (which does not allow labor renegotiations in bankruptcy (!)); and freight railroads who are not always motivated to let passenger trains through despite substantial incentive payments.

Posted by BudFox2 | June 9, 2008 11:34 AM

This Global Warming crap makes me crazy.
Our carbon output hasn's been around long enough to make an impression, much less a "footprint" on our Global climate.
This is Liberal Lunacy. We have no idea what historical "normal" climate even means. The Earth moves through climate cycles that MAN cannot cause, nor control.
We are expected to curtail our carbon output while at the same time China (to name ONE)is just beginning an Industrial Revolution to rival anything seen in the world so far? With, I might add, NO restrictions?
I for one subscribe to the theory supported by many scientists that the Earth continues to PRODUCE oil, rather than, we are running out of dead dinosaurs!
I also believe the Sun and Volcanic activity have a great deal more influence over our Climate than Man.
Nuclear energy, Solar energy, Wind energy. All are great supplements. I say quit using our food supply of corn, and start building MORE Refineries. People are more likely to die of hunger or disease than be a victim of Global Warming.
Has ANYONE noticed this has been the coldest year in a few decades?
That opens a whole new subject. Some scientists believe we are headed for a new Ice Age!
McCain is pandering to the fearful, not the fearless.

Cindy

Posted by Cindy | June 12, 2008 4:09 AM

Thank you, Ms. McCain. Your comment has been noted.

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 5:05 AM