Being a fan of public transportation seems to go hand-in-hand with climate activism. Two of the top activists have recently commented on how much they like it. Being curious as to whether this is lip service to a cause or not, I ask simple questions.
Oblivious to these concepts of public transportation, Bill Nye “the Science guy” demonstrates (in his very first Instagram picture) Peter Gleick’s worst nightmare – private upscale transportation AND bottled water.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In answer to the question posed, traveled the whole country by bus in November and December on our “do the math” tour. Biodiesel most of the way. Enjoyed it!
The combination of trams and trains for getting around Melbourne are simply fantastically convenient.
Geez nice Job Bill as an activist. Most of us that work every day ( have not taken a day off, including Sundays at Weatherbell.com, since starting here, as its work to build a company from ground up when there is competition, including from a source that is tax payer funded) just dont have time to hop on the nearest bus. But If I ever see the light of AGW and become an climate activist, then we can sit on the same bus together and happily travel the world, doing the math.. like co2 1/400th of GHG and man according to DOE only responsible for 3-5%. Oceans with a thousand times the heat capacity of air. That wonderful 33c GHG blanket that co2 contributes, depending on who you talk to, .4-.7C. lets see I wonder what that would be if our 5% didnt get in there. Such fun doing the math. Only the trip wouldnt last so long, now would it, if we actually did that math. Enjoy the rest of your Frigid March up there and get used to later Springs, as in the 1950s when the PDO went cold while the AMO was warm, most of them the next 5-10 years will be cold now. . Like I told Euro clients when the cold starting coming 5 years ago, and is getting nastier every winter, they better get used to it too. It called cyclical climate theory, been around for many years until the enlightened decided to do their own only our answer counts math. Here is a visual for your next bus ride
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg
discuss amongst yourselves
So Bill, biodiesel as currently produced diverts food oils and grains that could be used to feed hungry people (or animals). How do you feel about that, sad maybe?
Just did the calculation. To travel from my house to my parents, 285 miles away by car takes about 5.5 hours non rush hour. The same trip by air is: Car to the airport 0.5 hours, Check in and security 1.5 hours, Flight time with layover in Seattle 2.25 hours, Car from the airport to the folks house 0.75 hours (someone has to come pick me up too), total my time 5.0 hours. Cost one way $225.00 to the airline plus fuel and parking for the car. Driving my 12 year old mini SUV at 25 mpg cost for fuel $45 and I can go when I want. And the fixed costs for the car are the same whether I drive it or it sets at the airport. I know how I am going.
Now that it has become crystal clear that the “carbon” false alarm has directly resulted in numerous unnecessary deaths, and a lowering of the standard of living among those who can least afford it. I really wonder about the climate alarm advocacy of the McKibben’s and Gleick’s of this world. They make 1930’s Eugenicists look like altar boys.
Could they be any more despicable? They live high on the hog themselves, while promoting policies that bring death and destruction down on those who can least defend themselves. Satan has a couple of his best acolytes in those two.
Mr. McKibben, glad to see you participate. I trust you know you are always welcome, even if we disagree on most things, but it is good to see you willing to walk the talk. I trust you see that most people are more worried about their daily bread than those of us who can choose public transportation over our own cars. Most need meat, and will do most anything to get it and feed their children.
“AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2013 at 1:37 pm”
One thing that has not been mentioned about PT, subsidies. In Sydney, Australia, PT is subsidised to the tune of ~75% by the taxpayer. Overall speed limits are an issue here IMO, simply takes too long to get anywhere by PT, especially if you want to travel cross-suburb. I liked the trams in Melbourne, but they were usually having to share a road which was, in peak hours, congested with cars. The best PT system I have used was in Hong Kong, single ticketing (Octopus) across the board, ferry, bus and train.
Either way, I rarely see “environmentaists” use PT as much as they say we should.
My city (Brisbane, Australia) has a *reasonable* public transit system, at least for me.
It is significantly more expensive than average, when compared with similar transit schemes worldwide – somewhere near twice the cost, or more, IIRC.
However, it is good enough for me, for a single journey, to use the bus system rather than take my beloved gas-guzzling 4WDs into the traffic into the city centre, and then pay top dollar for parking (my worst to date was AUD $46 for 2 freaking hours!), and it drops me off within 800m of my residence. Yes, the parking is tax deductible, but I still pay over 50% of the vig.
Thankfully, I don’t work in the CBD, and I don’t need to do this very often. Plus, if I wanted to go somewhere with the family, it is far, far cheaper to use the car (even with the parking!).
The whole problem with public transit is that it is *starfish* shaped – all routes lead to the CBD, or defined transit centres. In a city/conurbation approaching 2 million, not everyone wants to travel to the CBD, and unfortunately, there is not much linking the feet of the starfish to each other.
Therefore, the battlers have no choice but to drive from their ex-burb (maybe 40km out) to their workplace in another ex-burb (also 40km out, but on a different foot of the starfish), rather than going via public transit into the CBD, then out again (for a 3 hour commute as opposed to a 45 min via car commute).
Until public transit can mitigate this social requirement, it will continually fail.
Kaboom says:
March 14, 2013 at 10:28 pm
…
The whole problem with public transit is that it is *starfish* shaped …
And only a small proportion of commuting journeys are to or from the CBD in most large cities. IIRC, the figure for Sydney is 13 per cent.
AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2013 at 1:37 pm
I live in a place called Newcastle , 150km from Sydney……
____________________________________________________________
Funnily enough so do I and PT here is abysmal. 90 mins between buses during the day and even peak time it is a 40 min wait at my place. Considering peak time only lasts for 90 mins than that is two buses.
In Sydney, if you live on the train lines, public transport is the way to go. I use to live in the Blue Mountains and work at Parramatta. It was a 90 min trip door to door but it was much better than sitting in the car park called the M4 freeway. LOL I also lived on the northern beaches and the bus service was pretty good and for something different you can take the ferry service.
A slight variation on the Communist official story:
Communist Official: When you get your freedom everyone will have a car and smoke cigars
Worker: But I can’t drive and don’t like smoking
Communist Official: When you get your freedom you will do what your bloody well told!
Kaboom says:
March 14, 2013 at 10:28 pm
…
“The whole problem with public transit is that it is *starfish* shaped …”
Same problem in my metro area. The pols have been pushing light rail for 40 years and thank goodness, the taxpayers won’t bite. The plan is always from the suburbs to the center of town and never from suburb to suburb. Millions have been wasted on studies, so the pols at least have been able to reward some consultants/campaign contributors.
It’s a never-ending cycle; pols propose starfish-type light rail, pay consulting firm a million bucks or so (reward buddies) for a study/design which always underestimates cost and overestimates revenue, put it on a ballot, get rejected by the voters (who live in one suburb and commute to another for work). Rinse and repeat about every 3-4 years.
Just my opinion, but I don’t think the voters are rejecting the taxes as too high or the idea of public transport or even necessarily recognizing a boondoggle when they see one. The proposals just don’t go where people want to go so they say, “Screw it. I’m not voting for that.”
The pols could probably get the boondoggle to work if they proposed light rail in 3 or 4 or 5 concentric rings around the starfish, coupled with small circulating buses around the transit intersections – and that system might just work – but I’m guessing that even the always-underestimated price tag would be so large that such a proposal would still fail with the voters.
Thanks for pointing out the *starfish*, Kaboom. If you don’t mind, I’ll use that imagery the next time the pols push for light rail, and I assure you there will be a next time. Come to think of it, we’re about due for another try.
seth says: March 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm
I get so sick of hearing how wonderful the public transportation is in the UK. Not much to brag about when your entire country fits neatly into the state of Oregon……
___________________________________
Yes, but that brings with it some even greater problems. The Uk is just aboutbthebmost crowded nation in Europe, and so our costs for buying land for major infrastructure projects is some two orders of magnitude greater than for the USA. Plus the ‘environmental’ problems of noise and finding a lesser-spotted-crested-newt in the way are almost insurmountable.
It took us 15 years to build Terminal 5 at Heathrow, because of this nonsense. Any more of this, and the nation may as well give up and relocate to the USA. Last one out, please turn the lights off.
.
Mike McMillan says: March 14, 2013 at 3:53 pm.
Jets burn a kerosene relative, not diesel, which would gel up at altitude temperatures.
_________________________________
Jets will run quite happily on diesel, and petrol too, as they inadvertently proved in Oz one day. Yes, there are minor differences in waxing temperatures and lubricarion of seals, but these problems can be overcome.
The Bae 146 engines, for instance, were derived from the Abrambs Tank engines. And the Abrams jet engine was specifically designed to run on any flamable liquid you could lay your hands on. So yes, you could bung diesel in a jet and run it quite happily, with one eye on the fuel-temp guage.
.
For some frugality is not a choice it is the reality of their lives.
It is always easier (and sooo self-righteous) to take the bus instead of the car when on those days when the rain is coming down like stair rods, or the bus is at an inconvenient time, the car is available.
Those for whom frugality is enforced by life’s circumstances, see no virtue in it and strive to escape it.
Those pious souls who like to wear their virtue on their sleeves, should be made to live a frugal life, with no handy options on those occasions frugality does not suit, for about 5 years, then we can see how they feel about it.
Try a few years in Africa living on an exclusive diet of maize meal and see how appealing vegetarianism is.
As a young adult I had to use the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) out of nescessity not as a ‘fun or green’ social experiment. During this time I pledged to myself to always own good car(s). If you want a little taste of misery stand on a basically open concrete “L” train platform in sub-zero weather for +20 minutes looking out for the “A” or “B” train as cars whiz buy down the Congress expressway. Then get on the train with wet floors that’s slightly warmer. Actually Gleik is right public transportation does s*ck (period)
I don’t see anybody campaigning for rechargeable electric airliners. I also don’t see the global warmists making appearances at any international conferences by videophone.
Of course you would. Because you think categorically (Fossil Fuel: Bad, CO2: bad, Biodiesel: Good) and don’t bother with the underlying math.
The full report is report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76)
He’s pouring himself a glass of condensate of one of the worst greenhouse gases know to man. What a climate-hating bastard!
bill mckibben says:
March 14, 2013 at 7:14 pm
In answer to the question posed, traveled the whole country by bus in November and December on our “do the math” tour. Biodiesel most of the way. Enjoyed it!
Reminds me of an old joke:
“Rich kid writes to his parents: dear mom and dad, I really like to move around the city by bus, like everybody else.
Answer: Ok, we are sending you a bus with the driver. Be like everybody else”
Never thought someone would actually do something like that for real. Just wow.
CaligulaJones
When “debating” warmists, I usually mention that 1) I don’t own a car and, 2) I take public transit to work every day. Doesn’t really shut them up, but it does deflect things for a bit.
Now that is funny – in reality I don’t drive and do take public transport (much quicker in my region) but tell them (Eco-Loons) that I do drive a BFO gas guzzler and park it in ‘disabled only’ parking spaces. Anything to wind the sanctimonious b******s up.
policycritic says:
In that video you posted there was something I haden’t noticed before.
Bill Nye: blablabla ..humans, extra ones. That the speed the world is getting warmer..
WOW!
It was nice of Mr. McKibben to reply. I suppose he may want to stay in our good graces, in case the crowd he hangs out with goes down in flames.
However I would like to remind the young upstart, (we are from the same area and same privileged background, but I am older and took the “road less traveled,”) that the bus he traveled in wasn’t exactly a Greyhound. Like many rich people, his concept of poverty is sheer theory. He needs to be really poor, and travel from Boston to Miami in a Greyhound bus, cheek to jowl with fellow Americans, before he so blithely sets himself up as an authority on traveling by bus.
Mckibben’s crowd has this theoretical idea of the poor, whom they refer to as “the masses.” The poor are not actual people and the actual salt of the earth, but rather a “concept.” McKibben’s pals are always doing things that hurt the poor, and reduce the freedom and mobility of the poor, “for their own good.”
“Cash for Clunkers” is a great example. By buying and destroying clunkers, using taxpayer dollars, they in essence were car thieves, and left the poor without the only vehicles they could afford to drive. However it was, “for their own good.”
When the poor are merely a “concept,” you are not all that far from the statement attributed by some to Stal–, “The death of one is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.”
I recently heard a disgusting person state that 15% of our population is worthless, and ought be “culled.” McKibben doubtlessly hears the same ideas, but also likely knows enough about the history of Russia to know that he himself might be on the list of the 15%. Therefore he stays on our good side, by joining our honest, open, and wonderfully American discussions.
He could do a lot more, if he would stand up like a man and reject the slime who have duped him and misused his great talents. Until that day, (much to be hoped for,) he will continue to make me very grumpy.
I wrote something grumpy here:
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/one-pothole-too-many/