The talking-points lunacy of this thread aside, here's what will guarantee your nightmares coming true: blaming a political party or strawman enemies.

Oberstar, who apparently is the Congressman behind the Delta Queen issue, is a Dem but I don't care for him much - the DQ is the smallest of issues I would take him to task for. If I had my druthers, he'd be out. There are other Dems I would like out, despite my bent to vote to that way. (Actually, I wish we had a truly left leaning party and a truly fiscally conservative party to blend into the mix - but that ain't happening!)

But he is one man.

Do you know if your congressmen are on his committees? Even if you are in a GOP district, do you know who the minority ranking members are? Is it your congressman?

If not, you are just whizzing in the wind.

Remember, ISTEA (which I have philosophical issues with) came from a Democratic administration, so perhaps going back and seeing if those levers are still there to pull will lead you to sympathetic ears.

Also realize, politicians say dumb things during campaigns. Barack's coal comment is up there with McCain's water bottle comment. There is a lot of support to end mountain top removal, but deep mining is not going to go away any time soon, no matter what the rhetoric. There has to be an alternative first.

However, some sacrifices are going to need to be made since we can cannot maintain the course we are. So how active will you be in charting that new course? If there is anything to be learned here from Obama, it is that consistent messaging and solid grass roots organization can work.

Here's a hint - listening to Hannity does nothing but raise your blood pressure. Get active and be heard. Instead of crying about the Sierra Club, offer an alternative.

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for the rail preservation community to form a non-partisan lobbying group and actually get a seat at the table in a regular, orderly fashion rather than the ad hoc methods we have used to date.

Another guarantee I will make: if there is no organized push around our interests, we will lose to those that are organized. See the rails vs trails movement as a small example of how we lose to groups like snowmobile lobbies.

Can we move from complainers to organizers? We have to -- no matter who is in control as the planet and her resources are non-partisan.

Who will be the leader? Anyone here want to step up?

If not, that old Rush tune "Red Barchetta" may be down the road for all of us.

Rob

News Update:

The "blogosphere" is reporting in many places that Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn.--yes, he of the Delta Queen debacle, the Railroad Safety Reform Act, and the opposition to the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern expansion plan--is supposedly the top prospect for nomination as Secretary of Transportation.

This ain't looking good, if you ask me. (Actually, that's my polite answer. My real answer is unfit for public posting.)

Oh ADM I hope thats not true. As I sit here rooting for Howard Dean to get a cabinet seat, he's a natural for H&HS but I would LOVE to see him as Sec of Transportation. He's as logical and pro-rail as you get.

For those of you interested in global warming I suggest you get a copy of

"A Layman's Guide to Understanding the Global Warming Hoax" By Leo Johnson.

I have worked with world renowned climatologists at NASA and off the record, there is no doubt the earth is getting warmer. The jury is still out on if carbon emissions produced by combustion are the cause however.

The class I's largest franchise is hauling coal. I that was taken away or reduced drastically it would have a serious effect on the profitability of the railroads.


Michael Thomas

Funny question, with senator Biden coming from Scranton was he the one behind getting a lot of the funding for steamtown?

Ross thanks for adding an optimistic piece on Obama, as I have been quite nervous about this guy. I hope for the benefit of this country you are right.

On the issue of carbon cap and trade this one really scares me for the good of the country if one looks into how Europe has dealt with them the number 1 way that they accommodate is to outsource heavy manufacturing to China and raise energy rates into the stratosphere.

Looking back to this summer when the world economy was still roaring, and steel prices were sky high, a lot of steel was once again being made here in the USA and more mills were planned for construction domestically. When this world economy gets back on its feet again I hope US industry is so lucky. However in Europe they found that when the cap and trade went in, it was the straw that broke the camels back for industry. Thyssen Krupp boxed up entire steel mills and moved them to China, the Cement industry closed up many cement mills and went to Tunisia, virtually every company who produced a product that had a high energy input has been hurt. Now when you outsource a huge mill and the jobs that come with it you are not reducing CO2 emissions, you are just moving them elsewhere.

I am really afraid of this happening here, think of the damage this could also cause America's railroads who make a good deal of money off of coal and manufacturing.

Obama definitely has his challenges laid out for him. He has a lot of radical democrats to please who got him where he is and at the same time risks turning a lot of states red if he goes thru with this. I work in the power industry at coal fired power plants for the largest boiler maker in the country and it will be interesting to see what happens to Obama. When one walks around the plant one sees virtually all the union labor wearing stickers saying "I Voted Change". The unions really seem to support this guy for the democrats support of getting rid of secret ballots in union voting. However if he manages to outsource even more good union jobs I think Obama's going to have trouble.

I dunno I have always been quite romantic about coal, I think it is a patriotic fuel that creates 50% of our country's energy, keeps Billions of $$$ here in the USA instead of going to middle eastern terrorists abroad, and provides millions of jobs from the mines, to the railroads, to the power plants, and to manufacturing as a whole. It also provides millions of jobs to all those who support these industries too. Sadly it seems like a lot of people who don't understand our relationship with these black diamonds are proposing a lot of potentially dangerous proposals which will not only hurt our nation's industry but also have little if any effect on stopping global warming.

Adam

No. Biden may have been born in Scranton, but he was elected as a congress-critter in Delaware years ago. AFAIK he had nothing to do with Steamtown's appropriations except possibly votinbg on whatever barrel of pork it was in.

The congress-critter you have in mind was Rep. Joseph McDade (R):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McDade

The latter is the one they want.

Now that the election is over, I was hoping that a lot of the propagandized drivel would have been dispelled. Obama, in the same interview so often harped on in the closing days of the election said that losing coal plants (creating a "no coal" situation) is an illusion (i.e. impractical and impossible. The quotes about bankrupting coal plants was taken out of context, as it was acknowledging that a no coal situation created by a severe cap and trade stance would create a no coal situation. The positions held my the two campaigns regarding "cap and trade" were not all too dissimilar.

The presumed "bankrupting the coal industry" controversy was a last ditch farce to sway votes. As a fine coal connoisseur, I checked the facts immediately upon hearing this and found my fears dispelled. Both candidates had similar cap and trade plans shared while on the campaign trail with similar intended results.

KL

Kelly is spot on. The McCain folks knowingly took Obama's comments totally out of context in the last several days as I guess another "HailMary"?? In any event it is clearly recognized that any cap&trade program that makes it into law will be coignizant of the fact that over half our current electricity is produced by coal.

As I stated above, my gut is that at the end of the day coal will come out well for the intermediate (15-30 years) term and that as a nation we're finally going to actually adopt a NATIONAL energy policy! Anyone who tells you that they "know" how it's going to look in the final analysis has never been involved in Federal legislation.

I also feel that railroading in general will due well?

We'll see in due course!!

Ross Rowland

I've been doing a bit of reading and studying lately about energy, global warming, etc - and find nothing useful to be gained from consuming any of the propaganda published from anybody with a specific agenda, apart from questionable justification. Recently, I ran across a book called "Physics for Future Presidents" written by Richard Mueller, a physics professor and practical experimental physicist, who from a nonpartisan, apolitical and totally scientific perspective considers these (and other) subjects on the national radar and explains them in plain English, as if he were writing a briefing package for an unspecified President Elect who needed to understand the realities of them (without needing to understand all the math) before taking office.

It is the best and least politically or emotionally charged information from a very competent source I've found yet - and recommend it to anybody who thinks they understand things in general, and want to know if they really do, or just think they do. I knew I didn't, and now at least think I have a basic grasp - at least enough to intelligently consider other information from sources with agendas to push, Al Gore included.

Check with your library - that's where I found it.

dave

Remarks attributed to Obama were reported to mean that he wants to end coal. A counterpoint has emerged that contends that his remarks were taken out of context and that his intent is not to end coal, but rather, to impose cap and trade regulations that will force coal to increase its efficiency. Presumably, the intended requirement is for a substantial increase. Otherwise it would not be a national issue, since coal technology is probably already increasing its efficiency on its own accord.

So the context of Obama’s remarks was not that he intends to directly eliminate coal. He only intends to mandate that coal becomes cleaner, more efficient, and emits little if any CO2. If there is a way to achieve this goal, I assume the coal industry knows how. So what is stopping them now? Why would they not want to meet these green objectives voluntarily now instead of waiting for the government to mandate them?

I suspect that the answer is that the green coal objectives will drive up the cost of electricity and the power companies know they will face a backlash from their customer base if their bills increase dramatically. But if the changes are mandated by the government, there will be no choice but to comply and raise rates to pay for it. If coal power rates rise high enough, there will be a substitution to cheaper wind and solar power, which will not be burdened by the cost of carbon caps. And with the universal switch to wind and solar, there will come the end of coal.

I just wanted to put this all into its proper context.

It appears to me that, even in the so-called "proper context," the end result is the same: elimination of the use of coal because of legislative mandate. It doesn't matter if the legislation is direct or indirect, or it's done by legislating market conditions that make the costs unbearable. Utilities have thus far done a rather poor job of demonstrating to their consumers the passed-on expense of unfunded mandates, and I'm sure legislators are counting on that to continue, so the pitchforks and torches remain outside utility headquarters and not the Capitol.

I've run the numbers with physicists. Maintaining our present lifestyle, let alone improving India, China, Indonesia, etc. from Third World to First World without coal/oil/natural gas CANNOT be done without nuclear power, a dramatic reduction in living standards (i.e. go back to living in caves and clubbing animals), AND/OR dramatic reductions in the numbers of Homo Sapiens. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. So pick one.

To bring this back to rail preservation, I challenge all of you to come up with any--ANY--transportation method that can be considered absolutely "carbon-neutral" or whatever the feel-good phrase of the day is.

THERE. IS. NONE. With the possible exception of bamboo bicycles and walking.

Go ahead, look at your railroad. Steam? Burns carbon fuel. Diesel? Ditto. Electrification? Only if you get your power from a windmill or hydro (and there the Milwaukee Road might have been ahead of its time). Nuclear? Unacceptable to the "greenies". Horses? They drop manure in the watershed. Gerbils on treadmills? Cruelty to animals. You are basically left with sailcars at best.

All of this sounds like stupid argument for the sake of argument. But, mark my words, the day may very well come when the mere existence of your rail line's operation is jeopardized by "eco-warriors" and "NIMBYs" making equally preposterous arguments that your railroad is "environmentally destructive" and that it must be converted to a bike trail. And, unfortunately, common sense and true science all too often lose out in discussions like this to the side that has a better and more professional PR team, or the side the politicians are on.

Don't believe me? I just got the latest issue of "Rails to Trails," the slick and glossy periodical of the Rails to Trails Conservancy. It puts most rail publications to shame in professional appearance.

It is going to be hard to defend a smoking steam engine to whack-job environmentalist, but most people that actually care a little about the environment aren't going to demand that all railroads be torn up.

In that sense, what is your railroad doing to promote a greener environment? Any plants or trees planted - or does the whole place look like a barren junkyard? Are there recycling bins for soda cans and paper, or are they all thrown in the same trash can? Any places making use of solar energy?

The rails-trails group is proactive. They actually keep in touch with those in Washington. How many posts here are nothing but people complaining about "congress-critters" or the newest regulation? We live in a political world. If you don't play the game, you will be left behind. Rails-trails groups look forward, while too many rail preservationists sit back with their Kodachrome slides wishing they lived 50 years ago.

Some have demonstrated that they are capable of having respectful disagreements here. This is controversial subject. There are several posts under this topic where folks have tried to argue their point without name calling, invective, or ad-homonym attacks. While I may not agree with them, I have no problem with these posts when they have been related to railway preservation.

There are many comments that do not appear to employ rhetoric for the purposes of persuasion or enlightenment. Instead they seek to reinforce divisive stereotypes and sow fear. These have no place here:

In the interest of balance, I looked through the whole thread looking for similar quotes from the left/environmentalist perspective. I did not find any.