As an advocate of alternative energy I cringe at the Obama administrations efforts to fund high-speed rail. There is very limited need for high speed rail in the U.S. We the People will not ride high speed rail because we have better alternatives. The jobs high speed rail creates will have limited, perhaps negative, economic benefit because those jobs will be in the creation of an end product with little value.
The government should instead spend the time and effort to get government, at the federal, state, and local level, out of the way of alternative energy development and out of the business of transferring wealth to the oil industry.
High speed rail is a Democratic boondoggle that will do more harm to alternative energy than climate change deniers could ever dream of causing.
{ 4 comments }
can i borrow some of the content from this blog post of yours?offcourse i will link back.
Sure, just link back to me.
Why is it better to drive or to fly? It can’t be more efficient to have individual cars (even electric ones) going back and forth between population centers, and as oil prices rise it will be harder to either drive or fly. I don’t take the train at this point because it’s slower and more expensive. If it were less expensive, I’d tolerate spending some additional time. High speed rail works in Europe because they pay more for gas–and we will too, eventually.
Um…. you didn’t really give a lot of evidence to support your claims, other than the unsubstantiated statement that “The jobs high speed rail creates will have limited, perhaps negative, economic benefit because those jobs will be in the creation of an end product with little value.”. Without so much as a footnote.
While alternative energy is definitely important, so is producing alternatives to conventional mass-transportation.
{ 1 trackback }