[munk-a]

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it.

Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have direct a motivation to address those externalities even if they're aware of them - assuming they're unaware in any way.

(aside, coal isn't actually that terrible in terms of contribution to climate change, but reliance on it is definitely contributing, there may be bigger fish but this one has a good bit of meat on it)

[howard941]

> they end up shipping the vast majority of coal

You may be thinking of the entity that used to be known as Conrail. Amtrak is passenger only.

[azeotropic]

>could at least tax

GP may also be thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives. Amtrak has no power to levy taxes.

[munk-a]

Amtrak (or carriers, in this case I believe Conrail may be what I meant) can charge money for their services. When I mentioned taxing the goods I didn't mean sending in the IRS and instead I was referring to levying an additional fee for the costs induced by the usage of their service.

The word tax has multiple meanings, and my usage above was indeed correctly utilizing one of those meanings.

[zaroth]

Discriminatory pricing on government subsidized rail lines based on pet policy objectives seems like a really bad idea. I would expect there is some sort of legislation on this, we could call it rail neutrality or something.

[Aloha]

Conrail doesn't really exist anymore as a Class 1 carrier.

[whatshisface]

Companies can use their political influence to get other companies to change. This isn't happening today because everyone on Earth is happier when electricity and gas are cheaper, from the poorest consumer to the wealthiest executive.

[njarboe]

If the most vocal people shouting about the problem of climate change were advocating for the mass adoption of nuclear power, huge money into fusion power research, and investment in the R&D of removing CO2 from the air instead of advocating for reduced power usage, transportation restrictions (mass transit), and human population decline as the solutions to "climate change", US society would be a lot more likely to get behind doing something about it.

Using climate change as a club to push ideological policies did not work and now has us in a real pickle. The other side did not fight back by advocating for better solutions to the CO2 pollution problem but instead just decided to ignore reality as an easier short-term tactic.

[sandworm101]

They would get more done if they didn't ball in societal changes. It's like the autonomous car advocates who also want to do away with private vehicle ownership. People are open to new technologies. They aren't open to political rants. I want an electric car. I don't want a lecture about how people shouldn't be allowed to own cars. I want solar panels on my house. I don't want someone telling me to turn off my TV and read newspapers to save power.

[Spooky23]

CSX is what you’re thinking of.

Amtrak is passenger only. They share track with CSX and many others.

[selectodude]

Amtrak owns all their own trackage on the Northeast Corridor.

[jcranmer]

Actually, the track from New Haven to New Rochelle is not owned by Amtrak but by Metro North (the local commuter rail). Apparently Massachusetts (via the MBTA, also the local commuter rail) also owns the NEC in Massachusetts.

[Spooky23]

Good point. I always conflate the Empire Service and western ny train as that’s how I get to the corridor service!

[magduf]

Amtrak doesn't ship cargo, only passengers. They don't own most of the railways either; they lease them from the cargo railways that own them, and Amtrak trains have lower priority than the cargo trains, causing scheduling problems and delays.

It'd honestly be easier to just shut down Amtrak and do without rail service. As a nation, we simply are not willing to do what it takes to have a decent passenger rail service, and that isn't going to change.

[Udik]

> most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it.

Hmm. And how do you measure this? Yes, Company X ships the coal, but everybody uses the steel that is produced with that coal. Tax the coal, and the steel will be more expensive. Same for the cement. Or electricity. Companies that don't profit from coal transportation still enjoyed a good price for the steel and concrete of their headquarters and warehouses; for the steel structures of the bridges and the hulls of the ships that move their goods; for the machinery that produce all this stuff. The value of the salary they pay to their employees is measured in relation to what can be bought with it: make stuff more expensive, and the people will be poorer. Everybody is profiting from cheap stuff. Everybody should, and will, pay.