[smadge]

California has the opportunity to be a beacon in North America for environmental and climate action e.g. by expanding solar production, finishing the CAHSR, and other projects like expanding and electrifying mass transit and commuter rail networks, but they are their own worst enemy.

[oceanplexian]

California has already fallen behind both Texas and Florida in new utility grade solar. As for CA-HSR, no comment. But if you don't want to wait, you can buy a ticket today and ride Florida's new high speed rail between Orlando and Miami.

[drtz]

The fact that Brightline can take you from Miami to Orlando is wonderful, and I'm really happy Florida is embracing more efficient, less dangerous, and less stressful forms of transportation.

But using it to make a subtle jab agains CAHSR isn't really fair -- they're two very different projects (for one of them, it's genuinely a stretch to call it "HSR") in two very different regions.

Yes, it's harder to get big projects through the red tape in California than it is in West / Panhandle Texas or Central Florida. Go take a drive through those regions and you'll quickly see some reasons why, besides just NIMBYism, Californians are a bit more protective of their landscapes. If a massive wind project were proposed across large swaths of the Texas Hillcountry, you'd see a lot more push-back.

[renewiltord]

> But using it to make a subtle jab agains CAHSR isn't really fair -- they're two very different projects (for one of them, it's genuinely a stretch to call it "HSR") in two very different regions.

Well, CA HSR doesn't exist. It's missing the R part of the HSR. So that must be the one it's a stretch to call "HSR".

[bluGill]

Brightline is too slow to call it high speed. But we have it today which is worth something unlike maybe some year with all the other options - so brightline gets the win today. things are likely to change in the future but I don't see anything I'd bet on (but I only bet very sure things)

[parineum]

> or one of them, it's genuinely a stretch to call it "HSR"

How fast is California's HSR?

That's both sarcasm and an actual question. It doesn't go anywhere now but I keep hearing it's speed get downgraded as they encounter the real world. Plus, the goal of LA-SF is practically abandoned and now it takes you from a place you don't want to be to a place you don't want to go.

You really can't compare the two because one exists only as a goal and the other is an accomplishment.

[drtz]

Also, fwiw, we've had an HSR project in the works in Texas for a couple decades now and have yet to even make a solid plan, much less break ground.

[toomuchtodo]

Brightline’s muni bonds have been downgraded to highly speculative. Ride while you can.

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/infrastructure-project...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-11/florida-s... | https://archive.today/LEyBC

[seszett]

Brightline is a diesel train that runs 80-125 mph (130-200 kmh) though, that can hardly be called HSR. In Europe or Asia that is just called "rail".

[rbanffy]

In US terms it's very fast. The US lags behind other developed countries in rail, but I hope it can improve. And, if it improves with electric propulsion, better.

[kccqzy]

That high speed rail is not electric unlike high speed rail in Europe or Japan or China. It doesn't deliver enough climate benefits.

[ackfoobar]

A diesel train releases orders of magnitudes less CO2 than flights though.

[wizzwizz4]

It's pretty easy to convert a diesel line to an electric line. It's rather difficult to convert a road to an electrical line. Progress is progress.

"It doesn't deliver enough net benefit" is a bit of a silly thing to say: when speaking of net benefit, anything is better than nothing.

[kccqzy]

The climate problem is an emergency. Reaching net zero in 2100 is going to be at least one more century of suffering for our offsprings than reaching net zero in 2040.

[wizzwizz4]

And things that are a net improvement do not preclude other things that are net improvements. It is a tactical blunder to attack people who are improving things, for not improving them "enough". The journey of a thousand miles, etc etc.

Rather, become one of the people who's improving things – or, if somehow your only skill is attacking, attack the people who are making things worse.

By the by, "net zero" is not enough. The vast majority of offsetting schemes are little more than accountability laundering and on-paper games, not translating to any concrete offsetting in the real world. We need gross zero.

[ackfoobar]

> things that are a net improvement do not preclude other things that are net improvements.

That's a good framework to think about things. Going all-in on renewables implies keeping fossil fuels around, because storage tech is several breakthrough behind. Renewable proponents like to point out that every kWh not produced with CO2 emission is still a win.

Yet deploying renewables means they flood the market with cheap electricity when the weather is good, hurting the profit, thus viability, of (i.e. precluding) stable low-carbon sources (in other words I'm butt hurt about nuclear).

> The vast majority of offsetting schemes are little more than accountability laundering and on-paper games, not translating to any concrete offsetting in the real world.

A case I heard is that they count the carbon captured by planting trees, yet ignore it when the carbon is released back to the atmosphere in a wildfire.

[slt2021]

modern diesel is extremely clean, and when compared to air travel, the benefits are clear, both in cost and in carbon emissions