Approach danger calmly and rationally

Home In All Lands: Improving the viability of the Amtrak Downeaster by expanding services

If you sit on the Quad around six on a cool evening, you’ll hear the languid horn of the Amtrak Downeaster announcing its southbound departure. After half a century without rail service between midcoast Maine and Boston, passenger trains returned to Brunswick two years ago.Ridership on the Downeaster has increased steadily, exceeding Amtrak’s expectations of 100 daily passengers from Freeport and Brunswick. However, I do not expect these figures to increase much until Amtrak expands its schedule as planned.
The Downeaster operates a limited schedule from Brunswick: the southbound train leaves early (7 a.m.) or late (6 p.m.). Northbound trains leave Boston at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The first departure south and the last departure north allow you to spend a full day in Boston, but the current schedule limits the possibility of an evening in the city.
The schedule hasn’t changed over the last two years because of agreements between the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), which operates the Downeaster on Amtrak’s behalf, and Pan Am Railways, the company that owns the tracks. According to the NNEPRA, these agreements cap the number of daily trips at six, forcing the company run an empty trainbetween Portland and Brunswick twice per day.
These trips burn 45,000 gallons of fuel every year and leave a train idling near Union Street five hours every day. To mitigate the waste, the NNEPRA has proposed building a layover facility—essentially, a train garage—on tracks between Church and Stanwood Street in west Brunswick.
Trains stored in the facility would be switched off, eliminating the noise and air pollution caused by idling engines. Constructing the garage would also let Amtrak expand its daily service to Boston, thereby improving the Downeaster’s viability.
Though the project seems simple enough, the layover facility plans are embroiled in a complicated dispute that involves local residents, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the NNEPRA and Governor Paul LePage. Some local residents, including Professor of History Patrick Rael, claim that the environmental impact of the layover facility was not properly assessed.
In a letter published in the Times-Record on 28 August, Rael criticized people who “wish the facility to be built regardless of whom it impacts, and how.” But Rael isn’t opposed to the train service itself. He supports Amtrak as “an alternative to carbon-heavy transportation modes such as cars.” While I sympathize with Rael’s muted pro-train attitude, he stands opposed to a project that is essential to preserving Amtrak service to Brunswick.
By contrast, Bob Morrison, the chairman of the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition, demonstrates open contempt for the train line. In an article published on seacoastonline.com, he attacked the Freeport-to-Brunswick segment of the Downeaster line and suggested that further investment in the service would be a waste of money because of low ridership. This is mistaken.
For one thing, the numbers aren’t low. In an article in the Portland Press Herald on Monday, Tom Bell reported that Brunswick is the fourth-most popular station on the Downeaster route. An increase in services from Brunswick to Boston should increase ridership.
Emotions in west Brunswick have not gone unnoticed. In March, Governor LePage intervened, calling on the Federal Rail Administration to require the NNEPRA to undertake further environmental assessments.
The governor’s interventions reveal how LePage sees this as a political opportunity above all. He is using this local disagreement to portray himself as a defender of “the little man” against big government, all while using the tools of big government to hurt local businesses.
His actions have alarmed businesses in Freeport and Brunswick, where the train has proven important to local economic health.
“It is vital to our community that Amtrak be able to continue providing our only public transportation service,” said Kelly Edwards, the executive director of Freeport USA, an organization that represents over 155 Freeport businesses. “The Downeaster service is an asset to [Freeport] and important to the future growth of our community.”
In a letter sent to Governor LePage last month, the Brunswick Downtown Association (which represents nearly 300 businesses and individuals) wrote, “that further delay and disruption in improvements to NNEPRA services is harmful to local businesses, the Town of Brunswick and the region.”
The issues raised by the facility’s opponents shouldn’t be sidestepped, but it’s galling to see how the governor and some of the residents ignore the economic benefits that come with an increase in Amtrak services. With an increase in investment and improvements in infrastructure—such as the construction of the layover facility—can help build the future of railway travel in America.

Home In All Lands: Why divestment is more symbolic than effective

As you may have read last Friday, the Orient investigated irregularities in the petitions circulated by Bowdoin Climate Action (BCA), a student group “dedicated to climate justice by campaigning for fossil fuel divestment.”
In a scathing editorial, the Orient editorial board questioned the circumstances under which BCA was able to meet with the Board of Trustees earlier this year. Although in a subsequent statement BCA denied ever claiming a “mandate” from the students, the group nevertheless used its petitions as leverage to meet with the Trustees.
I am not saying I oppose the idea of BCA meeting with the Trustees. We certainly have the right to petition the highest decision-making body at the College when it comes to important issues. What I challenge is not just BCA’s methods but also the very cause for which it stand: divestment.
To be clear, like BCA, I believe that the effects of climate change have been worsened by human activity. Like BCA, I also believe that reducing atmospheric pollution and seeking ways to remove existing pollutants is the best approach to facing this challenge. We differ, however, when it comes to how to meet these goals.
Divestment proponents argue that divesting from fossil fuel companies will put pressure on the industry to act more forcefully against climate change. Although the basic logic behind divestment is valid and has been tested in other cases before (big tobacco, apartheid in South Africa), the financial clout of energy companies reduces the impact that divestment would have.
According to a report from the University of Oxford, “of the $12 trillion assets under management among university endowments and public pension funds—the likely universe of divestment candidates—the plausible upper limit of possible equity divestment for oil and gas companies is in the range of $240-$600 billion.”
For the average person, this amount of money is staggering. But it isn’t for the major fossil fuel companies of the world. Companies like ExxonMobil, BHP Billiton (the world’s largest mining company) and BP have $400 billion, $191 billion and $133 billion, respectively, in market capitalization (total value of shares).
If Bowdoin divested its fossil fuel holdings tomorrow, the impact on the College would be far greater than the impact on the energy companies concerned.
“[Bowdoin] would need to redeem from almost 40 percent of [its] portfolio investments [because] the endowment [is invested] in commingled funds, not individual securities,” Paula Volent, senior vice president for investments, wrote to me in an email this week. Essentially, commingled funds are collections of assets derived from various sources, which allows investors to diversify beyond individual securities.
Ultimately, this distinction is important. Although BCA argues that “Bowdoin should [divest] the Bowdoin way,” the group cites Stanford University as one example of successful divestment. However, Stanford was invested directly in coal companies, whereas the College’s investments are indirect.
Another difficulty for divestment is that finding commingled funds free of fossil fuel revenues is tricky, in part because oil, coal and gas companies provide good dividends and good return on investment, making them attractive prospects for many investors. This complexity explains why divesting could cost the College “upwards of $400 million” over the next ten years, according to an estimate made by Volent.
In a study of Pomona College, investment advisory firm Cambridge Associates found that Pomona would have to reduce endowment spending by at least $6 million annually and would lose endowment value to a degree similar to Volent’s estimate. These numbers aren’t just conjecture or fear-mongering; they are based on sound financial assessments. Instead of supporting all-out divestment, the College should consider other ways to tackle climate change.
For example, Associate Professor of Economics Guillermo Herrera proposed last week that the College should consider a self-imposed carbon tax, which would encourage us to reduce our emissions. The money collected from such a tax could be used to fund research into green technology like tidal electricity and carbon capture, or local, environmentally friendly projects. These are concrete steps that the College and the community can take to tackle climate change. Divestment, by contrast, is a largely symbolic gesture. We will not find the change we need by hurting the health of this College. No matter how small, tangible efforts to reduce emissions are the way forward in this long fight against climate change.

Home In All Lands

Approach danger calmly and rationally

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

Jean-Paul Honegger

Columnist

October 17, 2014

“Life is hard,” goes the saying, “and then you die.” It’s a succinct and blunt way to express that life is dangerous. In the last year (thanks to the highly excitable media) you may have gotten the impression that life is more dangerous than it used to be.

Ebola, the sudden rise of Daesh (more commonly called ISIS), the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370, the conflict in Ukraine: all these give the impression that our world is more fractured, violent and deadly than ever before.

To be honest, I’m somewhat unsure as to why everyone is freaking out. For one thing, the world isn’t necessarily more dangerous. More unstable, certainly, but death hides amongst everyday occurrences.

The daily commute to work puts you at risk of being one of the approximately 34,000 killed on U.S. roads every year. Death by scalding, falling or drowning can await you in the bathroom. Forgetting to empty the lint filter on your dryer could lead to a fire that destroys your house and you with it.

I don’t mean to be overly moribund, but we have to face the facts: even the most humdrum facets of our lives can bring about an untimely demise. After all, on average two people a year die from being crushed by vending machines.

So why, if death is so ubiquitous, are we so afraid of the “Ebolas” of this world? It may have something to do with something called “the safety paradox.” Essentially, we are afraid because we are no longer accustomed to danger, to death.

As Hans Boutellier describes in his book, “De Veiligheidsutopie” (“The Safety Utopia”), the safer a country and society, the more frightened its people are. We are scared of Ebola, of Daesh, of terrorism because we have no control over their outcomes.

Although, for example, driving puts you at risk of being killed, you feel safer in a car because there are many factors that you can control to reduce the likelihood of death. You can buy a car that performs well in crash tests. You can put your seatbelt on before you set off. If the weather turns for the worse, you can adapt to the changing conditions.

In other words, as Carola Houtekamer and Arlen Poort explain in their article “A safe country is a scared land,” we take solace in being able to control a small part of our fate. “Terror,” they suggest, “is like having a dark thundercloud above you. You cannot help but ask yourself if you will be struck by lightning.” (Lightning accounts for about 30 deaths a year in the U.S.) Like dying in a terrorist attack, the likelihood of being struck by lightning at any point in your life is infinitesimally small (1 in 12,000). Getting hysterical about odds that small is meaningless and will do nothing to improve your chances of controlling the outcome.

You could, of course, quit your job, pack up your house, and move to a remote corner west of nowhere in the hope that nothing bad will ever happen to you. Aside from the fact that your house is essentially a death-trap, you could be pretty safe. And even if you survive, quip Houtekamer and Poort, “That’s a sure-fire way to ruin your life.”

When it comes to terrorism, organizations like Daesh thrive on the confusion and violence of fear. According to Edwin Bakker, “terrorism-induced hysteria is itself an invitation to be terrorized.” Unfortunately, this particular symptom is readily apparent in the U.S., where the specter of 9/11 still looms large.

This does not mean to say that we shouldn’t be vigilant about terrorism. We should anticipate the worst but, in our actions, show that we expect the best. The same should be said for Ebola and other calamities. Needless worry benefits no one—calm, careful and considerate thought is what we need in a time of crisis.

Comments are permanently closed.