I came upon this story claiming the D&S had 2,600 trees planted to offset it entire vehicle fleet (not locomotives?). I know they had to deal with some smoke issues a while back but this is the first I've heard of a steam railroad trying to offset it's carbon footprint.

http://www.durangotelegraph.com/telegra ... rstory.htm

I wish I had taken a photo of the plaque on the wall of the Durango station when I was there a month ago. It explained that the D&S was doing it's part to offset carbon emissions from it's steam locomotives by, among other things, using "green" generated electricity at it's facilities. I don't remember seeing any solar panels or windmills around the station area, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm sure that they do this partly as PR to placate tourists who object to the dirty steam locomotives. I also think it would be a good idea for any other tourist or museum operation that is having NIMBY problems to look into doing something like this, as a way to try and be thought of as a better neighbor.

This is actually fairly routine. Basically, creators of "green" power (windmills, hydroelectric from recycled dams, etc.) find a ready market because utilities, in many jurisdictions, are required to purchase it and feed it into the "grid." Consumers--residential and commercial--can then choose to pay a premium above and beyond usual utility fees to "purchase" their share of electricity as electricity from a specific source/company to power their home or business. Thus, you don't need to erect your own windmill or cow-emissions burner and generator to run your house/company on "green" power, although many places such as Brooklyn Brewery have done so as well. And if you don't think there's a marketing advantage to claiming "green," think again.

"I came upon this story claiming the D&S had 2,600 trees planted to offset it entire vehicle fleet (not locomotives?)."

Key word is "vehicle"

The interesting calculation that could be done is how much CO2 do the D&S trains produce when they're running vs how much would be used if the passengers on the train were using their cars and driving instead of riding the train .... and...

if you want to make it even more interesting do it on a "well/mine to wheels" basis and include all the infastructure that's involved in building cars/ building and maintaining roads and delivering the fuel to the car vs maintaining a railroad. getting coal and operating a railroad etc.

Sounds like a good topic for a high school term paper !

Bob H

That type of analysis has been done to death by people with a wide variety of motivations. (ad absurdum; there's one that "proves" a Hummer is more CO2-efficient than a Prius.)

The more responsible comparisons put Amtrak barely at par with the private automobile; the problem is mass. FRA-compliant is heavy. Even transit is not immune to criticism; notable exception BART because of ultralight cars and regenerative brakes. Anyway... I don't think a steam engine has a ghost of a chance.

But who cares? Let me stick my treehugger hat on. Any environmentalist worth the name would tell you the best reason to run steam in this day and age is education. Yes, dammit, education is worth a bit of CO2 emission if it results in more prevented. If you don't have education, you have non-education and more of the same-ol'. Besides, education is fun. That's why we run steam anyway, and fun means education sticks. And given the scope of steam operations in this country... frankly, there could stand to be more steam, because operations are sparse enough that a lot of people will need to drive a few hundred miles to find steam for steam's sake on any given Sunday. (folks don't come to Disneyland to see steam trains.)

Once again, a lack of volunteers, money and coaches...

This is one of the rare times that I am speechless! The loons are upon us.

I don’t doubt that green sells, but what D&S is doing with carbon offsets does not exactly seem like selling green. It seems more like an attempt to appease critics, given the background of dispute between the D&S and Durango residents over smoke emissions. I have watched that controversy begin with a handful of Durango residents complaining about odor and irritation from coal smoke emanating from locomotives idling overnight. Those simple nuisance complaints then expanded to regional concerns about the railroad’s coal combustion in general and the effect of the emissions. Now, with the D&S’s acquisition of carbon offsets, the issue has evolved to a whole new dimension.

While the company may see it as a way to appease the critics, the purchase of carbon offsets amounts to an admission that their locomotives are causing rising seas, species extinction, and worldwide climatic harm due to their CO2 emissions. A steam operator might be better off disputing the premise that carbon offsets serve any useful purpose, rather than agreeing that they do, and then go broke trying to buy enough of them to completely assuage their carbon dioxide sins.

*chuckle* You're proposing that railroads should dig in heels and deny global warming? This is not the place to discuss global warming.

But it is the place to discuss whether railway museums need to yield to social consensus, and whether they should engage in political debate.

Should they engage in political debate? Absolutely not. It is the surest way to alienate half your customer base. Think of all the companies you'd expect to have strong political beliefs at their core... Wal-Mart for instance, as southern conservative as you can possibly get. Yet, they keep their politics out of their stores as best they can.

Should they resist social consensus? That's a tough call and very situational, but it can be the same kind of marketing suicide. Unfortunately we rail museums are largely run by old fogeys with old-fogey attitudes toward the world. We have to work to stay with the times.

In any case - remember - the D&S issue is not really environmentalism. It is plain old NIMBY. Exactly the same NIMBY that burdens the Napa Valley Wine Train, ORM and many other operators. Sometimes, doing something ridiculous is the cheapest way to shut up your opponent.

With all due respect, I think you are missing my point. I had no intention of discussing global warming, and am not doing so. I am only logically connecting the dots in the theme of this thread, which is a coal burning railroad acquiring carbon offsets. Although, I must say that I do not know how you can separate carbon offsets from at least thinking about global warming. There would be no need for the former if not for the latter.

I am not even suggesting that D&S engage in a political debate about global warming as you caution runs the risk of alienating half of the customer base. And to answer your first question, I am not suggesting that railroads deny global warming. D&S chose to plant trees to offset their carbon emissions. They have relatively high carbon emissions, and it will take a whole lot more trees to offset all of it. The point of carbon offsets is that they are punitive enough to push you to stop emitting CO2. How will D&S do that?

All I am saying is that if I were them, I would not have planted trees and told my customers it was to help offset my carbon emissions. Would that place me into a political debate with my customers about global warming? You suggest that a business keep a political debate out of their business dealings, and I absolutely agree. But bringing politics into business is exactly what D&S has done. Both sides of the global warming debate are political. If I were D&S, I might plant trees, but I would tell my customers that I did it because I like trees, and just keep politics out of it.

You mention the D&S issue being NIMBYS rather than environmentalism. It began with what you might call NIMBYS, in that they were local complainers affected by their proximity to the railroad. However, I would not go so far as to declare their complaints to be unfounded or illegitimate as is implied in the NIMBY label.

But the problem certainly evolved into environmentalism with the involvement of the State of Colorado searching for the authority to control D&S emissions. At that point, the problem was environmentalism concerning what has traditionally been regarded as pollution from coal combustion. By planting trees to offset their carbon footprint, D&S has raised the issue to a new level of environmentalism, which concerns the emission of CO2, which up until a couple years ago, was not considered to be a pollutant from coal combustion.

But my concern about what D&S has done is not about the possibility alienating customers from taking a pro-global warming stand with the acquisition of carbon offsets. My concern is about admitting to a hypothetical problem that is so large they can’t solve it without discontinuing steam like the Grand Canyon RR did.