Not flying - My biggest commitment to the environment?

[Bitter Ashes]

I might recycle as much as I should. I might forget to put my TV on standby and I deliberatly leave my light on when I'm out to make it look like I'm at home, I certainly dont go chaining myself to trees like Judie Bari. I'm not perfect, but I do try, like solely taking public transport, getting about 2/3 of recyclable rubbish into my green bin and then there's my biggie, I wont fly - ever.

I wont lie, I'm not rich enough to be jetting around all the world even if I wanted to, but there is part of me that pines to be traveling again and I had considered looking for extra hours just to save up to get a cheap flight to Greece, or Spain for a week maybe once a year. I just cant bring myself to justify it though. Yes, There's the Chunnel now and ferries to the continent and I could travel entirely by rail or bus theoretically, but the costs are totaly prohibitive to somebody unskilled like me, not to mention that it'd take half the week to just get anywhere.

Am I pushing this too far? We know that the real problem comes from the bourgeois, but I do think workers flying is a major impact that we as individuals can actualy change, even to the point where I've started saying "If you're going to do one thing and one thing only for the enviroment; Dont fly". Am I totaly wrong here and should I be guilt free if I was to save up for a week away in the sun, or do I actualy have this spot on and I should stop whining?

[Pogue]

I might recycle as much as I should. I might forget to put my TV on standby and I deliberatly leave my light on when I'm out to make it look like I'm at home, I certainly dont go chaining myself to trees like Judie Bari. I'm not perfect, but I do try, like solely taking public transport, getting about 2/3 of recyclable rubbish into my green bin and then there's my biggie, I wont fly - ever.

I wont lie, I'm not rich enough to be jetting around all the world even if I wanted to, but there is part of me that pines to be traveling again and I had considered looking for extra hours just to save up to get a cheap flight to Greece, or Spain for a week maybe once a year. I just cant bring myself to justify it though. Yes, There's the Chunnel now and ferries to the continent and I could travel entirely by rail or bus theoretically, but the costs are totaly prohibitive to somebody unskilled like me, not to mention that it'd take half the week to just get anywhere.

Am I pushing this too far? We know that the real problem comes from the bourgeois, but I do think workers flying is a major impact that we as individuals can actualy change, even to the point where I've started saying "If you're going to do one thing and one thing only for the enviroment; Dont fly". Am I totaly wrong here and should I be guilt free if I was to save up for a week away in the sun, or do I actualy have this spot on and I should stop whining?

Just book a flight Ranma! :lol: Until we have a planned democratic society the environment wont be saved, and those planes will fly regardless of whther you go, because they are public. Don't beat yourself up about it.

[Vanguard1917]

Am I pushing this too far? We know that the real problem comes from the bourgeois, but I do think workers flying is a major impact that we as individuals can actualy change, even to the point where I've started saying "If you're going to do one thing and one thing only for the enviroment; Dont fly". Am I totaly wrong here and should I be guilt free if I was to save up for a week away in the sun, or do I actualy have this spot on and I should stop whining?

Yes, you're very wrong. Every worker in world should be able to take advantage of air travel (the most effective form of global travel we have at the moment) if we want a world where there is genuine freedom of movement for all. By opposing air travel expansion, environmentalists are essentially saying that workers should stay where they are and be priced out of international travel. There really is nothing progressive about that. It's elitist bullshit.

[Psy]

Yes, you're very wrong. Every worker in world should be able to take advantage of air travel (the most effective form of global travel we have at the moment) if we want a world where there is genuine freedom of movement for all. By opposing air travel expansion, environmentalists are essentially saying that workers should stay where they are and be priced out of international travel. There really is nothing progressive about that. It's elitist bullshit.

Modern air travel is highly fuel inefficient, train and ship travel is far more energy efficient, even the experiment jet engine trains of the 1970's are more fuel efficient.

[Coggeh]

Modern air travel is highly fuel inefficient, train and ship travel is far more energy efficient, even the experiment jet engine trains of the 1970's are more fuel efficient.
Air travel should not be restricted to people people in order to 'save the planet' , it won't solve the roots of the problem and why climate change exists.

Its reactionary to stop workers and ordinary people flying because of the inefficiency of capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

So presumably, you're trying to upset the planes so much by the lack of your presence that they break down and refuse to fly? Because otherwise, I don't really see how not flying is doing anything.

[Psy]

So presumably, you're trying to upset the planes so much by the lack of your presence that they break down and refuse to fly? Because otherwise, I don't really see how not flying is doing anything.
The idea would be that if enough people don't fly airlines would take airliners off routes and send them to the airline graveyards, since the current economic crisis capitalism is already sending more airliners to graveyard as most airlines has far more capacity then passengers.

[Vanguard1917]

train and ship travel is far more energy efficient [than air travel]


In that sense, so is riding a bike, since it uses no vehicle fuel at all. But whereas it would take me many days (and a great deal of discomfort) to cycle from, say, Mexico City to LA, by plane i can complete the journey in a few hours.

Cycling is, of course, an extreme example. But it helps to illustrate that time is central to the equation and that the efficiency of something needs to be judged in large part in relation to how much time it saves.* Air travel remains the quickest form of mass travel. Surely, therefore, the answer is not to abolish it, but to strive towards making it even quicker as well as more efficient.


* Or, put another way:

"Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of [society's] development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economization of time. Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself. Society likewise has to distribute its time in a purposeful way, in order to achieve a production adequate to its overall needs; just as the individual has to distribute his time correctly in order to achieve knowledge in proper proportions or in order to satisfy the various demands on his activity. Thus, economy of time, along with the planned distribution of labour time among the various branches of production, remains the first economic law on the basis of communal production." (Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm))

[Wanted Man]

If I can't fly, how am I supposed to travel long distances? I want to go to Scotland next year, maybe I should travel down south to France, through the Chunnel, and then all the way up north through Britain again. 10-15 hours of train travel instead of 2 by plane, just to prove some environmentalist point. Sounds lovely. :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

This kind of environmentalism is stupid and a waste of time. Liberal tactics which are ineffective. Just like vegetarianism. Don't do it.

[Drace]

Whats wrong with flying?

Your not going to make a change yourself. Even if you get 300 people not to fly, you only save fuel it takes for one airplane to travel the distance.

If you don't fly it doesn't mean the plane isn't going to take off without you.

Its a stupid reason not to. The biggest thing Id worry about flying is the plane crashing.

[scarletghoul]

and snakes

[Psy]

In that sense, so is riding a bike, since it uses no vehicle fuel at all. But whereas it would take me many days (and a great deal of discomfort) to cycle from, say, Mexico City to LA, by plane i can complete the journey in a few hours.

Cycling is, of course, an extreme example. But it helps to illustrate that time is central to the equation and that the efficiency of something needs to be judged in large part in relation to how much time it saves.* Air travel remains the quickest form of mass travel. Surely, therefore, the answer is not to abolish it, but to strive towards making it even quicker as well as more efficient.


* Or, put another way:

"Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of [society's] development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economization of time. Economy of time, to this all economy ultimately reduces itself. Society likewise has to distribute its time in a purposeful way, in order to achieve a production adequate to its overall needs; just as the individual has to distribute his time correctly in order to achieve knowledge in proper proportions or in order to satisfy the various demands on his activity. Thus, economy of time, along with the planned distribution of labour time among the various branches of production, remains the first economic law on the basis of communal production." (Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm))
Well theoretically trains also require less energy moving as fast as airliners, this was kinda proven by the U.S.S.R in 1971 with its SVL jet powered train, the train was a failure because at high speeds (180 MP/H) the train wanted to become airborne that is bad for trains as it means the train derails as soon as it touched down again of course train technology has advanced greatly from 1971 and we regulararly have trains bullet trains traveling at speeds around 180 MP/H for example with meglev technology you could slap a jet engine on a train without having to worry about de-railing the train taking advantage of less friction trains have then airplanes to make supersonic trains that are more energy efficent then subsonic airliners.

Same for boats (kinda), ground effect planes that hover over water uses far less fuel then planes even when traveling at speeds as fast as airliners.

[KC]

Edit

[Dr Mindbender]

Flying is the only practical method for long haul travel.

I have family on the other side of the world.

Trains or boats? Not gonna happen. Dont give me that cruise BS, its the domain of toffs. Even flying by those standards is prole as fuck.

Personally, rather than seeing flying curtailed i'd rather see public space travel implemented. A spacecraft taking only a couple of hours to get from London to Sydney would be far less pollutive than say, several airliners spending a day in the air performing the same route anyway.I dont buy into the global warming conspiracy theories cooked up by the eco-fascists.

[Jazzratt]

This is why we need to bring back zeppelins.

I know that sounds like a chit-chatty thing to say but I've seen some interesting arguments for using them, not least because helium the requisite fuels are much easier to get hold of. Of course they would only really be practical in a less humdrum world where taking a few days to reach your destination is acceptable.

[Dr Mindbender]

This is why we need to bring back zeppelins.

.

Nope, we need these, but at proletarian fares.

http://fivenonblondes.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/virgin_galactic-thumb-450x492.jpg

I'm not spending 5 days couped up in a box attached to a giant condom.

There is absolutely nothing reactionary about wanting to get to your destination quickly. What if you have a family member 10 000 miles away thats about to croak?

[Jazzratt]

Nope, we need these, but at proletarian fares.

http://fivenonblondes.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/virgin_galactic-thumb-450x492.jpg
Have you any idea of requisite energy costs? Where the hell will that energy come from?


I'm not spending 5 days couped up in a box attached to a giant condom.

I wouldn't mind it if the "box" were a reasonably well appointed affair.


There is absolutely nothing reactionary about wanting to get to your destination quickly. What if you have a family member 10 000 miles away thats about to croak?

Then, of course, emergency use of faster vehicles can be authorised. But relying on it as your primary mode of transport? Not so much.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I agree with Vangaurd I will feel guilty when I have reason to until then I will enjoy the benefits of living in an age with air travel.

[Bitter Ashes]

This is why we need to bring back zeppelins.

I know that sounds like a chit-chatty thing to say but I've seen some interesting arguments for using them, not least because helium the requisite fuels are much easier to get hold of. Of course they would only really be practical in a less humdrum world where taking a few days to reach your destination is acceptable.
I've had a long standing ambition to travel by zepplin. It seems like such an awesome idea :D

I bet it'd be expensive though.

[Dr Mindbender]

Have you any idea of requisite energy costs? Where the hell will that energy come from?

I believe Virgin Galactic is launched with the power of its own rocket, from the belly of a much larger plane. I have heard of high altitude balloons being used though.





Then, of course, emergency use of faster vehicles can be authorised. But relying on it as your primary mode of transport? Not so much.

The problem i see here with replacing our primary mode of international transport becomes economic, especially when we're talking about green trends. If people start utilising a single form of transport en masse then industries stop manufacturing niche transport modes because there simply isnt the market or public desire to sustain it. Especially when we're talking about costly endeavours like running pan-continental airliners. Put simply, if zeppelins were allowed to replace jet planes they could kill the jet engine in much the same way that the petrol hungry car killed the Sinclair C5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5).

[Invincible Summer]

This kind of environmentalism is stupid and a waste of time. Liberal tactics which are ineffective. Just like vegetarianism. Don't do it.

I dont' want to turn this into a debate on vegetarianism, but for many that I know, it's a personal dietary choice that they realize is not revolutionary in any way, but comfortable for themselves.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

how the fuck can you speak for all vegetarians like that?
"they realize..."???
what are you talking about?

[Invincible Summer]

how the fuck can you speak for all vegetarians like that?
"they realize..."???
what are you talking about?

I never said I was speaking for all vegetarians. I guess saying that

but for many that I know
suddenly means "every single vegetarian?" Shit. No one told me.


If you need any further clarification, then please take it to the "Do you eat meat?" or related threads. I think it's pretty straight-forward.

[Psy]

Flying is the only practical method for long haul travel.

I have family on the other side of the world.

Trains or boats? Not gonna happen. Dont give me that cruise BS, its the domain of toffs. Even flying by those standards is prole as fuck.


Actually there are supersonic trains on the drawing board that could theoretically travel as fast as a bullet (of course the train would have accelerate much slower then a bullet) using rail gun technology, with theoretical speeds up to 3 KM/s rail gun trains would make even the fastest military jets look stationary.

[Dr Mindbender]

Actually there are supersonic trains on the drawing board that could theoretically travel as fast as a bullet (of course the train would have accelerate much slower then a bullet) using rail gun technology, with theoretical speeds up to 3 KM/s rail gun trains would make even the fastest military jets look stationary.

you can try it first.

[Psy]

you can try it first.

It is theoretical basically it is what engineers assume is the maximum speed based on the maximum speed of bullets through a rail gun. Of course there is an acceleration issue when your talking human (though some freight would have no problem with such rapid acceleration, meaning you luggage could arrive way before you do).

The point is that trains can theoritically trains accelreate much faster then humans surivive meaning it will be much easier to have trains travel at the maximum speed humans can travel, then for airliners to do the same.

[Partizani]

'Doing your bit' whilst under a capitalist society who cuts down more trees a day than you could in your entire life is useless. I recycle but thats it, i use planes alot during the winter for skiing holidays. If you choose not to fly for the reason that it will hurt the environment, good for you but dont expect you alone to save the world.
What needs to stop the destruction of our rainforests and large areas of woodland. We need those trees to survive, but capitalism doesn't care about the next generation who will have to deal with it, all it wants is profit- NOW explained with the good ol capitalist slogan 'profit before people'

[Psy]

'Doing your bit' whilst under a capitalist society who cuts down more trees a day than you could in your entire life is useless. I recycle but thats it, i use planes alot during the winter for skiing holidays. If you choose not to fly for the reason that it will hurt the environment, good for you but dont expect you alone to save the world.
What needs to stop the destruction of our rainforests and large areas of woodland. We need those trees to survive, but capitalism doesn't care about the next generation who will have to deal with it, all it wants is profit- NOW explained with the good ol capitalist slogan 'profit before people'

But not consuming hurts capitalism, the less commodity one consumes the weaker the world market becomes, that is why capitalist states had no choice but to use armies to crush artisans as they created their own commodities. For example if everyone on the planet one day just decided to travel by simply hopping freight trains that in itself would cause to the rate of profit to dip deep into the red as all of sudden consumption of fuel would for suddenly be insignificant to the fuel on the market causing the price of fuel to collapse causing a domino effect on all other commodities on the market.

[Bitter Ashes]

But not consuming hurts capitalism, the less commodity one consumes the weaker the world market becomes, that is why capitalist states had no choice but to use armies to crush artisans as they created their own commodities. For example if everyone on the planet one day just decided to travel by simply hopping freight trains that in itself would cause to the rate of profit to dip deep into the red as all of sudden consumption of fuel would for suddenly be insignificant to the fuel on the market causing the price of fuel to collapse causing a domino effect on all other commodities on the market.
It'd also show the role of the state to the masses; To protect the bourgeois' intrests. They'd descend with clubs and gas on freight cars and they'd have no excuse to give, thier support of the bourgeois would be laid bare.

This is all hypothetical though and will probably remain so.

[Dr Mindbender]

It is theoretical basically it is what engineers assume is the maximum speed based on the maximum speed of bullets through a rail gun. Of course there is an acceleration issue when your talking human (though some freight would have no problem with such rapid acceleration, meaning you luggage could arrive way before you do).

The point is that trains can theoritically trains accelreate much faster then humans surivive meaning it will be much easier to have trains travel at the maximum speed humans can travel, then for airliners to do the same.

all i have to say is 2 points-

* A large vehicle, weighing what could easilly be in excess of 10 tonnes is going to endure some pretty fucking phenomenal g-forces travelling supersonic. Plenty to kill the average human.

*What about landmasses with no contiguous land routes to other continents? Specifically Australia, and other long haul routes like transatlantic? Youre not going to build railroads across oceans.

[Psy]

all i have to say is 2 points-

* A large vehicle, weighing what could easilly be in excess of 10 tonnes is going to endure some pretty fucking phenomenal g-forces travelling supersonic. Plenty to kill the average human.

G-forces accrue in changes to velocity, meaning you can be move at the speed of light with zero g-forces and your velocity remains constant.



*What about landmasses with no contiguous land routes to other continents? Specifically Australia, and other long haul routes like transatlantic? Youre not going to build railroads across oceans.
Of course not if you are going to do it would tunnel through the ocean with supports holding the tunnel up from the ocean floor, this of course require advances in underwater construction. The whole point of rail-gun trains is to have cross Earth travel where the train has the distance to get up to speed and back down to a stop (for example from Vladivostok Russia to Madrid Spain non-stop).

[FreeFocus]

Any socialist's "biggest commitment to the environment" is pretty much his or her opposition to capitalism, easily the worst environmental development in history.

Are there any feasible fuel alternatives for airplanes? Is solar technology feasible for this?

[Dr Mindbender]

G-forces accrue in changes to velocity, meaning you can be move at the speed of light with zero g-forces and your velocity remains constant.
Yes, and a static object weighing as much as a train is going to have a pretty big fucking acceleration being shot out of a railgun with an exit velocity of the magnitude you're talking about.



Of course not if you are going to do it would tunnel through the ocean with supports holding the tunnel up from the ocean floor
Bollocks you will. There is only a couple of submersible craft in existance capable of enduring the enormous pressures of the atlantic floor. None of which have the logistical capacity to drill through the atlantic bed, and stay there long enough to build a railway tunnel 3000 miles long. Even then, thats if you ignore tectonic plate movements.

I think you'd have more chance of building a railway road on top of the atlantic using giant polystyrene buoys.

[Psy]

Yes, and a static object weighing as much as a train is going to have a pretty big fucking acceleration being shot out of a railgun with an exit velocity of the magnitude you're talking about.

You wouldn't have a exist velocity since the point would be not be shooting the train out of a rail gun but the entire length of track being two large rail guns attached to each other, one that accelerates the train and the other that decelerates the train then accelerates in the other direction (which the first one would then decelerate the train).

Also it is not the acceleration of the train's weight that is a problem to humans, the problem is humans have a maximum rate of acceleration of around 440 m/s² (45g) when strapped into a restraint to equally distrabute forces, since we are talking trains that would be fully automated we don't care if humans lose conciousness just as long as they don't suffer lasting injuries and so cargo doesn't get damaged. Okay so few people like to blacking out on the train ride due to excessive g-forces but the trade off would getting there much faster.



Bollocks you will. There is only a couple of submersible craft in existance capable of enduring the enormous pressures of the atlantic floor. None of which have the logistical capacity to drill through the atlantic bed, and stay there long enough to build a railway tunnel 3000 miles long. Even then, thats if you ignore tectonic plate movements.


I think you'd have more chance of building a railway road on top of the atlantic using giant polystyrene buoys.
[/quote]
You don't have to have tunnel that deep, you sink supports down to the ocean floor to support the tunnel above the ocean floor.

As for tectonic plate movements you just have magnetic funnels where you have a much wider part of the tunnel to account for movement of the plates so magnets can recenter the train as moves through the funnel.

[Wanted Man]

Very interesting discussion, but how about the here and now? Until we can actually travel to Australia in supersonic trains, I'll take flying, thanks.

I also don't get how flying is "bourgeois" or whatever. There are a lot of flights that provide way cheaper options than taking the train or the boat. To take the example of Netherlands-Britain again (a very short distance anyway): it may be cool to hate on Ryanair, but they can take me there and back for 30 euros or so. If I wanted to play at being an environmentalist, I guess I'd have to make two train trips that are expensive for me (to France and through Britain) and it would cost me at least 200 euros. See, we're talking small distances and amounts of money (compared to what goes around in the world on a daily basis), but even in that case, flight has a massive advantage in terms of time and cost.

If there is one thing that just screams "I have so much money to spare that I don't know what to do with it", it's spending hundreds on an excessively long and complicated train trip, on a distance that can easily be done by plane, just to score environmentalist kudos. I don't know about the boat for sure, but I suppose it's not exactly the cheapest and fastest form of transport either. And I don't even know if the boat is "cool" for environmentalists... :rolleyes:

[Bitter Ashes]

Very interesting discussion, but how about the here and now? Until we can actually travel to Australia in supersonic trains, I'll take flying, thanks.

I also don't get how flying is "bourgeois" or whatever. There are a lot of flights that provide way cheaper options than taking the train or the boat. To take the example of Netherlands-Britain again (a very short distance anyway): it may be cool to hate on Ryanair, but they can take me there and back for 30 euros or so. If I wanted to play at being an environmentalist, I guess I'd have to make two train trips that are expensive for me (to France and through Britain) and it would cost me at least 200 euros. See, we're talking small distances and amounts of money (compared to what goes around in the world on a daily basis), but even in that case, flight has a massive advantage in terms of time and cost. I'd take a look at it some time if you're considering making a short trip like that as it sounds a lot more comfortable than bieng crowbar'd into the economy seats on a budget plane. I mean, a giant floating pub that takes you to the Netherlands while you drink? Sounds good to me! :D

If there is one thing that just screams "I have so much money to spare that I don't know what to do with it", it's spending hundreds on an excessively long and complicated train trip, on a distance that can easily be done by plane, just to score environmentalist kudos. I don't know about the boat for sure, but I suppose it's not exactly the cheapest and fastest form of transport either. And I don't even know if the boat is "cool" for environmentalists... :rolleyes:
Overnight ferry to/from the Netherlands, with your own bed, several bars, resturants, cinema, etc *drumroll* £20 return (about 10-15 euros). No taxes on top of that!

Those short hops over the North Sea, English Channel, or Irish Sea are the exceptions rather than the rule though. If I wanted to go to Spain by ship, it'd cost in the hundreds.

[eyedrop]

Næh, I always have good conscience regarding pollution. I just did one of those feel-bad tests, which are probably weigthed towards you polluting more than you are, and I ended up polluting less than the world average. (Not that my low consumption is wholly voluntiary though, but I can't say I want a car since the buss system here works just fine) So if just the gass guzzling nations designed their landscape with a little less car driving and more collective transport, all the worlds poor could move up to my level and we would be better off pollutionwise.

And yeah, I plugged in quite a few yearly flights too.

[Yazman]

Its easy for you to say given that you live on an island connected to the Europe-Asia-Africa landmass.

I live on an island not connected to any others (Australia) and if I need to go to another part of the planet it is not possible to eliminate air travel.

[eyedrop]

Its easy for you to say given that you live on an island connected to the Europe-Asia-Africa landmass.

I live on an island not connected to any others (Australia) and if I need to go to another part of the planet it is not possible to eliminate air travel.

Yep, completely agree. Differing circumstances, add in that 98% of my country's electricity is made by renewable energy due to unique possibilities with a bunch of waterfalls and a low population. There is still quite a room for improving the situation in many nations without worsening the average workers situation with an improvement of collective transport and such. Although maybe not that suited for the gigantic distances in Australia.

I would surely consume more if I wasn't so damn poor at the moment (curse the financial crisis for bankrupting the company I worked for).

Anyway flying a few flights a year doesn't pollute much compared to maintaining a decent standard of living.



Sorry for letting my holier than thou surface despite my iron disipline:blushing:

[Dr Mindbender]

You wouldn't have a exist velocity since the point would be not be shooting the train out of a rail gun but the entire length of track being two large rail guns attached to each other, one that accelerates the train and the other that decelerates the train then accelerates in the other direction (which the first one would then decelerate the train).
Great, so the g-force wouldnt be one off jolt but a sustained experience all the way to new york. Think i'll stick with 8 hours in economy class thanks.


Also it is not the acceleration of the train's weight that is a problem to humans, the problem is humans have a maximum rate of acceleration of around 440 m/s² (45g) when strapped into a restraint to equally distrabute forces, since we are talking trains that would be fully automated we don't care if humans lose conciousness just as long as they don't suffer lasting injuries and so cargo doesn't get damaged. Okay so few people like to blacking out on the train ride due to excessive g-forces but the trade off would getting there much faster.
I doubt you'll get many people willing to board a train where they're going to black out. Rendering the entire project impractical. Moreover if you allow people to get on with underlying health conditions youre going to ending up killing someone, not just knocking them out.



You don't have to have tunnel that deep, you sink supports down to the ocean floor to support the tunnel above the ocean floor.
I'm not sure you appreciate how deep the ocean actually is. In places it goes down as far as 3 miles. Just to give you an idea what a 3 mile thick body of water can do, the unfortunate souls who were found at the titanic wreckage had disintegrated due to the sheer force of water, there werent even any bones left, just shoes and clothes. This was at 2.5 miles down. So in order that your train tunnel wasnt under such continuous pressure, youd have to build your struts possibly as high as a couple of miles. Assuming you could get down far enough to set up some struts at an appropriate depth to prevent the occupants being killed by the sheer pressure of water, you'd have to build a continuous string of them, 3000 miles long. The cost alone would probably render it impractical, and one i doubt any government or group of governments would be willing to commit to.



As for tectonic plate movements you just have magnetic funnels where you have a much wider part of the tunnel to account for movement of the plates so magnets can recenter the train as moves through the funnel.
Youd need to consider how you could make the exterior of the tunnel flexible enough to compensate for the plate movements yet strong enough to resist the pressure of the water. Yet another scientific problem that i dont think could be easilly resolved.

[Psy]

Great, so the g-force wouldnt be one off jolt but a sustained experience all the way to new york. Think i'll stick with 8 hours in economy class thanks.

I doubt you'll get many people willing to board a train where they're going to black out. Rendering the entire project impractical. Moreover if you allow people to get on with underlying health conditions youre going to ending up killing someone, not just knocking them out.


The point is trains have the theoretical ability to traveler faster then humans can, while airliners have larger obstacles to travel at that speed for starters since airliners are not guided they are harder to automate. It already computers stop trains the millisecond it sees a problem with the train ahead of it allowing for trains to follow very closely as the computer will correct problems before humans even notice a problem on trains while in the air computers struggle just doing routine flying.



I'm not sure you appreciate how deep the ocean actually is. In places it goes down as far as 3 miles. Just to give you an idea what a 3 mile thick body of water can do, the unfortunate souls who were found at the titanic wreckage had disintegrated due to the sheer force of water, there werent even any bones left, just shoes and clothes. This was at 2.5 miles down. So in order that your train tunnel wasnt under such continuous pressure, youd have to build your struts possibly as high as a couple of miles. Assuming you could get down far enough to set up some struts at an appropriate depth to prevent the occupants being killed by the sheer pressure of water, you'd have to build a continuous string of them, 3000 miles long. The cost alone would probably render it impractical, and one i doubt any government or group of governments would be willing to commit to.

You forget about bouncy there wouldn't be as much weight pushing down on the struts thus they could be build farther apart then if they were holding up the tunnel and train above the water level, thus you should be able to have long bridge section where it supported from struts where the ocean floor is shallower.



Youd need to consider how you could make the exterior of the tunnel flexible enough to compensate for the plate movements yet strong enough to resist the pressure of the water. Yet another scientific problem that i dont think could be easilly resolved.

Can be solved with how cables hold up under the ocean just put more air pressure in cable (in this cause tunnel) then outside the cable (tunnel) so air leaks out rather water leaking in and the air pressure holds prevents the water from crushing the cable (tunnel).

Yes that means there is a problem of the train dealing with more air pressure but since the train is no following the ocean floor like cables it would have far less air pressure then cross ocean cables.

[Psy]

Very interesting discussion, but how about the here and now? Until we can actually travel to Australia in supersonic trains, I'll take flying, thanks.

I also don't get how flying is "bourgeois" or whatever. There are a lot of flights that provide way cheaper options than taking the train or the boat. To take the example of Netherlands-Britain again (a very short distance anyway): it may be cool to hate on Ryanair, but they can take me there and back for 30 euros or so. If I wanted to play at being an environmentalist, I guess I'd have to make two train trips that are expensive for me (to France and through Britain) and it would cost me at least 200 euros. See, we're talking small distances and amounts of money (compared to what goes around in the world on a daily basis), but even in that case, flight has a massive advantage in terms of time and cost.

If there is one thing that just screams "I have so much money to spare that I don't know what to do with it", it's spending hundreds on an excessively long and complicated train trip, on a distance that can easily be done by plane, just to score environmentalist kudos. I don't know about the boat for sure, but I suppose it's not exactly the cheapest and fastest form of transport either. And I don't even know if the boat is "cool" for environmentalists... :rolleyes:

Well for starters railways are more unionized the airlines, that ass Reagen was unable to smash the rail unions. Rail workers know how to sabotage scabs for example hiding train engines on rural sidings. Then you have the history of many large general strike starting because railway workers refused to move goods starving coal power plants and other industry, there is also the history of revolutionary armies moving on freight trains once train workers have joined the revolution. Then you have the fact that a person can hop on a freight train for free and see the country for free just having to dodge the railway police.

Then you have trains being more energy efficient then airlines, airline fares are only cheaper as airline workers are more exploited then rail workers as airline workers are far less militant then rail workers.

[Vanguard1917]

airline fares are only cheaper as airline workers are more exploited then rail workers as airline workers are far less militant then rail workers.

But, as an environmentalist, would you really want air travel workers to be more militant -- i.e. to be people who will fight hard to save the jobs which the middle-class eco-warriors wish to abolish? I doubt you would.

Environmentalists call for shutting down industries they don't like and they want the workers in those industries to move on as quietly as possible. The last thing they want is ordinary working class people actually standing up for their 'dirty' jobs.

[Psy]

But, as an environmentalist, would you really want air travel workers to be more militant -- i.e. to be people who will fight hard to save the jobs which the middle-class eco-warriors wish to abolish? I doubt you would.

Environmentalists call for shutting down industries they don't like and they want the workers in those industries to move on as quietly as possible. The last thing they want is ordinary working class people actually standing up for their 'dirty' jobs.

Yes I want them to be more militant as I want them to be worker controlled as I know capitalists don't care about their environmental impact while workers even in 'diry' jobs do care about the environment.

[Raúl Duke]

I might recycle as much as I should. I might forget to put my TV on standby and I deliberatly leave my light on when I'm out to make it look like I'm at home, I certainly dont go chaining myself to trees like Judie Bari. I'm not perfect, but I do try, like solely taking public transport, getting about 2/3 of recyclable rubbish into my green bin and then there's my biggie, I wont fly - ever.

You do more then me and I personally need to fly; it's the only more economical/straight-forward way for me to get to Puerto Rico.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes I want them to be more militant as I want them to be worker controlled as I know capitalists don't care about their environmental impact while workers even in 'diry' jobs do care about the environment.

And when these militant airline workers reject eco-demands that their jobs are abolished?

[Raúl Duke]

Vanguard's exchange with other members reminds me of a few tales I heard to the same effect.

I remember this liberal (no, I'm speaking of an actual Democrat supporter "activist") saying something that implicitly meant we shouldn't trust the workers to run anything because if they did they would be ok with environmental destruction if it's a part of their job. But is that really the case?

Another person told me that if timber workers were given the run of the forests they would engage in sustainable practices because such actions would preserve the forest and thus preserving their jobs as well because if the forest becomes depleted the corporation would obviously just close shop and go to another forest.

Personally, I don't think all environmental issues and worker's interest always run counter to one another (as some liberals might think and what Vanguard seems to be unfairly implying) and in fact could have parallels. However, when they do become conflicting (which they could), I tend to go for the worker's interest. For example, unless they invented a new kind of plane that was eco-friendly, given airport employees and pilots the run of the air travel industry would probably not end up in satisfiable eco-friendly practices until that eco-friendly travel plane is invented. Either way, I still think the air travel industry needs to be maintained and surely see it nevertheless good if it's run by the workers.

[Psy]

And when these militant airline workers reject eco-demands that their jobs are abolished?

And when strike council calls a general strike? If the general strike council says airline workers are needed to work on the railways to keep revolutionary armies mobile? When a workers revolution comes workers will not simply carry out their old jobs under workers management, production will be quickly changed to fight a armed struggle against the capitalist class and after we a victorious works losing their jobs would be a moot point as wage slavery would be abolished.

[KC]

Edit

[Vanguard1917]

And when strike council calls a general strike? If the general strike council says airline workers are needed to work on the railways to keep revolutionary armies mobile? When a workers revolution comes workers will not simply carry out their old jobs under workers management, production will be quickly changed to fight a armed struggle against the capitalist class and after we a victorious works losing their jobs would be a moot point as wage slavery would be abolished.

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to what i asked.

If environmentalists were successful in persuading the government to reduce numbers of flights, and if airline workers opposed this attack on their jobs, what would be the correct environmentalist response? How can you call for airline jobs to be reduced and at the same time call for airline workers to more militantly defend their jobs? Is there not a conflict of interests there?

[Psy]

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to what i asked.

If environmentalists were successful in persuading the government to reduce numbers of flights, and if airline workers opposed this attack on their jobs, what would be the correct environmentalist response? How can you call for airline jobs to be reduced and at the same time call for airline workers to more militantly defend their jobs? Is there not a conflict of interests there?

Basically you are phrasing your question in a bourgeoisie form where necessary labor for airline workers can't be reduced without taking away them means for airline workers to consume the products of society.

I'm not not calling for airline workers to be militant to defend their position in wage slavery but to be militant against their capitalist masters. Railway workers had the Pullman strike of 1894, workers derailed their trains on purpose to prevent scabs from using them, railway workers picked on rail line to block lines and had basically shutdown all industry activity in the USA and the strike only ended with the deployment of the National Guard yet the strike led to the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World.

Airline workers on the other hand have historically been more reactionary unable to even expand their strike to all workers even at airports.

[Pogue]

Interestingly flying is actually a really small element of global warming because not many people fly often. It pales in comparison to the damage done by driving cars.

[Vanguard1917]

Basically you are phrasing your question in a bourgeoisie form where necessary labor for airline workers can't be reduced without taking away them means for airline workers to consume the products of society.

I'm not not calling for airline workers to be militant to defend their position in wage slavery but to be militant against their capitalist masters.

So when airline workers take industrial action against redundancies (job losses will be the inevitable outcome of green anti-air transport policies), you will refuse to support them, since that would be a militant defence of wage slavery?

What about if it was not airline workers, but railway or, say, wind energy workers? I assume you'd oppose their redundancy. So, in other words, you pick and choose which workers you will support based on your environmentalist views rather than a principled defence of workers' jobs?



Airline workers on the other hand have historically been more reactionary unable to even expand their strike to all workers even at airports.


I think you will find that there are plenty of examples of airline workers taking industrial action. As an environmentalist, you no doubt have a bias against 'dirty' airline workers, but there is nothing inherent to the air travel industry which makes the workers employed within it less likely to be militant.

[Revy]

Interestingly flying is actually a really small element of global warming because not many people fly often. It pales in comparison to the damage done by driving cars.

Correct. I have never flown on a plane in my life.

air travel is something that can be treated as an exception, along with space launches.

[Psy]

So when airline workers take industrial action against redundancies (job losses will be the inevitable outcome of green anti-air transport policies), you will refuse to support them, since that would be a militant defence of wage slavery?

What about if it was not airline workers, but railway or, say, wind energy workers? I assume you'd oppose their redundancy. So, in other words, you pick and choose which workers you will support based on your environmentalist views rather than a principled defence of workers' jobs?

I support workers based the advancing of the position of the proletariat in the class struggle, know tell me should we are Marxist support smoking so all the workers who's jobs are related to smoking keep their job? What about wars, should we support the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan so workers making arms jobs are more secure? What about mercenaries like Black Water should we support their job security?

This is why I said you have a bourgeoisie view, you are looking at how workers can fight each other for the capitalist class to not exploit them as much rather then looking at how workers can take the offensive and strike blows against the capitalist system.



I think you will find that there are plenty of examples of airline workers taking industrial action. As an environmentalist, you no doubt have a bias against 'dirty' airline workers, but there is nothing inherent to the air travel industry which makes the workers employed within it less likely to be militant.
Name one airline strike that caused a revolutionary situation, you can't as every airline strike was isolated where the striking fraction of airline workers couldn't even gain solidarity with other airline workers. On the other hand the early railway labor organizers in the USA were mostly all Marxist and Anarchists like Eugene Debs that were considered enemies of the US state.

[Vanguard1917]

What about wars, should we support the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan so workers making arms jobs are more secure? What about mercenaries like Black Water should we support their job security?


No, but that's an improper comparison. The expansion of air travel is potentially extremely useful for the working class, not least because it helps give way to greater freedom of international movement. Imperialist wars, on the other hand, are not in the interests of workers.


you are looking at how workers can fight each other for the capitalist class to not exploit them as much rather then looking at how workers can take the offensive and strike blows against the capitalist system.


No, i'm saying that airline workers would be correct to fight against redundancies, while you seem to be saying that they would not be.



Name one airline strike that caused a revolutionary situation, you can't as every airline strike was isolated where the striking fraction of airline workers couldn't even gain solidarity with other airline workers. On the other hand the early railway labor organizers in the USA were mostly all Marxist and Anarchists like Eugene Debs that were considered enemies of the US state.


So you do believe that there is something inherent to airlines which makes their workers predisposed to reaction? The reason that you're coming to this bizarre conclusion is that you are comparing the situation in an industry (rail) in the extremely socially unstable years of the late 19th and early 20th century, with that of an industry (mass general aviation) which has only really existed for the last few decades, decades which have seen greater social stability in the Western world.

Therefore, the reasons behind why railway workers may have been more militant than airline workers are historical. There is nothing special about train travel that which makes it more suited to labour militancy, just as there is nothing inherent to airlines making them less so.

[Wanted Man]

Well for starters railways are more unionized the airlines, that ass Reagen was unable to smash the rail unions. Rail workers know how to sabotage scabs for example hiding train engines on rural sidings. Then you have the history of many large general strike starting because railway workers refused to move goods starving coal power plants and other industry, there is also the history of revolutionary armies moving on freight trains once train workers have joined the revolution. Then you have the fact that a person can hop on a freight train for free and see the country for free just having to dodge the railway police.

Then you have trains being more energy efficient then airlines, airline fares are only cheaper as airline workers are more exploited then rail workers as airline workers are far less militant then rail workers.

I don't like responding with one-liners normally, but: so what?

[Psy]

No, but that's an improper comparison. The expansion of air travel is potentially extremely useful for the working class, not least because it helps give way to greater freedom of international movement. Imperialist wars, on the other hand, are not in the interests of workers.

Yes air travel is useful but it is not exactly practical on a large scale epically for a future leisure society that is trying to reduce the necessary labor time. Airports are overcrowded now even with a tiny fraction of the population flying and you'd still need trains to get people to and from the airport that use to be farm land. Don't forget it is much harder to automate airliners so you'd need actual people piloting the airliners while trains even now be run unmanned lowering the necessarily labor time.



No, i'm saying that airline workers would be correct to fight against redundancies, while you seem to be saying that they would not be.

Are we talking in capitalism or in communism? In capitalism sure they should fight to protect their job but in communism they wouldn't be as they would no longer be wage slaves, them being laid off would be a good thing under communism, it would be society telling them they labor is not needed without restricting their access to the products of society.



So you do believe that there is something inherent to airlines which makes their workers predisposed to reaction? The reason that you're coming to this bizarre conclusion is that you are comparing the situation in an industry (rail) in the extremely socially unstable years of the late 19th and early 20th century, with that of an industry (mass general aviation) which has only really existed for the last few decades, decades which have seen greater social stability in the Western world.

Therefore, the reasons behind why railway workers may have been more militant than airline workers are historical. There is nothing special about train travel that which makes it more suited to labour militancy, just as there is nothing inherent to airlines making them less so.
You seem to forget the labor of the rail workers services the arteries of industrial production, without rail workers not even truck drivers can do their job as crude oil can't make it to oil refiners and coal can't make it to power plants to power oil refiners. Even if airline workers were able to ground every plane capitalists would be at best just be inconvenienced, while rail workers shutting down freight trains means the production cycle stops as commodities can't are either stuck in transit or waiting for other commodities that are stuck in transit.

[Psy]

I don't like responding with one-liners normally, but: so what?

Expanding the number of rail workers even now expands the overall worker class consciousness while expanding air travel doesn't. Rail workers have a very different experience then air travel workers, the interconnection between the different jobs at railways are far more clear then the different jobs including the labor of workers of competing railways since most railways lease track and equipment between each other. A train engineer can clearly see their workplace safety is dependant on the labor on the rest of the train crew, the track crews, dispatcher, the mechanics,ect while most pilots don't think that way which is why they didn't join the 1981 air traffic controller strike.

[ls]

Expanding the number of rail workers even now expands the overall worker class consciousness while expanding air travel doesn't. Rail workers have a very different experience then air travel workers, the interconnection between the different jobs at railways are far more clear then the different jobs including the labor of workers of competing railways since most railways lease track and equipment between each other. A train engineer can clearly see their workplace safety is dependant on the labor on the rest of the train crew, the track crews, dispatcher, the mechanics,ect while most pilots don't think that way which is why they didn't join the 1981 air traffic controller strike.

Well, Finnair pilots are on strike as we speak I do believe, their jobs are being outsourced, just because the American ones didn't do it in solidarity, does that make all pilots the same? Not really.

In case you hadn't noticed, solidarity strikes don't happen that often because overall class-consciousness isn't amazingly high, it's hardly confined to just pilots in that strike is it? Plus, I don't think you're right nayway, with the advent of super-cheap airlines, there are actually quite a lot of low-paid pilots nowdays.

[Psy]

Well, Finnair pilots are on strike as we speak I do believe, their jobs are being outsourced, just because the American ones didn't do it in solidarity, does that make all pilots the same? Not really.

In case you hadn't noticed, solidarity strikes don't happen that often because overall class-consciousness isn't amazingly high, it's hardly confined to just pilots in that strike is it? Plus, I don't think you're right nayway, with the advent of super-cheap airlines, there are actually quite a lot of low-paid pilots nowdays.

Of course pilots are low-paid because unlike train engineers they failed to unite with their co-workers to strangle their capitalist masters when it comes to strikes. Capitalists fear railway workers as much as they fear miners, they know when like miners when railway workers get fully mobilized they have a enough momentum behind them to cause a revolutionary situation.

[ls]

Of course pilots are low-paid because unlike train engineers they failed to unite with their co-workers to strangle their capitalist masters when it comes to strikes. Capitalists fear railway workers as much as they fear miners, they know when like miners when railway workers get fully mobilized they have a enough momentum behind them to cause a revolutionary situation.

In the USA?

I'm not sure if there was a strike of the entire railways here in the UK that it would be 'revolutionary' quite like the miners' strike was. There would need to be quite a bit solidarity striking (such as - tada, airport workers, often linked to the railways that deliver passengers to take off on holiday ;) ), the posties and probably the national grid workers, I reckon that would initiate others to strike in solidarity that would elevate it to a 'general strike' and yeah that would be revolutionary, but no I don't think railway workers striking would be enough on their own.

[Psy]

In the USA?

I'm not sure if there was a strike of the entire railways here in the UK that it would be 'revolutionary' quite like the miners' strike was. There would need to be quite a bit solidarity striking (such as - tada, airport workers, often linked to the railways that deliver passengers to take off on holiday ;) ), the posties and probably the national grid workers, I reckon that would initiate others to strike in solidarity that would elevate it to a 'general strike' and yeah that would be revolutionary, but no I don't think railway workers striking would be enough on their own.

Railway workers have the power to strangle industry and can cause a revolutionary situation by grinding industrial society to a halt even if other workers are not part of their strike as other industrial can't work anyway without the raw materials the railways haul. For example even if truck drivers try to scab railway workers to haul coal to power plants they would fail there is simply not enough trucks in the USA to fully take over from freight trains especially giving the long distance raw materials have to travel in the USA.

[ls]

Railway workers have the power to strangle industry and can cause a revolutionary situation by grinding industrial society to a halt even if other workers are not part of their strike as other industrial can't work anyway without the raw materials the railways haul. For example even if truck drivers try to scab railway workers to haul coal to power plants they would fail there is simply not enough trucks in the USA to fully take over from freight trains especially giving the long distance raw materials have to travel in the USA.

Freight train driver strikes? Those are extremely limited, are there any recent examples of them in the USA?

[Psy]

Freight train driver strikes? Those are extremely limited, are there any recent examples of them in the USA?
Train engineers at Canadian National Railway (that has lines in the USA) are going on strike Saturday over attempts by management to exploit them more, the key issue right now is management wants the union to give up the right for workers to have advanced warning when managements changes their shifts. Canadian capitalists are already becoming alarmed at the though of commodities not being able get to market.

[ls]

Train engineers at Canadian National Railway (that has lines in the USA) are going on strike Saturday over attempts by management to exploit them more, the key issue right now is management wants the union to give up the right for workers to have advanced warning when managements changes their shifts. Canadian capitalists are already becoming alarmed at the though of commodities not being able get to market.

Fair enough, but I think your emphasis on one industry is wrong -- only by solidarity strikes can we advance the struggle, no matter how powerful one industry is in struggle, a strike must always spread in some way (even if it is not in the form of an overt workers' strike, but through communities more-so like for instance a rent strike in municipal flats). Just saying, you are correct that the railways are a major part of every country's infrastructure, I'm not denying their importance.

[Psy]

Fair enough, but I think your emphasis on one industry is wrong -- only by solidarity strikes can we advance the struggle, no matter how powerful one industry is in struggle, a strike must always spread in some way (even if it is not in the form of an overt workers' strike, but through communities more-so like for instance a rent strike in municipal flats). Just saying, you are correct that the railways are a major part of every country's infrastructure, I'm not denying their importance.

Well looking at the outcome of the Pullman strike of 1894, railway workers need outside support when it comes to locking horns with the state. Even though the railway workers put up a commendable fight against the National Guard their strike was doomed the instant the National Guard deployed, it is clear when the state sics troops on a railway strike the only hope for rail workers to survive is with the help of the rest of the proletariat. If the rest of American workers came to the defense of the railway workers back in 1894 the US could have had a workers revolution right then and there.

Yet that would be a revolution, I was talking about a revolutionary situation, you know before workers and the state are thrown into armed conflict.

[ls]

Well looking at the outcome of the Pullman strike of 1894, railway workers need outside support when it comes to locking horns with the state. Even though the railway workers put up a commendable fight against the National Guard their strike was doomed the instant the National Guard deployed, it is clear when the state sics troops on a railway strike the only hope for rail workers to survive is with the help of the rest of the proletariat. If the rest of American workers came to the defense of the railway workers back in 1894 the US could have had a workers revolution right then and there.

Yet that would be a revolution, I was talking about a revolutionary situation, you know before workers and the state are thrown into armed conflict.

And don't you think there's still a preemptive and pressing need for all kinds of solidarity strikes and actions before this period?

[Psy]

And don't you think there's still a preemptive and pressing need for all kinds of solidarity strikes and actions before this period?
Yes but railway workers (like miners) have the ability to throw capitalist society into the air on their own.

[ls]

Yes but railway workers (like miners) have the ability to throw capitalist society into the air on their own.

But with that kind of attitude, any one industry is able to throw capitalist society 'into the air on their own', you are sidelining other industries which have equally large power - which is not a good approach.

It's simply not true that "one industry rules all the others" at any given time, there is always a need for several to come out, indeed based on history we can see that a strike of any size in the small industries can escalate into including several of the biggest industries into entirely striking. Having such a set mindset about which one will "throw capitalist society into the air on their own" is not helpful imo, there are so many different industries that can do that - and especially in combination with each other that it is pointless to speculate about just one and its solitary effect.

[Psy]

But with that kind of attitude, any one industry is able to throw capitalist society 'into the air on their own', you are sidelining other industries which have equally large power - which is not a good approach.

It's simply not true that "one industry rules all the others" at any given time, there is always a need for several to come out, indeed based on history we can see that a strike of any size in the small industries can escalate into including several of the biggest industries into entirely striking. Having such a set mindset about which one will "throw capitalist society into the air on their own" is not helpful imo, there are so many different industries that can do that - and especially in combination with each other that it is pointless to speculate about just one and its solitary effect.


Not really as not all industries are equally strategic, for example if autoworkers were able to shutdown all auto production they wouldn't be able to fully stop capitalist production like miners, railway workers and power workers can. Worker of strategic industries can force non-striking industries to stop by starving them of resources required for production.

Of course that is just disrupting capitalism, I agree that to actually move to a revolution against capitalism you'd need the the bulk of the working class.

[ls]

Not really as not all industries are equally strategic, for example if autoworkers were able to shutdown all auto production they wouldn't be able to fully stop capitalist production like miners, railway workers and power workers can. Worker of strategic industries can force non-striking industries to stop by starving them of resources required for production.

I can understand what you're saying, but I'd imagine railway freight workers striking means companies will just use something like lorries to send freight across the country instead, at least that is how I'd imagine it (although, as we talk about this that is not what's happening in Korea: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/11/27/51/0302000000AEN20091127002700315F.HTML), power workers are a bit different as that is not something that can be messed with by the capitalists so easily, as for 'non-striking' industries, having solidarity from them rather than purely stopping them is extremely important! You could even cause resentment if they aren't on your side, it has been known to happen in strikes here in the UK before, do a search for what happened between the miners and metalworkers..

[Psy]

I can understand what you're saying, but I'd imagine railway freight workers striking means companies will just use something like lorries to send freight across the country instead, at least that is how I'd imagine it (although, as we talk about this that is not what's happening in Korea: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/11/27/51/0302000000AEN20091127002700315F.HTML),

The problem with a large country like the USA there is not enough trucks to move bulk raw materials over the long distances needed, you are talking about unit trains (trains that only carry one commodity type) miles long some long enough they actually loop around large open pit mines when loading up and carries tens of thousands tons.



power workers are a bit different as that is not something that can be messed with by the capitalists so easily, as for 'non-striking' industries, having solidarity from them rather than purely stopping them is extremely important! You could even cause resentment if they aren't on your side, it has been known to happen in strikes here in the UK before, do a search for what happened between the miners and metalworkers..
This is true but it also means they can stop the scabs of striking industries, for example if coal miners go on strike and scabs take over striking rail workers can simply not send coal trains to pick up their coal.