From a reader:

You wrote:
> There are a few things to keep in mind. If we had Europe’s
> rail system, we’d do better to be sure (though that isn’t
> an argument for building one). Also if we had France’s
> nuclear energy system we’d do even better still.
THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT. We DON’T have these things, and they are precisely what makes our carbon intensity significantly higher than Europe’s and why Europe is more energy efficient than we are.
If we had them–and we should–our carbon intensity would be much lower and we would be emitting significantly less carbon, which would make a real difference with the climate problem.
Even when presented with facts, you refuse to accept what they are saying.

Me: Sigh. More all caps.

Look: I’m all in favor of more nuclear power. It’s hardly as if it’s the pollution-loving right standing in the way of more nuclear power. I’m also in favor of more rail systems if the economics work out, though every time I set out to write a column about how we need more trains, the math doesn’t seem to work. Still, I dig choo-choos.

So, sure, if we could just genie-blink a new European rail system to cover a country many times bigger than the entire E.U. that would be swell. And if we could get Americans to use it without resorting to violence that’d be cool too, I guess. But that’s pretty unlikely. More to the point, if you follow this debate in the press, you’d think American industry is much worse than Europe rather than pretty close and gaining on them. As for the idea that if we just “had” more nuclear power plants and trains we’d make a real difference with the climate problem, I remain skeptical. Still, if it comes up for a vote to “have” these things I’ll vote for it. But if we have to pay for them, I’d like to look at the numbers.