Paul Krugman had a blog entry yesterday: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/economics-of-catastrophe/
The gist is that the author he cites (Weitzman) has done a calculation on the value in taking steps to minimize highly unlikely, but catastrophic, events. He uses some fancy math dealing with uncertainty at the tail to come to the conclusion that the bigger the uncertainty, and the bigger the possible disaster, the more we should be doing to avert it.
This is in contrast with the work of a person like Stern who did a present value calculation on whether it is "worth" it to take steps now. His calculation sparked a lot of discussion because it depends upon estimates of future economic growth and the future discount rate. Those who favor the status quo said his estimates were too high and vice versa.
Weitzman's arguments are independent of economic assumptions and only deal with probabilities. He's right, but I don't think his conclusions will be accepted without a fight.
My criticism has to do with implementation, How do you get people to sacrifice now for benefits that will only be seen by future generations?
This is beyond the scope of economics and goes into areas of ethics and willingness to sacrifice. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
And if the oligopress ever notices the proposal, the cry will go up, "Oh, no, we can't afford it". Utsukushikereba sore de ii
While there are regulatory hurdles to cross in having Express-speed passenger rail mix with freight traffic in the US, there is no technical difficulty. Mixing traffic at different speeds causes problems with rail, but having 160kph/100mph container superfreighters and 160kph/100mph passenger trains use the same track is no major problem.
And having electric traction for the Express speed rail also simplifies integrating regional hub airports into the system, since diesel trains cannot stop at underground stations, while electric powered trains can.
As far as how to fund it, given the runaway US trade deficit, its certainly within its rights to impose a non-discriminatory revenue tariff on imports, especially if the revenues are invested in a structural reduction in import requirements. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
