Slashdot Mirror

Uh huh. Maybe get back to me when solar gets anywhere close to coal, which has been costing the US public hundreds of billions every year.

When burning coal, the US pays over $345 billion annually in pollution and health costs, adding 18c/kWh to the true cost of coal power. The public health bill in Appalachian communities alone is $74.1 billion. The miners' families (and the American economy and public) would be far better served by speeding coal's demise, and using a little of those savings to retrain the workers, not by propping up a dying industry that's already done so much damage.

When burning coal, the US pays over $345 billion annually in pollution and health costs, adding 18c/kWh to the true cost of coal power. The public health bill in Appalachian communities alone is $74.1 billion. The miners' families (and the American economy and public) would be far better served by speeding coal's demise, and using a little of those savings to retrain the workers, not by propping up a dying industry that's already done so much damage.

I think you'll find the slight boost to plant growth is dramatically outweighed by the approx. $250 billion in annual health costs alone.

Did you know that about 100,000 miners have been killed in coal mine accidents since 1900, in the US alone? And a further 200,000 died from black lung disease.

it's our cheapest and most abundant energy source

Sorry. Not even if you ignore coal's hundreds of billions annually in externalised costs.

It's not even the most abundant. There are roughly 2.4x10^19 BTUs of known coal reserves. We get that much energy from the sun every 8.25 days - just on the land surface alone, not even counting oceans.

The only unsubstantiated handwaving bullshit is in your comment. The $330-500 billion annual health costs of coal are backed by this Harvard study, among others.

Health costs of coal: $300-500 billion annually, in the US alone.
Health costs of gasoline/diesel: $40-200 billion annually for the US.

Huge annual costs like these are a constant drag on economic growth. And these costs, as the studies admit, are far from comprehensive - the first link lists numerous additional factors not considered in their analysis, saying "The true ecological and health costs of coal are thus far greater than the numbers suggest". Nor do they consider the human-life costs of the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths caused by particulate air pollution, mining & processing wastes etc.

These ongoing costs can be almost completely avoided by transitioning to clean energy, along with reducing other large burdens on the taxpayer such as fossil-fuel industry subsidies and military interventions (plus of course future climate change adaption costs).

All I see is you repeating what you said, over and over, waving away any the research that disagrees with you, and never citing any of your own - just more flat declarations that we're supposed to take on faith.

I understand what you're claiming quite well, but I disagree. I cited research that supports my opinion, whereas you dismiss it all as "a bunch of people with an agenda". How is this not pure denial?

Bangladesh is gaining sedimental land in some parts (which will take decades before it's useful farmland) - but it's still low-lying, and at the mercy of storm surges like this one. And that's still only one example. If you want to convince me that these analyses are flatly wrong, you'll have to do better than more unsourced declarations.

I said that it will do so independent of any policies we adopt.

I heard you the first time, and you still haven't provided any reason for me to believe you. Whereas adopting policies that restrict and phase out fossil fuels absolutely will greatly slow atmospheric CO2 level rises, since that is demonstrably the largest source.

the cost of dealing with climate change and the cost of avoiding it are about the same

That same report also says:
* that the costs are very likely to be greatly underestimated,
* that costs will scale up dramatically past 3-4 degrees of warming,
* that unmitigated warming adds numerous risks and uncertainties that could potentially add greatly to the bill,
* that there are numerous mitigation strategies with net-negative costs (i.e. they save more money than they cost),
* and that the financial costs do not take into account the significant human and social costs, which can also be reduced by mitigation.

Your clear example of cherry-picking the one quote you want to hear just highlights your own agenda.

the incorrect assumption that without government intervention, people won't switch to renewables

And how do you think people can switch to renewables when they have no choice about their electricity source? How do you propose to convince the fossil fuel companies to abandon their campaign of discrediting renewables at every point, to compete fairly in the market (they're currently given a free pass for offloading their external emissions costs, which costs us hundreds of billions annually), and to not make full use of their existing infrastructure, vast scale, and trillions in assets to do their utmost to block renewables from displacing them completely from the energy market?

Government intervention would not be required if the market were actually free, but it will never be free as long as carbon emitters don't have to pay for the costs of their emissions. Governments around the world have already intervened in numerous similar cases (sulfur emissions, ozone emissions) with highly successful results, yet some people remain utterly convinced that in this case any possible action is somehow doomed to failure.

Hundreds of billions in health costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths, from coal power in the US alone. Coal prices would double, if the true cost of supply was covered.

Disbelief doesn't make costs go away, and is the very definition of denialism.