Slashdot Mirror
The EU is Banning Almost All Coal Mining on Jan 1 (futurism.com)
Every unprofitable coal mine in the European Union must cease production by the first day of 2019, the date on which all public funds for the mines will come to an end. From a report: In Spain, that means that 26 coal mines are about to close up shop, according to Reuters. This move away from coal is a refreshing bit of bluntness -- letting the failed remnants of a fossil fuel industry fade away -- compared to how the federal government in the U.S. is grasping at anything to keep coal alive. But it remains to be seen how much of an impact the coal closures will have in the ongoing effort to curb climate change. The deadline was set back in 2010 as the EU sought to move away from fossil fuel dependence, according to Telesur. The EU wanted to end public aid to coal mines sooner, but groups from Germany -- which shuttered its last coal mine earlier this month -- and Spain are responsible for extending the deadline all the way to the end of 2018.
Subsidies in general I'm against...
However the real question is - will this have any impact or energy prices or availability in the EU, or in Spain?
If not, great. But if it does cause prices to rise, or it means electricity becomes more reliably... well then perhaps there was more to the subsidy than just supporting coal.
Ending the use of coal is a noble goal, if for no other reason than the reduction of real pollution. But we also have to be careful not to leave too many people out in the cold, to have alternatives.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This will hopefully drive the cost of business for US coal miners way up
Not many mines will close. The EU gets about 21% of their electricity from coal, and that isn't going to change.
Only the mines receiving taxpayer subsidies will close. Most likely the production will shift to the profitable mines, making them even more profitable.
Importing from America doesn't make much sense because of transport costs, but there are some imports.
The real question is why are we providing welfare for the mediocre?
When you combine socialism with democracy, there is pressure from the electorate to preserve jobs in declining industries. This leads to Lemon Socialism, where public funds are used to prop up losers rather than backing winners.
It is good to see the EU finally pulling the plug on subsidized coal mines, but they need to go much further.
Isn't that what trump is doing with coal?
No. It is what he promised to do, but did not follow through.
American coal mines are continuing to close, as they should. Production is increasingly concentrated in a few big mines in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, which produces more coal than the next four states combined.
All that is being banned is government support of coal mines. If a billionaire wanted to run a money losing coal mine they are more than welcome to. They just won't get any help from the government to keep it open like they would have up to today (2018/12/31).
Closing mines doesn't mean anything, except for impacting the people working there and in the town nearby. The power plants will just get the coal from the mines that are profitable. When the EU is closing the coal fired power plants and replacing them with something that generates fewer emissions then they'll see the reductions that they are seeking.
We're already there. Most people screaming about science aren't referring to science, they're referring to Scientism.
Standing desks will make us healthy! Eat more superfoods! Poison-infested CFLs will stop global war-err-climate change! Plastic bags not coming from the US or Europe are all over the Pacific so let us ban straws! Muh sex junk black science man!
Pop culture shit.
Thanks for the hearty laugh I got at the idea that climate scientists recommending changes is in any way rocking the boat.
The thing that climate deniers on Slashdot should understand more than most is that climate scientists are scientists and love technology and gadgets and shit. If there was any way to believe that we could just keep.going with coal power, scientists would be pushing it harder than anyone.
(And indeed some do, with carbon capture and other assorted "cleaner coal" technology. Full disclaimer: I used to do numeric models for carbon sequestration. I still think it will work as a transition technology.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You hit the nail on the head. Here's what being a climate skeptic looks like: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
Richard Muller is the poster child for what a real skeptic looks like and how they behave. He saw what he thought were serious errors in measuring climate change, and decided to do it right. What he found was that he just didn't really understand the field, and he didn't understand why things were being done the way they were. He was excessively and very inefficiently thorough, but doing it his own way he got the same answer, because he was rigorously applying proper scientific and statistical techniques. When you do that, reality doesn't change.
What he didn't do was to prosecute climate change in the media, where reality can take a back seat to flash and entertainment. What he didn't do was make some blogs up and cherry pick evidence to feed to an audience who doesn't want to believe. What he didn't do was go into the comment section of articles on climate change and flatly deny everything we know to be true about climate change. None of that is skepticism. It's trolling at the best, or a bizarrely dogmatic decision to be wrong at the worst.
I think his most powerful point, and one that deniers really need to address, is this:
The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor