4 ms·

This is stupid. Why are we playing these economic games? These people are literally destroying the environment for all of us, which is already resulting in deat

This is stupid. Why are we playing these economic games? These people are literally destroying the environment for all of us, which is already resulting in deaths and billions of dollars of destruction and will likely result in far worse. We don't need to pay them to stop killing us, we need to make laws making what they are doing illegal. The problem isn't that we don't have solutions to global warming. We are still subsidizing fossil fuel energy far more than renewable energy: one easy, obvious step would be to stop doing that but we haven't. The reason we haven't done simple things like that is that it isn't profitable for billionaires. I'm quite tired of the conversation about global warming centering around "finding solutions" as if we don't have solutions. The problem isn't a lack of solutions, it's that amoral corporations control environmental policy and don't care if we all die if it makes them a profit.

hyperpape 11y ago
> we need to make laws making what they are doing illegal. In context, you are saying burning coal should be illegal. This is a weighty proposal. You need to either a) describe, in detail, what would happen if burning coal were made illegal (bonus points for discussing how this changes depending on which countries make it illegal, since getting China on board might be rather difficult) or b) respond by admitting that your idea needed a little more thought than you've given it.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > In context, you are saying burning coal should be illegal. In context, I'm saying mining coal should be illegal, but sure, I'll add that burning coal should also be illegal. > You need to either a) describe, in detail, what would happen if burning coal were made illegal No, that's impossible because the effects of illegalization would depend very heavily on how it was illegalized. Obviously I'm not proposing an immediate global ban, that would be stupid. But something along the lines of the Montreal Protocol[1] is certainly doable. Even illegalization over the next 50 years would have some positive effects. It would be quite difficult to find a solution to this problem which is less effective than current pro-coal policies. > (bonus points for discussing how this changes depending on which countries make it illegal, since getting China on board might be rather difficult) You're proposing a perfect solution fallacy[2]. Of course it would be hard to get some countries on board, but even getting just the EU or the US to illegalize coal would have a significant effect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_soluti...
  - krzyk 11y ago
    How should nations that sit on top of large coal reserves and lack any other fuels work without energy source? Not everyone has enough money to build nuclear plant or enough wind for wind power plants, or enough high water for water power plants, or enough sun for solar plant. More over, why do you want coal plants to be disabled now? Developed countries used it for many years, until they got richer and have the luxury of choosing how they will get power. You want undeveloped countries to use more pricey power source from the start? This will slow down their development (in comparison to the first round of countries).
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    Coal is the largest source of electricity in the United States. It will take decades to replace it on the most optimistic predictions (how long to build Natural Gas or Nuclear plants? How long to solve the Solar/Wind peak capacity problems?). So what happens when it's illegal to mine coal? The only non-disastrous solution is that we import it from countries that don't have the ban, which is relatively pointless--it would probably cause a short time price jump, with all the attendant disruption, and no significant long-term benefits. Put that way, your solution sounds a lot better than I thought, but somehow I doubt that's what you mean. I think we should be doing a lot to move away from coal. A 50 year runway to eliminate coal burning sounds conceivable. But your original post sounds like an environmentalist Donald Trump speaking--no actual analysis of anything, just knee-jerk "it oughta be illegal!!!" If what you meant all along was a decades long reduction in coal to zero, you did a tremendous job of attacking your own credibility. P.S. Your citation of the perfect solution fallacy is off the mark. I was not arguing that it would be good, but not good enough. Rather, I was implying that it would be actively bad. China uses much more coal than us, as a proportion of their electric generation. If the US were to drastically drive up its electric prices, some proportion of industry would move overseas. The net effect might be increased greenhouse gas emissions, and certainly increased non-greenhouse pollutants. That's above and beyond the negative effects on the US economy.
    - Gravityloss 11y ago
      The Montreal protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol It was an international treaty and it had a time span for phase out. So arguments "but we will import and thus externalize" and "it's impossible to replace everything immediately" look kind of arguing against something that was not presented.
em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
While you may have strong opinions, the reality of politics however is not as simple as you might like it to be. The article presents a solution that doesn't require significant political change by instead relying on private property and market forces.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  Without significant political change there will not be significant economic or (positive) environmental change. The article proposes paying the people who are destroying the world to stop destroying the world. But even if we could make a significant dent in coal production in this way, what's to stop the coal companies from reinvesting that money in finding new coal sources and lobbying for continued lax policies? Relying on private property and market forces is generally the proposal of people who have a lot of private property and are therefore favored by market forces. I'd rather take the money away from the people who are destroying the world and devote that money to saving the world. If you want to use market forces to drive up the price of coal, how about lobbying for taxes on coal, and having the money from those taxes go to renewable energy sources? Billionaires can lobby, and at least that way, they're ensuring that the money goes somewhere useful. Let's stop pretending government isn't a market force. Coal companies have no qualms about lobbying government, why should we? Capitalist solutions to this problem have been tried and have done shit all. It's time we tried something else.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  Er... what? The article suggested bribing the government to forbid other companies from mining the coal. Which part of that sounded like market forces to you?
  - em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
    that is a good point. For the sake of argument regarding this article, there is a presumption that the government owns the mineral rights to lands west of the Mississippi: "But west of the Mississippi, things work different. Especially in Montana and the Mountain West, the government mostly holds mineral rights." But if one does not accept the government's property claim on those mineral rights, then I suppose the act of paying the government to forbid other companies from mining there could be considered a bribe. The article is presenting a solution that works in the current state of the world: presuming the current state of property rights and legal structure.
icebraining 11y ago
China produces 41%+ of the global coal-based energy; the US produces less than 17%, and it dropped significantly between 2010-2012 (I don't have later data). Buying coal has a global impact; ending US subsidies doesn't (in fact, it would make it cheaper to burn elsewhere).
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > Buying coal has a global impact; ending US subsidies doesn't (in fact, it would make it cheaper to burn elsewhere). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that 17% is insignificant. Yes, coal prices elsewhere would go down, but at the very worst case that would mean that demand for goal rises to match previous prices: at the very worst coal usage stays the same. And if even 5 of those 17 percentage points end up not getting burned, that's still pretty significant. Meanwhile, the US is where a large portion of the research into renewable energies occurs. If subsidies to fossil fuels were redirected to renewable energies, the research that would result would have global effects. So ending US subsidies absolutely does have global impact.

hyperpape 11y ago

> we need to make laws making what they are doing illegal. In context, you are saying burning coal should be illegal. This is a weighty proposal. You need to either a) describe, in detail, what would happen if burning coal were made illegal (bonus points for discussing how this changes depending on which countries make it illegal, since getting China on board might be rather difficult) or b) respond by admitting that your idea needed a little more thought than you've given it.

iamsohungry 11y ago
> In context, you are saying burning coal should be illegal. In context, I'm saying mining coal should be illegal, but sure, I'll add that burning coal should also be illegal. > You need to either a) describe, in detail, what would happen if burning coal were made illegal No, that's impossible because the effects of illegalization would depend very heavily on how it was illegalized. Obviously I'm not proposing an immediate global ban, that would be stupid. But something along the lines of the Montreal Protocol[1] is certainly doable. Even illegalization over the next 50 years would have some positive effects. It would be quite difficult to find a solution to this problem which is less effective than current pro-coal policies. > (bonus points for discussing how this changes depending on which countries make it illegal, since getting China on board might be rather difficult) You're proposing a perfect solution fallacy[2]. Of course it would be hard to get some countries on board, but even getting just the EU or the US to illegalize coal would have a significant effect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_soluti...
- krzyk 11y ago
  How should nations that sit on top of large coal reserves and lack any other fuels work without energy source? Not everyone has enough money to build nuclear plant or enough wind for wind power plants, or enough high water for water power plants, or enough sun for solar plant. More over, why do you want coal plants to be disabled now? Developed countries used it for many years, until they got richer and have the luxury of choosing how they will get power. You want undeveloped countries to use more pricey power source from the start? This will slow down their development (in comparison to the first round of countries).
- hyperpape 11y ago
  Coal is the largest source of electricity in the United States. It will take decades to replace it on the most optimistic predictions (how long to build Natural Gas or Nuclear plants? How long to solve the Solar/Wind peak capacity problems?). So what happens when it's illegal to mine coal? The only non-disastrous solution is that we import it from countries that don't have the ban, which is relatively pointless--it would probably cause a short time price jump, with all the attendant disruption, and no significant long-term benefits. Put that way, your solution sounds a lot better than I thought, but somehow I doubt that's what you mean. I think we should be doing a lot to move away from coal. A 50 year runway to eliminate coal burning sounds conceivable. But your original post sounds like an environmentalist Donald Trump speaking--no actual analysis of anything, just knee-jerk "it oughta be illegal!!!" If what you meant all along was a decades long reduction in coal to zero, you did a tremendous job of attacking your own credibility. P.S. Your citation of the perfect solution fallacy is off the mark. I was not arguing that it would be good, but not good enough. Rather, I was implying that it would be actively bad. China uses much more coal than us, as a proportion of their electric generation. If the US were to drastically drive up its electric prices, some proportion of industry would move overseas. The net effect might be increased greenhouse gas emissions, and certainly increased non-greenhouse pollutants. That's above and beyond the negative effects on the US economy.
  - Gravityloss 11y ago
    The Montreal protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol It was an international treaty and it had a time span for phase out. So arguments "but we will import and thus externalize" and "it's impossible to replace everything immediately" look kind of arguing against something that was not presented.

em3rgent0rdr 11y ago

While you may have strong opinions, the reality of politics however is not as simple as you might like it to be. The article presents a solution that doesn't require significant political change by instead relying on private property and market forces.

iamsohungry 11y ago
Without significant political change there will not be significant economic or (positive) environmental change. The article proposes paying the people who are destroying the world to stop destroying the world. But even if we could make a significant dent in coal production in this way, what's to stop the coal companies from reinvesting that money in finding new coal sources and lobbying for continued lax policies? Relying on private property and market forces is generally the proposal of people who have a lot of private property and are therefore favored by market forces. I'd rather take the money away from the people who are destroying the world and devote that money to saving the world. If you want to use market forces to drive up the price of coal, how about lobbying for taxes on coal, and having the money from those taxes go to renewable energy sources? Billionaires can lobby, and at least that way, they're ensuring that the money goes somewhere useful. Let's stop pretending government isn't a market force. Coal companies have no qualms about lobbying government, why should we? Capitalist solutions to this problem have been tried and have done shit all. It's time we tried something else.
mdpopescu 11y ago
Er... what? The article suggested bribing the government to forbid other companies from mining the coal. Which part of that sounded like market forces to you?
- em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
  that is a good point. For the sake of argument regarding this article, there is a presumption that the government owns the mineral rights to lands west of the Mississippi: "But west of the Mississippi, things work different. Especially in Montana and the Mountain West, the government mostly holds mineral rights." But if one does not accept the government's property claim on those mineral rights, then I suppose the act of paying the government to forbid other companies from mining there could be considered a bribe. The article is presenting a solution that works in the current state of the world: presuming the current state of property rights and legal structure.

icebraining 11y ago

China produces 41%+ of the global coal-based energy; the US produces less than 17%, and it dropped significantly between 2010-2012 (I don't have later data). Buying coal has a global impact; ending US subsidies doesn't (in fact, it would make it cheaper to burn elsewhere).

iamsohungry 11y ago
> Buying coal has a global impact; ending US subsidies doesn't (in fact, it would make it cheaper to burn elsewhere). I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that 17% is insignificant. Yes, coal prices elsewhere would go down, but at the very worst case that would mean that demand for goal rises to match previous prices: at the very worst coal usage stays the same. And if even 5 of those 17 percentage points end up not getting burned, that's still pretty significant. Meanwhile, the US is where a large portion of the research into renewable energies occurs. If subsidies to fossil fuels were redirected to renewable energies, the research that would result would have global effects. So ending US subsidies absolutely does have global impact.