4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > 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. I'm not sure why you're holding me responsible for your assumptions. I didn't go into any detail about how a ban would be implemented: if you assumed it would be implemented immediately and with no transition plan, that's on you.

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.
iamsohungry 11y ago
> 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. I'm not sure why you're holding me responsible for your assumptions. I didn't go into any detail about how a ban would be implemented: if you assumed it would be implemented immediately and with no transition plan, that's on you.