4 ms·

Coal has vast negative externalities. The toll on health and lost productivity alone are large, not to mention its affects on the climate. http://www8.national

Coal has vast negative externalities. The toll on health and lost productivity alone are large, not to mention its affects on the climate. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794 http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Rec...

dangerlibrary 9y ago
That's true, and unrelated to the conversation at hand or anything I said. If those externalities were priced in, much of the relative cost description I gave would be wrong. But they aren't. That's not to say they shouldn't be - just that right now the fact is that they aren't.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  If I worked in an industry, and a new competitor came out that was initially more expensive, but killed less people, I'm not sure I'd be that surprised if my work started to dry up in favor of the less deadly alternative(s). If at least one of the alternatives was cheaper too, then I would surmise the game was up.
  - dangerlibrary 9y ago
    If you were an arms manufacturer you would be thoroughly unconcerned.
    - ben_w 9y ago
      While your witty retort made me laugh, unless you are suggesting that coal power stations are weapons designed to kill people living near them, I think you are missing the point.
      - dangerlibrary 9y ago
        I'm suggesting that, pretty much by definition, externalized costs do not get factored into economic decisions.
        ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        Unfortunately for coal, not all of its problems are externalities as much as they used to be. If your customer is paying for it, even if not directly in the price you charge, that can alter their behaviour, as we are seeing around the world.
        dangerlibrary 9y ago
        To the extent that customers actually change their behavior, that is a positive development. I'm not sure the effect size is particularly large. Efficiency programs have been pretty successful, and the overall trend in power consumption (in the US) is negative for now, which is great. But relatively few people even know what fuels are used to supply their power, so I'm not sure how easily consumers can respond.

dangerlibrary 9y ago

That's true, and unrelated to the conversation at hand or anything I said. If those externalities were priced in, much of the relative cost description I gave would be wrong. But they aren't. That's not to say they shouldn't be - just that right now the fact is that they aren't.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
If I worked in an industry, and a new competitor came out that was initially more expensive, but killed less people, I'm not sure I'd be that surprised if my work started to dry up in favor of the less deadly alternative(s). If at least one of the alternatives was cheaper too, then I would surmise the game was up.
- dangerlibrary 9y ago
  If you were an arms manufacturer you would be thoroughly unconcerned.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    While your witty retort made me laugh, unless you are suggesting that coal power stations are weapons designed to kill people living near them, I think you are missing the point.
    - dangerlibrary 9y ago
      I'm suggesting that, pretty much by definition, externalized costs do not get factored into economic decisions.
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        Unfortunately for coal, not all of its problems are externalities as much as they used to be. If your customer is paying for it, even if not directly in the price you charge, that can alter their behaviour, as we are seeing around the world.
        dangerlibrary 9y ago
        To the extent that customers actually change their behavior, that is a positive development. I'm not sure the effect size is particularly large. Efficiency programs have been pretty successful, and the overall trend in power consumption (in the US) is negative for now, which is great. But relatively few people even know what fuels are used to supply their power, so I'm not sure how easily consumers can respond.