3 ms·

Energy runs the world. It isn’t as one dimensional as you paint it. Governments don’t simply subsidize burning coal. . . They do so as a means to meet the grow

Energy runs the world. It isn’t as one dimensional as you paint it. Governments don’t simply subsidize burning coal. . . They do so as a means to meet the growing demand of their people for electricity. India for example, has one of the most expensive fuels sold in the world thanks to immense taxation. Even with one of the lower per capital incomes in the world, they are a massive energy market because ENERGY IS NEEDED FOR SUSTENANCE. We need to realize that what sounds like a great idea on paper to minimize one dimension is actually counter productive when we factor in many more.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
I wasn't talking about Indian (I'll assume we are talking about India) coal plants, who are indeed benefiting from quite a bit of foreign subsidized manufacturing and coal exports by various countries. All I'm saying is that there's no need for any of these countries to subsidize or support that in any way. The Indians of course have some difficult choices to make regarding how they grow their economy and energy sector. Global warming sucks and it is going to hit them hard. There's no need to sugar coat that. We'd like them to stop burning coal and we'd especially like the Australians to stop subsidizing the process of supplying it to them. Less subsidies would make coal less attractive for India. That kind of is the point. It's only attractive because we subsidize it. They'll need to find cheaper and cleaner solutions. Lots of countries are squeezing the coal sector hard now and it is rapidly disappearing. India will have to adapt. So will China. The new German government for example intends to move forward the closure of remaining coal plants to 2030 apparently. As I'm writing this, I'm literally looking at one from the train window. It will stop smoking between now and 2030. Lots of wind mills around it. Good riddance.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Wait, it’s hard to take you seriously if you think India pays below market rate for coal from Australia. Is that really your stance or am I misreading that? They have domestic production that accounts for a significant portion of domestic electricity generation that is bought at market value and then sold commercially through government supported subsidy to help their economic needs. This isn’t a question of “they’re getting it for cheap because of subsidies” - if indeed that’s what you’re saying, it’s a rather uninformed position on the matter. Also, I don’t care what the new German government “intends” to do. The old one “intended” to turn off the bulk of their Nuclear sources leading to coal use surging at peak (which is happening all the more frequently now with the winter energy mix being thrown off) You seem to have a stock position for increasing the cost of dirty sources without a care for what compels economies to use them in the first place. That is precisely the point I’m trying to get you to see. They aren’t used one dimensionally because they’re dirty and no one has prioritized clean energy sources yet, but because they are necessary and the alternatives don’t fit the bill for the need of the hour. Adding a carbon tax in this context is a very arrogant way of saying “Fuck your needs, if you have to pay more, you’ll learn to live with less” When the point is we want to innovate so we get the economic value that modern technology such as SMRs produce without needing to subject a billion people to continue living with powercuts that stretch hours a day because the “civilized” world thinks the pollution from them wanting a better life is too dangerous for the world.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

I wasn't talking about Indian (I'll assume we are talking about India) coal plants, who are indeed benefiting from quite a bit of foreign subsidized manufacturing and coal exports by various countries. All I'm saying is that there's no need for any of these countries to subsidize or support that in any way. The Indians of course have some difficult choices to make regarding how they grow their economy and energy sector. Global warming sucks and it is going to hit them hard. There's no need to sugar coat that. We'd like them to stop burning coal and we'd especially like the Australians to stop subsidizing the process of supplying it to them. Less subsidies would make coal less attractive for India. That kind of is the point. It's only attractive because we subsidize it. They'll need to find cheaper and cleaner solutions. Lots of countries are squeezing the coal sector hard now and it is rapidly disappearing. India will have to adapt. So will China. The new German government for example intends to move forward the closure of remaining coal plants to 2030 apparently. As I'm writing this, I'm literally looking at one from the train window. It will stop smoking between now and 2030. Lots of wind mills around it. Good riddance.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Wait, it’s hard to take you seriously if you think India pays below market rate for coal from Australia. Is that really your stance or am I misreading that? They have domestic production that accounts for a significant portion of domestic electricity generation that is bought at market value and then sold commercially through government supported subsidy to help their economic needs. This isn’t a question of “they’re getting it for cheap because of subsidies” - if indeed that’s what you’re saying, it’s a rather uninformed position on the matter. Also, I don’t care what the new German government “intends” to do. The old one “intended” to turn off the bulk of their Nuclear sources leading to coal use surging at peak (which is happening all the more frequently now with the winter energy mix being thrown off) You seem to have a stock position for increasing the cost of dirty sources without a care for what compels economies to use them in the first place. That is precisely the point I’m trying to get you to see. They aren’t used one dimensionally because they’re dirty and no one has prioritized clean energy sources yet, but because they are necessary and the alternatives don’t fit the bill for the need of the hour. Adding a carbon tax in this context is a very arrogant way of saying “Fuck your needs, if you have to pay more, you’ll learn to live with less” When the point is we want to innovate so we get the economic value that modern technology such as SMRs produce without needing to subject a billion people to continue living with powercuts that stretch hours a day because the “civilized” world thinks the pollution from them wanting a better life is too dangerous for the world.