3 ms·

How about the jobs? I would like reducing coal mining to be high on the priority list but wouldn't want a lone billionaire deciding to shut down a bunch of jobs

How about the jobs? I would like reducing coal mining to be high on the priority list but wouldn't want a lone billionaire deciding to shut down a bunch of jobs in my area.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
A lone billionaire pulling the plug on regional jobs is just another Tuesday.
gffrd 3y ago
And don't forget the property values!
not2b 3y ago
Those jobs are going away anyway. There's less market for coal and automation means fewer miners are needed, so even in the absence of any push to transition to green energy almost all coal miners are going to lose their jobs.
coldpie 3y ago
There's roughly 50,000 coal mining jobs in the US[1]. Saving those is not worth setting the world on fire. I would happily support giving every single one of them an immediate, life-time, full-wage pension, if it means ending coal power plants tomorrow. It would pay for itself immediately. [1] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/coal-mining-united-states/ https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/coa...
- adventured 3y ago
  Setting the world on fire, yeah right. Please show me the total emissions of US coal, stacked up against global emissions, and then China's emissions and their emissions growth (ideally with a break-out on their coal emissions expansion, which is ongoing). China added a hundred new coal plants in 2022 alone. That's half as many coal plants in the US, added in just a single year. And they're still going. Those are new plants, they no doubt plan to operate them for decades. What do you think about China adding 500 new coal plants over the next ten years? US coal is not going to make a difference whether it continues or not.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    I don't have any control over China's policies. I do have a tiny bit of control over the US's policies, so that's what I concern myself with. I have no choice but to that trust there will be people like me in their respective regions who will do the same in their countries. As you say, it's a global problem, everyone knows that everyone needs to get on board to fix this. Regardless of what other countries do, the US must do its part to solve the problem, or the problem won't be solved. Losing 50k coal jobs is not sufficient reason to prevent the US from doing its part. You're absolutely right that it's a super big and super hard problem. But we can't just throw our hands up. Even if you're not on board with helping, I beg you to please not stand in the way (or vote for those who stand in the way) of those of us who care about fixing this problem. Edit: Oh, failed to address this: > US coal is not going to make a difference whether it continues or not. It absolutely will! The US is responsible for about 15% of worldwide carbon emissions[1]. Of that, about 25%[2] is from electricity generation. Of that, about 80% comes from coal and natural gas. 15 * .25 * .80 = about 1.8% of global emissions comes from US coal & natural gas power plants alone. Two percent of global emissions is quite a huge amount! It'd be one nice, big step forward on the long, long (long) road to fixing this problem. You gotta do something, or else you're doing nothing, and coal plants are a great target to aim at. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... [2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
    - benatkin 3y ago
      Your figure includes natural gas. That makes a big chunk of power generation [1], big enough that you would probably want to address an alternative source like nuclear power. 1: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
  - kawhah 3y ago
    > then China's emissions and their emissions growth sure, here you are: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#co2-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#co2-emissions-by-re.... Turns out China emits around half the CO2 per capita that the US does, and the total hasn't grown in the last decade. The total amount of power generated from coal in China also hasn't grown in more than 10 years. And the coal they do have has become cleaner, so the carbon emissions just due to that have gone down slightly. 'But China's growth is cancelling out all our potential cuts' was a technically true, but still venal and dangerously misguided excuse 15 years (and 0.25C) ago when it was first invented. Now it isn't even technically true.

How about the jobs? I would like reducing coal mining to be high on the priority list but wouldn't want a lone billionaire deciding to shut down a bunch of jobs in my area.

forgetfreeman 3y ago

A lone billionaire pulling the plug on regional jobs is just another Tuesday.

gffrd 3y ago

And don't forget the property values!

not2b 3y ago

Those jobs are going away anyway. There's less market for coal and automation means fewer miners are needed, so even in the absence of any push to transition to green energy almost all coal miners are going to lose their jobs.

coldpie 3y ago

There's roughly 50,000 coal mining jobs in the US[1]. Saving those is not worth setting the world on fire. I would happily support giving every single one of them an immediate, life-time, full-wage pension, if it means ending coal power plants tomorrow. It would pay for itself immediately. [1] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/coal-mining-united-states/ https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/employment/coa...

adventured 3y ago
Setting the world on fire, yeah right. Please show me the total emissions of US coal, stacked up against global emissions, and then China's emissions and their emissions growth (ideally with a break-out on their coal emissions expansion, which is ongoing). China added a hundred new coal plants in 2022 alone. That's half as many coal plants in the US, added in just a single year. And they're still going. Those are new plants, they no doubt plan to operate them for decades. What do you think about China adding 500 new coal plants over the next ten years? US coal is not going to make a difference whether it continues or not.
- coldpie 3y ago
  I don't have any control over China's policies. I do have a tiny bit of control over the US's policies, so that's what I concern myself with. I have no choice but to that trust there will be people like me in their respective regions who will do the same in their countries. As you say, it's a global problem, everyone knows that everyone needs to get on board to fix this. Regardless of what other countries do, the US must do its part to solve the problem, or the problem won't be solved. Losing 50k coal jobs is not sufficient reason to prevent the US from doing its part. You're absolutely right that it's a super big and super hard problem. But we can't just throw our hands up. Even if you're not on board with helping, I beg you to please not stand in the way (or vote for those who stand in the way) of those of us who care about fixing this problem. Edit: Oh, failed to address this: > US coal is not going to make a difference whether it continues or not. It absolutely will! The US is responsible for about 15% of worldwide carbon emissions[1]. Of that, about 25%[2] is from electricity generation. Of that, about 80% comes from coal and natural gas. 15 * .25 * .80 = about 1.8% of global emissions comes from US coal & natural gas power plants alone. Two percent of global emissions is quite a huge amount! It'd be one nice, big step forward on the long, long (long) road to fixing this problem. You gotta do something, or else you're doing nothing, and coal plants are a great target to aim at. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... [2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
  - benatkin 3y ago
    Your figure includes natural gas. That makes a big chunk of power generation [1], big enough that you would probably want to address an alternative source like nuclear power. 1: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
- kawhah 3y ago
  > then China's emissions and their emissions growth sure, here you are: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#co2-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#co2-emissions-by-re.... Turns out China emits around half the CO2 per capita that the US does, and the total hasn't grown in the last decade. The total amount of power generated from coal in China also hasn't grown in more than 10 years. And the coal they do have has become cleaner, so the carbon emissions just due to that have gone down slightly. 'But China's growth is cancelling out all our potential cuts' was a technically true, but still venal and dangerously misguided excuse 15 years (and 0.25C) ago when it was first invented. Now it isn't even technically true.