4 ms·
Searching online, it seems to be comparing to coal miners specifically, not the industry as a whole. In any case, what conclusions are you drawing from this?
by yoavm 9mo ago
Searching online, it seems to be comparing to coal miners specifically, not the industry as a whole. In any case, what conclusions are you drawing from this?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- jstanley 9mo agoMaybe all of these emissions are coming from yoga classes instead of coal mines? We've been looking in the wrong place all along.
- jairuhme 9mo agoNot OP, but I have heard the comparison used when discussing jobs. There tends to be rhetoric in the US that transitioning away from coal and oil will lead to large job losses, so this is an anecdote disproving it.
- rsynnott 9mo agoI mean, assuming it's true, the obvious conclusion would be that there should be reasonable limits on what is done to save such a small industry. Looks like there are 40-45k people employed in coal mining in the US, depending on who you ask. _Even if there was no downside to keeping it going_, that would probably only be worth modest government action to keep it on life support; it's simply not a big industry.
- yoavm 9mo agoI'm not American so perhaps I'm completely out of the loop, but is the justification for coal usage in the US to do with jobs? I thought it's more about climate change denial & costs (& stick it to the leftists).
- rsynnott 9mo agoI mean, it's definitely caught up with climate change denial, but a lot of the _justification_ for supporting what is increasingly an economically unviable industry is jobs. (It wasn't even solar or wind or nuclear that killed coal. Really, it was _gas_; the writing was on the wall for the industry some time ago.)