2 ms·
So just to play devil's advocate: there's already a bunch of mined coal out there, and you'd better believe it's going to get used by someone to create energy.
by beatpanda 14y ago
So just to play devil's advocate: there's already a bunch of mined coal out there, and you'd better believe it's going to get used by someone to create energy. Extracting that energy can either release CO2 into the atmosphere and contribute to total ecosystem collapse, or not. The only other alternative is that, somehow, existing coal doesn't get used at all, and if you could concoct a scenario where that's plausible, I'd be very impressed.
When it comes to climate change we're talking about irreparable harm to the planet, mass extinction, and a serious existential threat to our species. Without minimizing the social and environmental problems created by coal mining, I think it's correct to say they are lesser problems than those posed by climate change.
I absolutely agree that in general, civilization can do better than digging shit out of the ground and burning it, and I think the long term solution is wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and so on. Unfortunately we don't have time to wait for a perfect solution, and we have huge amounts of fossil fuel reserves that, if they're all conventionally burned, will kill us all. So what can we do?
- bradleyjg 14y agoThe stocks of mined but unused coal are pretty small. It's very bulky and so expensive to store. Even oil doesn't have all that much storage, which is why when the market went into high contango traders had to rent oil tankers to store the oil they were buying on the spot market. As for CO2, the method the article is talking about makes it convenient to capture CO2 (at an energy cost) but transporting and storing it once captured are far more difficult problems.