4 ms·
>energy is available through many means Even a wealthy economy like the US still draws almost half of its electricity from coal [1]. If Americans couldn't affo
by zeteo 14y ago
>energy is available through many means
Even a wealthy economy like the US still draws almost half of its electricity from coal [1]. If Americans couldn't afford to switch to solar already, how are the Chinese supposed to?
>the Chinese pay the externalities just as we all do
And so did the US. The first (very weak) Clean Air Act was not passed until 1963 [2], at which point the economy was already very energy intensive, very wealthy, and could afford to take an economic hit by implementing more stringent environmental regulations. The holier-than-thou crowd expects China to hobble itself with environmental regulations in advance of the US, while developing an economy that is still decades behind. All this preaching is of course done from countries that have gone through centuries of unrestricted industrial development, and while taking full advantage of the benefits thereof.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)
- epistasis 14y agoYour implicit argument seems to be that not using coal is just too expensive in some sense. The question is not yes/ no to coal, but rather how much coal. This is a numerical argument, that the free market would solve automatically if the price of coal were nearer to its cost.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- crusso 14y agoif the price of coal were nearer to its cost But how do you calculate such a cost - keeping in mind that you would also need to factor in non-environmental benefits like new inventions, more free time for education, higher quality of life, etc. I'm all for a system that's fair. I just object to environmentalists deciding what the true cost/benefit analysis is. Their squeaky wheel one-issue outlook has heavily biased the discussion.