3 ms·

Actually yes there is data. A cursory reading of the literature would suggest that American Lung Association, Natural Resource Defense Counsel, and Physicians

Actually yes there is data. A cursory reading of the literature would suggest that American Lung Association, Natural Resource Defense Counsel, and Physicians for Social Responsibility all concurred that coal burning does impact our respiratory system. See: http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-r... And: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere. If not smoking, what else will people do to get their fix. Are we really ready to give up our nicotine habit? A lot of people did give up smoking once they figured out it was killing them. If people realize the same thing about coal, I suspect there will be a much faster and stricter set of regulations coming into force. As for the problem of where to get energy, natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. Of course if that gas is delivered via fracking there are a whole lot of other problems with ground water pollution. So the energy mix needs to change and it needs to be found in a less impactful fashion.

smsm42 12y ago
>>> Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere No it does not. Human organism has ways of producing substances that work with the same receptors that respond to nicotine. Thus, there is no biological need to introduce nicotine to the organism. More correct analogy would be vitamines, proteins, minerals and other substances that we commonly call "food". If you want to give up food, it would be reasonable to ask, how you replace energetic and nutritional needs of the organism? Modern economy has energetic needs which need to be satisfied if you want to have modern economy. Either you go back to pre-industrial economy and subsistence on the constant brink of starvation, or you produce a lot of energy. There's no other way. The question is how you are going to produce it. >>> natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. As carbon emissions are the problem being discussed, and burning gas produces carbon emissions, naturally I did not consider it as a true alternative with respect to producing energy while reducing carbon emissions.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Natural gas emits 50% less CO2 than coal for any given amount of energy produced.

smsm42 12y ago

>>> Your second argument is a bit like saying, well we have to get nicotine from somewhere No it does not. Human organism has ways of producing substances that work with the same receptors that respond to nicotine. Thus, there is no biological need to introduce nicotine to the organism. More correct analogy would be vitamines, proteins, minerals and other substances that we commonly call "food". If you want to give up food, it would be reasonable to ask, how you replace energetic and nutritional needs of the organism? Modern economy has energetic needs which need to be satisfied if you want to have modern economy. Either you go back to pre-industrial economy and subsistence on the constant brink of starvation, or you produce a lot of energy. There's no other way. The question is how you are going to produce it. >>> natural gas is a more efficient and cleaner burning alternative that you didn't mention. As carbon emissions are the problem being discussed, and burning gas produces carbon emissions, naturally I did not consider it as a true alternative with respect to producing energy while reducing carbon emissions.

mikeash 12y ago
Natural gas emits 50% less CO2 than coal for any given amount of energy produced.