3 ms·
Yes, this is true...and it's something I struggle with. On the one hand, I think it is clear that we need to stop using coal; depending upon a resource which re
by rybosome 12y ago
Yes, this is true...and it's something I struggle with. On the one hand, I think it is clear that we need to stop using coal; depending upon a resource which replenishes at a geological time scale is categorically unsustainable, as is the mounting damage we are causing to the environment. On the other hand, I recognize that dropping coal will really hurt workers and their families. "The greater good" is irrelevant to someone who doesn't know how they're going to feed their children.
It would be heartless to just write these people off, but it is also unfair to future generations (and even our future selves) to continue mining and combusting coal as though we aren't aware of the consequences. Perhaps a solution would be to offer employment with the renewable energy industry to coal miners, and to give those who are unable to accept a livable wage constituting a significant portion (if not all) of their coal-era wages. This might require that assistance be provided in relocating, training, etc. Probably not cheap, but this could transition us off coal while treating the miners humanely.
Ultimately we have to get off coal. Denial of this fact tends to stem from one of two viewpoints:
1) Apathy, or the sense that this is a problem for a future generation.
2) The belief that the economy of energy will regulate itself correctly, and usage of coal will decline naturally as renewable energy becomes more economically attractive due to continued technological refinement.
The problem with number 1 is that the stakes are too high. Our health, our livelihood, our economy and our provision of food and water all depend on cheap, abundant energy; it is woven into the fabric of our lives. Even a modest reduction in energy availability due to supply constraints would be devastating. The problem with number 2 is that coal, as a natural resource, is subject to the tragedy of the commons[0]. The true cost of coal is far higher than what is accounted for in a simple economic model, and humans have shown themselves to be remarkably bad at estimating this accurately.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- maxerickson 12y agoAm I understanding this table correctly? http://www.bls.gov/oes/CURRENT/naics4_212100.htm http://www.bls.gov/oes/CURRENT/naics4_212100.htm My read is that there are about 40,000 people "in the mines" and another 40,000 with skills that are already workable in other industries (this looks true for many of the people in the mines too). 40,000 is a lot of people (and their families make the number bigger), but it doesn't seem like a big enough number to be dominating national policy. Maybe the BLS data isn't comprehensive?
- dredmorbius 12y agoI believe so, though other metrics might use different criteris (hence the 80k figure vs. ~120k elsewhere). I strongly suspect it's not the employees / workers which are directly presenting a political force so much as that they're being presented as pawns in the political battle. It's mine operators and coal-powered industry who's behind the political maneuvering. Possibly their bankers too who're about to be stuck with a bunch of worthless paper based on noneconomic or stranded assets.