Burning coal - my solution to the problem.

[Blind groper]

We all know that coal is the dirtiest fuel. It contains sulfur and releases toxic gases that are highly detrimental to human health. It is estimated that coal exhaust, breathed in, kills literally millions of people each year.

More importantly even than that, is the fact that it is the biggest contributor to global warming. Per unit of energy released, burning coal generates roughly twice as much greenhouse gas as burning hydrocarbons. Yet burning coal is the world's biggest method of generating electricity. No one would argue with the fact that this has to change.

What has been done to date is pussyfooting around the problem. Ideas of 'carbon taxes' or 'carbon credits'. These are too damn complex and have far too many loopholes. And there is no suggestion of onus on those who dig the coal out of the ground - only on those who burn it. Yet the best place for all that carbon is in the ground, in the form of the unburned coal.

So let me suggest a solution.
Forget about penalising the people who burn the coal. Throw the onus back on those who mine it. The whole idea is not to reduce the burning, which does not work, but to make sure the coal stays in the ground, where it does no harm.

The way it works is simple.
First : a total international ban on new coal mines.
Second : Every coal mining nation must reduce its production each year. In 2016, they must not mine more than 97.5% of what they mined in 2015. In 2017, they must not mine more than 95% of what they mined in 2015. Each year, based on 2015 production figures, they reduce output by 2.5%.

Then in 20 years, coal production (and burning) is cut in half. In 40 years, it stops entirely.

This method would be easier to police since production figures are clear cut. It would do minimal economic damage, since for many years the rise in price of coal (supply and demand) would outweigh the losses made by lower production. The coal miners would actually make more, not less, money. The slow reduction in coal availability would be the economic drive to force the development of alternative energy technologies. In 40 years we could expect coal would not only be unavailable, it would also be unnecessary.

[Hermit]

So let me suggest a solution.

First : a total international ban on new coal mines.
Second : Every coal mining nation must reduce its production each year. In 2016, they must not mine more than 97.5% of what they mined in 2015. In 2017, they must not mine more than 95% of what they mined in 2015. Each year, based on 2015 production figures, they reduce output by 2.5%.

Then in 20 years, coal production (and burning) is cut in half. In 40 years, it stops entirely.

That's not how capitalism works. Dream on.

[JimC]

Simply not a realistic political proposition. Steady increases in the number of countries who impose some form of carbon tax and/or a carbon trading scheme will eventually make coal mining (aside from the minimum necessary for coking coal in steel production) uneconomic. Such a result is inevitable in the long run as renewable energy becomes, per energy unit, cheaper and cheaper; government decisions can help this happen a little earlier, but there is no magic bullet.

[Blind groper]

Jim

With all due respect, I suspect a little bias on your part. Australia is the biggest abuser of coal on a per capita basis. Biggest miner of coal per person by far.

[JimC]

Jim

With all due respect, I suspect a little bias on your part. Australia is the biggest abuser of coal on a per capita basis. Biggest miner of coal per person by far.

And I would prefer it to be otherwise. But I can also see what is politically possible, and what is extremely unlikely.

[mistermack]

First, prove your problem.

Don't get the bus, just because you have a feeling that the car won't start.

[laklak]

Don't worry, we already have unlimited, free, non-polluting energy. It's alien technology from the Roswell crash, but They can't just release it without destroying the economy of the world, which is predicated on the production of energy. That's why there's all this hysteria about climate change, They're phasing out fossil fuels in a controlled manner to prevent economic collapse. If you want to help, buy a really big pick-up truck and drive everywhere, even in the house.

[Pappa]

As we don't have a world government, it clearly isn't a feasible option. Any voluntary treaty would just encourage poor or insular countries to mine and export more coal at a higher price as supply decreased.

[Blind groper]

Any solution to the problem presupposes an international agreement, whether it is a limitation on mining, carbon taxes, or something more exotic. My suggestion permits, in the short term, an increase in earnings by those mining coal, which must make it more palatable.

[Seth]

We all know that coal is the dirtiest fuel. It contains sulfur and releases toxic gases that are highly detrimental to human health. It is estimated that coal exhaust, breathed in, kills literally millions of people each year.

And you think that's a bad thing?

More importantly even than that, is the fact that it is the biggest contributor to global warming. Per unit of energy released, burning coal generates roughly twice as much greenhouse gas as burning hydrocarbons. Yet burning coal is the world's biggest method of generating electricity. No one would argue with the fact that this has to change.

I would most certainly argue with that rather specious personal opinion you stated.

What has been done to date is pussyfooting around the problem. Ideas of 'carbon taxes' or 'carbon credits'. These are too damn complex and have far too many loopholes. And there is no suggestion of onus on those who dig the coal out of the ground - only on those who burn it. Yet the best place for all that carbon is in the ground, in the form of the unburned coal.

When you come up with a viable non-coal solution that can replace coal-fired power plants at or below the cost of coal plants, I'll be glad to give your idea consideration.

So let me suggest a solution.
Forget about penalising the people who burn the coal. Throw the onus back on those who mine it. The whole idea is not to reduce the burning, which does not work, but to make sure the coal stays in the ground, where it does no harm.

And immediately replace it with what, exactly?

The way it works is simple.
First : a total international ban on new coal mines.

By who's authority and enforced by whom? Do you think China is going to let the US enforce such a law?

Second : Every coal mining nation must reduce its production each year. In 2016, they must not mine more than 97.5% of what they mined in 2015. In 2017, they must not mine more than 95% of what they mined in 2015. Each year, based on 2015 production figures, they reduce output by 2.5%.

Then in 20 years, coal production (and burning) is cut in half. In 40 years, it stops entirely.

And we all go back to living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the soil for roots and berries. No thanks.

This method would be easier to police since production figures are clear cut. It would do minimal economic damage, since for many years the rise in price of coal (supply and demand) would outweigh the losses made by lower production. The coal miners would actually make more, not less, money. The slow reduction in coal availability would be the economic drive to force the development of alternative energy technologies. In 40 years we could expect coal would not only be unavailable, it would also be unnecessary.

Yeah, unnecessary because 60 percent of the human population will have died of starvation, exposure and disease.

If you are really that interested in population control, why don't you start with yourself. Step outside with a kitchen knife and slit your belly in shame for your contributions to global warming. It's not much, but it's a start, and perhaps it will start a trend among ecoidiots of eco-protection by example.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You really do have some weird ideas. Funny from a guy living in a country that has already cut its coal burning quite drastically, by finding a viable alternative.

I have suggested a slow reduction over 40 years. Since we already have many alternatives to burning coal, slowly pressuring people to use them, over a 40 year period is entirely practical.

The immediate alternative is natural gas, and coal burning power stations can be modified to use natural gas. Longer term, a combination of renewables (wind, solar, hydroelectric, and tidal) and nuclear energy would be developed. None of this is strange or unusual.

[Seth]

Seth

You really do have some weird ideas. Funny from a guy living in a country that has already cut its coal burning quite drastically, by finding a viable alternative.

I have suggested a slow reduction over 40 years. Since we already have many alternatives to burning coal, slowly pressuring people to use them, over a 40 year period is entirely practical.

The immediate alternative is natural gas, and coal burning power stations can be modified to use natural gas. Longer term, a combination of renewables (wind, solar, hydroelectric, and tidal) and nuclear energy would be developed. None of this is strange or unusual.

If natural gas is the best option, then natural gas will become the fuel of choice without any government intervention at all. The free market guarantees it.

The point is that the destruction of the coal industry has nothing to do with anything but power politics and the desire for control on the part of the political elite.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

The problem with the free market is that it does not pay for the nasty consequences. That is the basis for carbon taxes after all. To make the user pay. As long as there is no penalty for releasing toxic gases into the air, the free market will permit it.

[Blind groper]

http://m.fosters.com/article/20150805/NEWS/150809749

It is heartening to see a number of big companies in the USA supporting Obama's initiatives on reducing greenhouse gases.

[Seth]

To Seth

The problem with the free market is that it does not pay for the nasty consequences.

Of course it does, presuming that the consumers think the consequences are "nasty" rather than "beneficial." Just because YOU think a particular consequence may be "nasty" doesn't mean it is. The market itself determines what is "nasty" and what is "nice" as a part of it's natural function.

That is the basis for carbon taxes after all. To make the user pay.

The basis of carbon taxes is to rob money from people to support corrupt politicians and bureaucrats and absolutely nothing else whatsoever.

As long as there is no penalty for releasing toxic gases into the air, the free market will permit it.

Nonsense. The penalty for releasing toxic gasses is that consumers get sick and die and can no longer be consumers, which directly impacts the profitability of the company, and they get angry at being made ill by such toxic releases and stop patronizing those industries that pollute the air, leading to the demise of the companies that fail to meet the environmental expectations and demands of consumers.