[migsvult]

"First, most billionaires don't just have billions in cash laying around usable to buy things. ... The economic loss from this step would be huge."

There would be no economic loss. In real terms, the companies that the billionaires are selling are just as valuable. The sellers might be big enough to cause the paper value to go down temporarily, but it would only hurt the sellers themselves. And obviously, in nominal terms the cash would enter right back into the economy once the coal was purchased. So there would be near-zero negative impact to the overall economy from the asset sales.

"This puts the value of the US coal around 20 trillion (ignoring a few factors like present value, etc., but this is around the total value). To purchase the land right from owners would cost somewhere around this amount, give or take an order of magnitude."

It's hard to get exact numbers, but the total value of US coal is many many times higher than the value of just the mineral rights. The legal right to mine $50 worth of coal is obviously worth way, way less than $50. In other words, you can wipe out a huge amount of coal usage with smartly bought mineral rights, especially, like the story alludes to, if you buy them in such a way as to be inconvinient to everyone around you.

I think the basic idea is sound. The main problem would be that such a solution would be profoundly regressive. Western billionaires literally plunging poor people into darkness. It's probably not a bad plan B if an international political solution fails and things get very dire.

[ChrisLomont]

> There would be no economic loss.

Taking cash from the economy, which is a productive asset, useful for investment, and purchasing land which you plan to do nothing with, is most definitely an economic loss. There is no question about this step.

>It's hard to get exact numbers

and

>I think the basic idea is sound

So give us an estimate. Mine is orders of magnitude above what billionaires could affect. It's vastly more than the difference between the gap between value of coal versus mineral rights. I produced a first estimate. Hand waving without giving a more refined estimate does not make it go away.

Another factor is to slow down production today one has to buy more than mineral rights - one has to buy working mines, possibly related infrastructure/equipment/contracts if the mine owner (or other interested/entwined parties) have investment that goes to waste if the mine closes, etc. So the above, merely estimating the coal, while a simple estimate, may be close to actual costs involved to purchasing the coal mining industry out from under itself.

You also ignore the fact I stated that as places get purchased, since this does not change demand, so other places will simply produce more or more places will become coal mines.

The billionaire plan, even at its most perfect execution, is unlikely to affect the overall production much at all.

[migsvult]

> Taking cash from the economy, which is a productive asset, useful for investment, and purchasing land which you plan to do nothing with, is most definitely an economic loss. There is no question about this step.

No man. The cash doesn't evaporate. It goes to the sellers of the rights, who then plug it right back into the economy. They may even go right back and purchase that same stock! If it makes it clearer, try to think of the coal rights as a bond with zero interest rate. Obviously, people trading the bond around doesn't destroy value.

> Give us an estimate.

I'm not sure your 20 trillion dollar estimate is very relevant. Most folks see the next 30-40 years as the key phase we need to get right, after which the switch to renewable will be more or less complete. In other words, your usage of 400 years of coal WAAAAAY overstates the size of the problem. But yeah sure I'll throw some numbers up.

If you assume mineral rights are 5% of total cost (if you buy them intelligently), and that you can rustle up $5B in cash, and that in the next 30 years you have a gradual slowdown of coal usage anyways, then the scheme cuts between 10 and 20% of US coal production. Not too shabby. Now, I admit my numbers are soft and optimistic, but it's by no means "orders of magnitude" below what it needs to be.

> Another factor is to slow down production today one has to buy more than mineral rights

I see no reason why this is the case. According to the article the gov't owns most of the rights, and the whole idea is to make it easy for private actors to buy just the rights.

> You also ignore the fact I stated that as places get purchased, since this does not change demand, so other places will simply produce more or more places will become coal mines.

Well yeah, but at higher cost. Producers are forced to use less optimal sites, and to outbid each other. This lowers overall production as coal is made less competitive than gas/oil/renewables. That's the whole point.

[meric]

The total economic loss is (economic gains from burning coal to generate electricity) - (economic losses from the pollution and injuries caused by burning coal to generate electricity).

If the gain from burning coal to generate electricity is more than enough to counter the loss to do so, then leaving the coal in the ground is an economic loss.

[migsvult]

Well yeah obviously. The entire point of the scheme is to lower our coal usage by shifting into less economically efficient forms of energy. That strictly implies lower overall economic output.

If fact, any emission-lowering scheme (besides funding new technology) will lower economic output.

But the question at hand is if the sale of assets itself would cause economic output to go down, if the billionaires selling their stock and purchasing land rights would somehow destroy value. And the answer is clearly no.

[meric]

EDIT: You're right, economic loss is a cause of a fall in stock prices, not the other way around, in this scenario.

I'm saying the lost value is the coal in the ground doing nothing[1], from billionaires selling stock and purchasing land rights and doing nothing. I'm disregarding the numbers and stock prices and think about what's really happening, and what shifting all this capital means. I am putting on two hats at once to connect these financial actions with reality. The answer clearly depends on the caveat described below. If coal can produce power and the economic gain can be profitably allocated to counter environmental and societal damage, then leaving the coal in the ground is the loss that will be incurred when billionaires sell their stock and purchase land rights. That loss will be shared by everybody. Hundreds of thousands of companies' costs will go up, and their profits reduced, due to reduced electricity supply or increased cost of electricity, and their stock prices will be reduced. Production that is marginally profitable will be wiped out. That is the answer. Just like the world would lose out if Sergey and Larry didn't start google. In that alternate universe, the market capitalisation of stocks that rely on search engines would be lower.

[1] With the caveat being the coal could be used to produce enough extra electricity in conjunction with other forms of electricity generation to counter it's own negative effects. That is, at this current moment, instead of using coal, there won't be more utility to spam solar power or wind power in less efficient places today.[2]

[2] Assuming current solar power and wind power has been placed in the most efficient places already.