|
|
|
|
|
|
by higherpurpose
4423 days ago
|
|
|
It's not just about coal and oil's effect on global warming, but their effect on human health, too. The faster we move to cleaner technologies, the better. Wouldn't you like the children to grow in a healthier world? The situations are different here. It's not like in 50 years we'll discover that "hey, wait a minute - inhaling coal fumes is actually good for us!" - which is what you're trying to imply with your comment. |
|
|
Notice: modern scrubbers are rather efficient
Not to mention that coal is one of those things that I am all for us getting rid of. But not to ban other countries from using. Spending 20-30 years bootstrapping themselves to alternative methods very well may be better than building up a massive population base because they couldn't get themselves to the point where birth rates drop.
Not to mention that half of the alternatives to coal have been EPA-d (is that a verb? Now it is) to the point where "dirty" fuels are the best option from a straight economic point of view.
A better example for your comment might be nuclear power. Where a large chunk of the reason behind why nuclear power is not more widely used is public (panicked) response to radiation concerns. Even though burning coal ends up with a larger radiation dose per MWH. Even though the alternative tends to be coal or oil fired power plants. Even though nuclear power (with suitable reprocessing) is the cleanest general-purpose form of power generation we have. (And yes, this includes "green" energy. Solar/wind require rare earth elements / batteries / etc, geothermal is highly regional, hydro causes issues with fish/etc, biomass is sooty, etc)