[mikeash]

The proper solution is to capture the externalities imposed by coal and force those who burn coal to pay the entire cost of burning it, including the cost of the emitted pollution. Then the solution will work itself out. If coal is indeed the best solution even with all the damage it causes, it will still be viable when these costs are captured. If other methods are better, then they will win out.

The problem is that right now we allow people to burn coal and vent the combustion products into the atmosphere while not paying for the massive costs this imposes on the general population.

[tsotha]

That's nice in theory, but the problem is nobody has any idea how to quantify those externalities.

[mikeash]

Sure they do. You won't be accurate to the penny, but quantifying this stuff can be done. Even getting to within an order of magnitude would be useful.

[tsotha]

Not if you're basing taxes/charges on it. An order of magnitude?

[mikeash]

What alternative are you proposing? All I see so far is basically, it's too hard so let's not even try.

[tsotha]

Yeah, pretty much. If you're gonna do something like that you should first make sure you're not going to make life worse for people than the current system.

[mikeash]

Why is that the default rather than, say, banning all coal burning until the danger can be quantified? If your position is that it's impossible to know the size of the impact, how do you choose one versus the other?