What you have are statistics where countries that have lots of power plants have a certain rate of lung cancer and countries with none have a lower rate.
That's far from the only source for such statistics.
That's literally your methodology. And its fallacious.
You're still assuming, thus making an ass of yourself. It's not even a majority of the method for determining that pollution from coal power causes negative health effects.
The reality is that it is a great deal more complicated than that. The power plants obviously are not dangerous to people in and of themselves.
Never been in one, I take it? Steam explosions are a killer, though fortunately rather rare today in developed countries.
It is rather the emissions. And the emissions are only dangerous if you breath them in a given concentration over a given period of time. And even then whether or not you develop cancer at all is a probability and not a certainty.
Again, you're carefully explaining something that I already know. I'll explain it to you again: I know this and state that, because we can statistically determine that coal power increases expenses through various ways, we should internalize that expense by charging for pollution.
To expand upon this, I support charging for ALL pollution, not just that from coal power plants. Steel production would be hit some as well, as would things like paper mills. For cars, well, because monitoring the pollution from 'every' car would be impractical, we'd have to fall back to statistical methods - figure out a baseline, add that to fuel taxes. Then, depending on whether an individual vehicle is estimated to be more or less polluting per gallon of fuel burned, an appropriate differential tax would be charged. Either at purchase or registration, I'm not sure which.
As to emissions from china, its so diluted by that point that it doesn't really matter.
29% of California's air pollution 'doesn't really matter'? Wow...
As to lawn mower taxes you're comparing the bureaucratic overhead of managing a few hundred power plants to managaging the taxation on a lawn mower?
Strawman again. I was looking at one of the biggest tax systems in the country - the taxation of gasoline for the purposes of road funding. Thus, the lawn mower becomes an example. It can also be used for off-roading, standby generators, 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, and everything else other than driving on roads we do with gasoline.
Look, I suggest you stop trying to predict my positions or lines of thought because you're really bad at it. Not putting you down as a person, but I'm rather non-standard on the best of days.
As to geo engineering methods... you've apparently spent literally no time at all looking into such things. This is disappointing.
I read an awful lot, and this is the first time I've seen these proposals. People read different things. The salt crystal proposal looks very interesting, but also very preliminary. 30MW for how large of an area? For 5% reflection gain, how much is this estimated to be?
The second has a proposed effective period of 20 years, and would require 20M tons of SO2 every 1-4 years. You're not fitting that through 'garden hoses'.
As to the gas released... that was actually surfer dioxide. I know... you don't like the idea of emitting that... but the amounts required to get the effect are so low that you really can't complain about it.
For the record, as long as there's reasonable evidence that it'll stay up there until it's degraded to something less dangerous, and that the positive effects outweigh the negative, I'm not opposed to it. Shocking, isn't it?
The pork spending on this issue unheard of before this issue. Previously every time the government did some tawdry deal with business with kickbacks it would be sneered at as corruption.
Not really? The federal government has a centuries long history of subsidizing things, and considering the age of the country, that takes some work.
I mean, wool was subsidized back in the day, under the guise of ensuring it'd be available for soldier's uniforms if necessary.