Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 145

As to the source of the statistics, no that is your only source of statistics that CORRELATES a set amount of power plants/mega watts/tons of chemical X with some number of cancer cases.

That is LITERALLY your source. You can cite all the studies you like... I've seen a lot of them... and inside each of them that could be used to make your argument, you'll find that that is EXACTLY what they did.

And given that that is your information source what you have is a ROUGH correlation.

On that basis you can't tax me. You need CAUSATION.

People that don't grasp the distinction between correlation and causation shouldn't cite statistics AT ALL.

As to power plants being dangerous to workers etc... don't be obtuse. It makes you sound petty and quarrelsome which is not helping you.

As to internalizing costs, you cannot do that unless you can nail down causation on a case by case basis.

You can't. So you can't.

As to your statistics... they're correlative.

As to 29%... we're talking about PM2.5 in San Francisco actually if you read the source. And the amount of air pollution in San Francisco is pretty fucking low.

So 30 percent of just about nothing... is just about nothing.

Let me make this clear, you know there is arsenic in many natural water sources right? That's something we often use as RAT POISON. But it is very commonly found in natural springs and lakes. Dangerous? Nope. As any doctor will tell you, dosage is very important when determining if something is actually even a poison in the first place. And most medicines are themselves only medicines at specific dosages. Exceed the dosage and they can themselves become poisons. The old eating a bottle of asprin and then drinking half a liter of scotch suicide method.

So you say 29 percent... 29 percent doesn't mean anything from a health stand point without having some sort of scale to understand exactly how much PM2.5 San Franciscans are sucking down.

if its just about nothing... and 29 percent of that just about nothing is from china... who cares.

There's a certain amount of insect parts in your food. A certain amount feces in the air. A certain amount of urine rubbed into your hands when you get a hand shake. A certain amount of semen on your pillow when you lay down on a hotel bed. It doesn't matter if they washed and bleached it... Some remnant is there. Its just no one cares because its below a threshold where it matters to you.

As to the geo engineering... if you're not familiar with the proposed methods of geo engineering than you're not well read on climate change. Period.

Here is some more on the sulfer dioxide concept:

Here is a bit more on the boats spraying salt water:

The cost structure for these plans is well under a billion dollars for either one. And either would entirely negate the effect of global warming. Understand... ENTIRELY negate the warming. ALL of it.

The carbon credit scheme will do nothing of the kind whilst costing trillions.

if you want the warming to stop, support a plan that will ACTUALLY work.

And then take the MASSIVE savings and sink a portion of that into funding research for new technologies. Contrary to what you might think, funding for new technologies to replace coal etc are not actually that high.

We spend a lot of money on wind farms and solar farms but we don't spend anywhere near that kind of money on research into the technology that will actually get rid of coal.

As to conflating all subsidies as equal... *sigh*... please try to watch the fallacies. You seem to operate almost entirely in them and it makes it tedious to correct simple logical errors. There are small subsidies and there are fucking massive subsides. Saying "we subsidized something once so clearly all subsides no matter how massive are just the same thing."

Utter and complete nonsense.

The point is as inconvienent to you politically and ideologically as it may be... is that the man you think you're sticking it to with the AGW rules... play directly into the man's hands. He gets to fuck over his competition by creating so much red tape and regulation that only the big companies can deal with it either because they have dedicated legal departments or because they can buy exemptions from congressman. And then the pork just flows and flows and flows. Is anyone scrutinizing the funding on these solar power plants or wind farms? Who gets the contracts, if whatever is being installed is being bidded out at a competitive rate?

If you don't know the tax payers get hosed on these projects more often than not... then let this be your wake up call. These programs are often as not given to campaign contributors, at marked up rates, and if you itemize what is actually being installed and do a cost analysis on what is being charged for it all... you'll find the numbers do not add up.

Now, if that were just business people fucking each other over that would be their problem. What pisses me off is that they're fucking ME over because its MY money getting stolen.

What is my solution for all that? I don't think solar and wind should be build in big centralized power projects. Instead, I think citizens should be given tax credits for installing solar panels and wind turbines on their own property.

Wind and solar are unique in that you can put them up almost anywhere and they're very defuse energy sources. its not a nuclear reactor or a coal plant. There is no energy singularity you're drawing upon. Its a ubiquitous source of energy and thus the collection of the energy should reflect that difference. Rather than having the big centralized power station you just have everyone put panels and wind mills up. That lowers the amount of power people use. Even if people weren't feeding the power into the grid. Let us say they were merely consuming the power themselves and any power they didn't consume was wasted... that would still have roughly the effect we have right now with wind and solar.

What I like about the defuse model is that it is hard for any one company to bribe a congressman to get a contract. Every individual panel buyer or wind mill buyer can buy a panel or a wind mill from any company they want. That means little companies can compete. It means that you can't lock down contracts with bribes to politicians. And for those with a bit of extra money, it makes it easier for more people to just break free from the grid entirely. Anyone in the Suburbs can do it. People in urban areas are fucked but the suburbs can cut themselves off from the grid rather easily.

And consider their tax dollars are currently being funneled to big companies to install these power stations. Why not stop issuing those contracts ENTIRELY and direct ALL of that money to subsidies for private solar and wind at the consumer level?

Here you'll say "it isn't as efficient because the units used at the utility level produce a lot more power per dollar input"... yes and no. The distribution system is not calculated in that... and i'm not talking about what any power has to deal with but specifically costs associated wtih dealing with solar and wind power introduced to the grid. They play merry hell with the grid because the power jumps around all over the fucking place. A coal or nuclear plant or a hydro plant... they're very stable and very consistent. They output X whenever you want them to... generally all year around... day and night... winter and summer. You can't say the same thing about renewables. The cost of maintaining them in the grid often involves back up power plants that actually serve as the REAL power plant. The wind and solar often as not is merely an off set for a coal or natural gas plant. Thus the cost of the wind or solar on the GRID is the cost of the wind + a coal power plant or solar + a natural gas plant.

Beyond that, municipalities often exploit residents by jacking up power and water costs because they can't justify raising taxes. They'll jack up water or power costs and then redirect the money at program X or Y that had nothing to do with water or power. Then hilariously they'll say they need to jack up rates again because it turns out that they took too much money out of the water/power funds and have left them anemic. Never mind that they were stable before the rates were jacked up or that they would have been more than stable if the funds hadn't been raided.

As a result, I'm a fan of making it harder for the local governments to fuck over low information voters with tactics like that.

Comment Re:There's truth on both sides here (Score 1) 1033

On the Bingo issue... we'll just let that one lay where it is for now.

As to race being personal... its no more personal than the shape of my nose, height, or shoe size.

Its a basic human phenotype and unlike the length and girth of my penis its something you could tell just by looking at me. As such, I don't see how it could be personal. Penis girth?... a bit personal... race? How is that personal?

If it were such a personal question than why would the US census department ask me that information every time I talked to them?

I actually find the issue of race to be incredibly tedious since it serves a smoke screen to cover up bigger problems or give legitimacy for really really stupid cultural tropes under the guise of "well that's my culture/race"... That's no excuse. Its in the culture of some people's to eat each other. Literal skull cracking cannibals. Now do we judge their culture? Yuuup.

So clearly we have no problem judging cultures. That's as the joke goes, now we're just negotiating price. A reference to the joke where a fellow asks a woman if she's a prostitute, she says no, he says what if I gave you 100 million dollars to have sex with me, she says okay at that price, and then he says okay now we're just negotiating price.

Here's the thing. Why we latch on to race as being relevant is that it historically correlated with culture and various cultures would create culturally unitary poltical units where they would say "fuck everyone else but help your own out."... and you'll find that people were generally pretty fucking nasty to each other even when there was only one race in the area. I mean, in Asia you could all asians in the area but are you Chinese? Are you Japanese? Are you Korean? And people from each of those countries LOOK different they have different cultures, different politics, and different religions.

And the subdivisions didn't stop there. The various provinces/states/kingdoms of Japan or China all thought they were superior to all the other provinces for various reasons.

The point is that people LIKE these US vs THEM narratives because it gives you moral justification to fuck someone else over.

You dehumanize or rob someone of any moral/ethical/political/economic agency and then you just fuck them.

Now dividing us on the basis of race WAS functional when given political units really only had one race in them. However, racial divisions are DYSFUNCTIONAL in cosmopolitan societies.

Thus this whole "oh I'm this race" or that race in the first world is generally detrimental to our socities as a whole.

Here someone will start quoting statistics at me about low achievement or over representation or under representation in one thing or another... and why that is bad.

Statistics should not be cited by people that don't know how to read them or don't know what they mean. They're numbers. And often as not the reason we talk about race is because THOSE are the numbers we collect. Do we have employment stats on people over and under a certain Body Mass Index? I bet we could make as much of a fuss about that as any of this race stuff. People's world views are prisoners of the statistics. Because the US census divides everyone based on race largely as a racial throw back everyone judges the success and failure of the country in those terms.

We don't look at the socioeconomic angles where we judge people by CLASS more than by race or gender. There is an assumption that CLASS is subordinate to race which isn't the case or Oprah wouldn't exist.

Region is also a really interesting way to break people down. People in state X are going to have different socioeconomic characteristics to people in state Y. THAT is interesting.

But your race? Not interesting unless there are institutional barriers based on race. And in the 21st century in the First World... there aren't any. We've done away with that. What we have left are self imposed cultural barriers.

Its like that stupid action movie "the matrix" where people are prisoners of their own preconceptions... prisoners in their own minds.

You can't pass a law to free people from their own self imposed limitations. The law has no jurisdiction inside of people's skulls.

All you can do is stop responding to stupid arguments where someone says "well because RACE/RACISM we must do X or Y even though I've provided no evidence that RACE matters in this case in a causal way or that RACISM in this case even existed."

Its lazy and counter productive.

Now here you're going to say "woah, I didn't ask for all that, I just said race was personal"... if it is personal it implies it has some significance. It doesn't.

Comment Re: Just block any country that makes these claims (Score 1) 511

Then you have to remove all references to homosexuality to accommodate the middle east... remove anything that might be embarrassing to the chinese government... and really just restrict all internet activity to the least common denominator.

Google's handling of these stupid orders from various EU countries has so far been pretty effective. A country in the EU says "do this or we'll sue you"... and google simply suspends that service in that country entirely. They did that in Spain for example with some news services and the Spanish media organizations lobbying for Google to be forced to comply lost a lot of revenue because the google news service was driving a lot of clicks.

And THAT is how you have to play this. You do not give an inch on free speech.

You make it a very clear binary arrangement of Free speech and access... or censorship = full blackout.

Beyond that, what are you saying in this case, that Facebook should go around policing people that deny the holocaust on facebook?

Really? You think that's practical? Its not unless facebook started doing what the Chinese do with their legions of censors that police Chinese social media.

This is a non-starter.

If you want to have a rule like this for German newspapers... fine. But saying what people can and can't say on social media sites that accept ads from german companies?

How fucking astoundingly high do you have to be to think that is going to work?

Did you eat all the magic mushrooms? Left none for anyone else? That's greedy and mean.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 145

As to strawmen and specifics, I'm afraid you can't prove that my power plant killed anyone.

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.

However, harmonizing the two statistics is hard. what is more, you're arriving at your death statistics by saying that in the country with lots of power plants they have X cancer deaths then you subtract the cancer deaths in the country without the power plant, then you divide the number of cancer deaths by the number of power plants.

That's literally your methodology. And its fallacious.

That is a statistically unethical methodology. Here you'll say "but its too hard to do it the ethical way so I have to do it the unethical way."

I'm fine fine with that. But you are not acknowledging that you took those short cuts and you're implying that you have a causal link between X power plants and Y cancer deaths.

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. 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.

Now, if my power plant has the filters and is blowing its smoke in some direction that doesn't have people breathing in the emissions... your system is going to tax me the same way as if I put it right in the fucking middle of a city. That's unreasonable.

As to emissions from china, its so diluted by that point that it doesn't really matter.

Lets not conflate ANY carcinogen in the air with DANGEROUS levels. The reality is that in NATURE you encounter carcinogens all the time. The Fucking Sun is a carcinogen. Camp fire smoke is full of carcinogens... on and on. The issue is not whether they are there but if they're there in relevant levels. The smoke from china is not relevant to the health of californians with the possible exception of some some geological formations that trap and concentrate air pollution. That's an issue in Los Angeles which is part of why LA always looks smoggy while other areas with similar populations and even greater emissions look clear.

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?


A power plant could get an EPA rating which would take such things into consideration and adjust fees accordingly. Suggesting that is suddenly impossible when there is so much fucking red tape everyone has to go through as is... is not credible.

You might as well say the government can't do something because its dealing with the dinosaurs and unicorns that are attacking the US capital in backwards time or something equally irrational. The simple fact that we can handle the existing level of complexity suggests that you can have distinct taxation rates for given power plants based on their distinct emissions profiles.

I say again. Rejected.

As to visting your intentions... unavoidable. And don't pretend you don't do the same thing. Everyone does. We make assumptions about other people's intentions all the time. You walk by someone on the street and you assume they're going to just carry on their way down the street without bothering you. That is an assumption.

Ironically you're asking me to assume you're arguing in good faith. You're not asking me to not make assumptions. You're asking me rather to only make flattering assumptions or assumptions that paint you in an ethical light.

I'm not going to do that. I will start from that perspective because it costs me nothing and it is considered common courtesy. But if in the course of a discussion you contradict yourself or display deceitful behaviors then I'm going to recalculate. So you asking me to not make assumptions is frankly silly. Assumptions are unavoidable.

My sin in your eyes is in adjusting my perspective from the default common courtesy position that assumes ethical behavior to one where... through observation... I decide that there is some level of deception at play.

Now you might find that to be a counter productive attitude to take. I've heard many people make that argument... that the discussion dies the instant you question the integrity of the person you're arguing with... however, if someone is not arguing with integrity than the discussion is already over. I'm merely noting where it happened. That said, I'm happy to continue the discussion. I'm just not going to pretend that unethical behavior is ethical.

As to geo engineering methods... you've apparently spent literally no time at all looking into such things. This is disappointing.

The salt spray concept is actually very well known:

I believe it was first proposed by an engineer/scientist out of the UK. Fellow was a pioneer in tide power back in the day.

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.

The concept there is for... I think two garden hose sided tubes held aloft by balloons to emit a certain amount of the gas into each hemisphere with the idea of mimicking a volcanic eruption by causing global dimming which will reduce absorbed solar radiation.

Appreciate such programs are not long term strategies but are rather cheap stop gaps that mitigate the warming effect ENTIRELY giving us time to develop replacement technologies for our fossil fuel energy sources.

As to big business also burning coal... *yawn* The POINT is that the lobbying for the AGW projects is huge, the government subsidies for such programs is huge, the UNCAPPED tax credits for such things is HUGE.

I recently put in a geothermal heating/cooling system in my home and the US Federal Government PAID for half of it. Uncapped tax credit. The money being thrown at this stuff is insane.

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.

But with the AGW spending you can dump 10 times as much into what are effectively the same programs and not only will no one sneer at you, but you'll be praised for your moral virtue. The corps LOVE AGW as a political agenda. They're getting fatter and happier on the whole thing than they have been in ages. You don't even need to have customers or a sensible business plan. You can base your entire business on just cashing government checks. And whether or not any of it actually works is irrelevant. The contracts don't require any of it to actually work. You just build it... and then buy a yacht with the profits.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 145

That someone that breaths coal smoke will have respiratory issues is obvious.

You are very correct that this is very similar to the AGW argument.

Yes... in a given context you can show X.

However that doesn't mean you can show some wider consequence is specifically the result of the coal smoke.

Let us say I operate a coal power plant. Let us say furthermore that I use filters on my stacks and the latest technology. My smoke is almost entirely water vapor and CO2.

Now... lets say a man in the neighboring town gets lung cancer.

Am I to blame for that or not?

You don't know.

I could be responsible... maybe.

But more likely I am not.

Your notion is to institute some assumed damages on every bit of emissions and put this money into some kind of state fund and then when people get cancer they draw upon that fund.

The problem with that idea is that there is really no way to know who is doing anything to anyone. Let us say that my power plant is set up in a place where there really aren't any people or the smoke blows out to sea or something. So... no one is actually breaking that smoke in until it has diluted to such an extent that the ability to cause respriatory issues is no longer even remotely credible.

Must I still pay your fee? Of course. Because while you claim to be dealing with externals, your real intent is to discourage the use of coal. That is fine by the way. I'm quite fine with you being against coal or pushing laws that are against coal. However you are misrepresenting yourself by saying you just want to deal with externals.

You do not. If you did, you'd show more interest in actually nailing down who specifically was responsible for what. That is a core aspect of ACTUAL cost accounting.

As to AGW... that is real doesn't mean it is a problem. The hysteria over AGW is based on the most extreme damage claims which have all been heavily debunked by everyone including the UN climate panel.

Absent the big consequences we have bigger things to worry about than that.

If you want to deal with the likely extremely moderate consequences than you can go for one of the several geo engineering options that are known to be effective.

Two of them that I like:

1. You can spray sea water in the air. For about 100 million dollars you can build some little boats that will be powered by the tides and the winds to run pumps and can blast salt water in the air which will cause more clouds and will moderately whiten the clouds causing additional reflection into space.

2. The second option which I assume you'll just hate involves releasing... I think it is carbon monoxide into the upper atmsophere. If I got the chemical wrong then so be it, but the point is to mimic a volcano. The amount of gas that needs to be released is something that could pass through a single garden hose.

There are drozens of other concepts that are known to work. Pick any of them. We just need to buy time for the technological change that will come.

Instead of wasting all our money on a stupid carbon trading system that will be looted and fat idiots will grow insanely rich on. We should put that money towards something useful.

Research into technology... not propaganda. Helping the third world develop responsibility. Investing in research to cure diseases.

THAT is worth while. The money being thrown at AGW is wasted. The people that think they're sticking it to the man or the evil corporations don't realize that the corporations LOVE AGW government spending. Who does the government pay? The big corps. And keep in mind the big corps are the ones making solar panels, wind mills, LED lights, and all the other stuff that is supposed to save you from THE END TIMES. And it gets better because look at all the pork spending going into AGW. These solar panel farms... the wind farms... the huge tax subsidies. The corps are making a KILLING on AGW.

As to hating dirty coal, we don't use dirty coal in the first world. So don't oppose coal in the first world. Oppose it in china or something.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 145

You'd have to show an actual causation to assign a cost. At best you have weak correlation.

As to being stuck trying to get too much accuracy. You're using the wrong words.

You mean I'm trying to get too much precision.

Accuracy is whether something is correct or not.

Precision is how many decimal places you can cite your figures to.

I am trying to ascertain accuracy however that is a question of whether your position is valid AT ALL not merely how precisely you can cite a figure.

As to some studies where you say you can nail down these figures... HOW? Your costs are all about various respiratory diseases. But you don't know what particular incident of lung cancer was caused by coal or whether it was because some liked to go on camping trips and breathed in too much camp fire smoke.

People pretend like lung cancer is a new thing. Its ancient. its just that our ancestors generally didn't live long enough for it to matter. And if they did... they just got sick and died and no one really knew why. Which didn't matter because they were getting sick and dying around the same time other old people were getting sick and dying for a thousand other reasons.

The point is there is no possible way you could have causation on any of this.

At best you could have correlation and correlation is very weak evidence.

As to you saying we're not talking about CO2... then the cleaner coal plants shouldn't bother you because they emit very little besides CO2.

Mission accomplished.

As to you saying you prefer nuclear... I have no problem with nuclear power. I was talking with a fellow the other day that was against nuclear at any price in any context. It was really sort of amazing. He said he was open minded but when you got into it... what he meant was "I think there's no way to make it safe so when I say I'd be okay with it if it were done safely that's just another way of me saying you can't do it."

So you've got people like that running around making nuclear build outs complicated.

You hate coal? I don't know what to tell you. Its here to stay as well. I'd suggest you find some reasonable technological adaptations we can ad to the plants that you find acceptable. Short of that... the coal is going to be burned until something else comes along that is at least as cheap and has less political headaches than nuclear.

Its the politics more than anything that makes nuclear such a pain in the ass. Here you're going to say "but its not cheaper"... it is cheaper... the way accounting is done... everywhere... it is cheaper. And no one is changing the accounting system because no one can quantify the damages specifically, attribute the damage in a causal manner, or determine who did what to whom. And without that... its not stopping. The best I think you're going to get are the filters they put on the coal plants. I know that isn't good enough for you... but... it is what is happening.

The power is needed. It will be supplied. We have thousands of years of coal in the US alone.

Comment Re:Then any law is racist (Score 1) 17

You can't presume to respect my humanity or the humanity of the majority of the human race while applying a standard that says that anyone that disagrees with you is inhuman...

If I were playing the same sort of game you're playing... this dumb ad hominem nonsense... I'd say you were acting like a nazi or an old school racist because you're basically calling everyone not like you sub human.

Your position is logically self contradictory. Your position is in error.

It makes no rational sense. That isn't an opinion. That is the logical fact.

You say you respect humanity then you de humanize 99.999999 percent of the human race. That's absurd. The migrating mexicans etc that you presume to support are also believers in borders I am sure. If I asked them about the borders of their own countries they'd suddenly be in defense of those. The only border they don't like is the one that stand between them and giant fat slabs of US welfare which is largely what is drawing these current waves of immigration. They're not even coming to work. They're coming to get on the dole.

So if you're against borders, what is your opinion of welfare?

What about taxation? is taxation animal like or is that robot like? or maybe its vampire like or aliens from neptune like?

What about laws? Are laws inhuman?

What else...

Comment When you say the city is gone... (Score 1) 4

... what do you mean?

Do you mean the huge sections of town that were nothing but government housing have not been replaced to the same extent etc?

Of course not. That entire social planning model has been a huge disaster and the government is trying to figure out alternatives.

Obama's latest idea which should be very entertaining is to build low income housing in the middle of high income area to break up the socioeconomic patterns in communities where all the poor people live in one part of town and all the rich people live on the other side.

As I said... the way that ultimately plays out will be fun to watch.

But suffice to say that the old model of just building endless miles of unbroken government block housing is not something the government wants to repeat.

This sort of housing is getting phased out across the country. "Gentrification" is how it is phrased in many places. The block housing is in areas that would be more valuable if they weren't government housing. And so they get converted to apartments and condos and stuff for people that can actually afford the rent. And then housing elsewhere in the city that might have really high value could be converted here and there to government housing.

That second element is where things will get fun to watch. The politics, the influence, the money... the shear clashes of culture, status, and world view should be like watching a car wreck. I've got my popcorn waiting for that one.

As to the lament for the people gone from New Orleans... they dispersed throughout the country. There's no reason to feel bad for anyone. They live in Texas, Florida, etc... they went elsewhere and from the reports most of them find their new homes to be superior to their old homes.

Comment Re:Then any law is racist (Score 1) 17

No, "The Means ARE the Ends".

Which is just another way of saying you reap what you sow.

I do not believe the ends justify the means and I think you're making yourself the victim of an "US vs THEM" thought system. You've got this binary thing going where you propose an extreme position and any one that doesn't agree with you is evil, an animal, or a computer.

Listen to the things you've called me. You consistently try to dehumanize me.

You've said that my proposals are evil simply because I assert the right to control with the collective consent of my peers the laws and customs of my territory.

You've said that having territory at all is animalistic even though the type of territory humans have bares no resembles to animal patterns.

And then when I tried to work through your position in a logical step by step manner you called me a computer.

You are very prone to ad hominem. You seem to think you can defeat my position by demonizing ME.

That is logically invalid.

In any case, I am answering your question about what I believe in regards to the ends and the means.

To repeat, I believe the Ends ARE the Means.

What you go about doing is what you have created.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 145

The health costs are the result of carbon monoxide and surfer dioxide... not carbon dioxide.

A modern coal plant burns hotter thus removing carbon monoxide by having a more complete combustion and the sulfur dioxide is filtered out.

As to the external cost of CO2 from coal power plants? That is highly speculative at best and thus associating a cost on it at all is just as speculative.

It could be a very large scary number... or nothing.

what is more, the mere fact that the geoengineering concepts have been rejected even though they are quite cheap and should more than mitigate the climate impact... I question the sincerity of the power brokers and elites pushing this agenda. They seem to want very expensive programs that have no chance of any meaningful change whilst rejecting much cheaper policies that will entirely cancel the effect.

That's a smoking gun in my opinion. And it makes me have much less patience with lectures about speculative externals.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 145

Hmmm... Your sources don't speak of money they speak of death and health issues.

As to whether X watts of coal lead to Y healthcare costs... that is entirely arbitrary. You have no means of associating a clear figure one way or the other.

As such you can't attribute a given number to coal power generation.

What is more, most of the issues with coal are caused by carbon monoxide and surfer dioxide.

Not CO2.

To my knowledge, if you removed both those from the coal emissions which modern coal plants can do... then the health issues you're citing vanish.

Thus if we only look at FILTERED MODERN coal power you'd find that most of your externals went away. And such coal power is still cheaper than anything besides unfiltered coal.

The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.