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.