ECON 295: Introduction to Sustainable Development Washington and Lee University Spring 2018 Professor: James F Casey Email: caseyj@wlu.edu Class: MWF 9-12, Wilson Hall 2019 Office Hours: MWF 12-1 and TR by appointment Office Location: Holtkamp 119 Course Description In September 2015, the world adopted a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2015-2030 to replace the Millennium Development Goals when they expired in 2015. These SDGs set targets for reducing poverty, protecting the environment, and increasing equality of opportunity for those who may have had less than equal opportunity in the past – These are the three pillars of Sustainable Development. The primary objective of this course is to provide an introduction to the concept, theories, and potential outcomes of sustainable development. In addition to this, we will take a case study approach and look at policies and programs that have aimed to address each of the
The authors note that while the U.S. Energy Information Administration claims that the U.S. has 200 years of coal supply, this might not be true due to the profitability of extraction. The authors state that the timeline for the transition from coal based energy may be as soon as 20 to 30 years. However, this claim is heavily dependent on whether policies are enacted to accurately reflect the external damages. Again this argument reflects the difference between environmental and natural resources. When solely looking at the cost of natural resources coal may be economical feasible. However, when the environmental costs are taken into account alternative sources are far cheaper. The problem is that convincing policy makers to take into account even the low estimates of these social costs is extremely difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe study also states that 94% of carcinogens from coal derived power are emitted to water, 6% to air, and .03% to water. Which of these are the most harmful to health? Are there any differences in the longevity, magnitude, or range of the impacts depending on where the carcinogens are located?
I agree with JT that the main issue here lies in convincing policy makers to act. Clearly, given papers like this one, the reason the US is still coal dependent is not due to a lack of clear evidence of the social costs of coal. The real problem seems to me to be asymmetric information or simply ignorance on the part of politicians. On that note, this paper reminded me of the Krugman article we read earlier in the semester in which Krugman lays out the three reasons why he believes we don't have a gas tax in the US- ignorance, ideology, and interests. Unfortunately, the partisan political climate that exists today limits the chances that any beneficial policy change stems from the sound research that is out there. That being said, given the broad scope of issues covered in this paper, I would like to know more about what policy solutions are the most efficient. If we were to start small as a nation, where should we start? What do cost-benefit analyses tell us?
DeleteThis paper is quite helpful in understanding the full costs of the United States' use of coal energy. While reading this article, I couldn't help but think back to the dual relationship that exists between environmental quality and economic output. Many different and pernicious environmental externalities arise due to the extraction, transportation, and combustion of coal. CO2, methane, particulates, stream acidification, are just a few examples of these. The paper importantly points out that, at least in the case of Kentucky, the direct and indirect costs to the public of using and consuming coal-derived energy actually exceed the public benefit - the difference was a net loss of around $115 million dollars per year and didn't include a host of other opportunity costs like potential solar and wind energy initiatives. Why then is coal still being used to such a great degree in our country? There are obviously large barriers to a near-complete energy grid transformation, but it seems like the initial costs of switching our energy sources will be far outweighed by the improved quality of the environment and public health (both of which have their own positive economic returns). Considering President Trump's consideration of the EPA and his views on "clean coal," I guess we'll probably have to wait for a new political leadership to see this energy source fall completely to the wayside.
ReplyDeleteLife cycle analysis of coal is a useful tool in determining the true costs of coal by considering the lingering costs that occur long after the combustion of coal. I was interested in the section discussing fly ash as this was the topic of discussion in Professor Hess' course on Accounting for Sustainability. The article states that their are over 1,300 sites in the U.S. that the coal companies fill with the toxic wastes of coal processing. These waste sites are sometimes in close proximity to lakes or rivers, creating the potential for disaster when a leak occurs, one of the most severe example is the Tennessee Valley Authority spill in 2008 which resulted in one billion gallons of ash slurry spilled, according to the article. This cost of coal goes beyond what many may be familiar with such as emissions from combustion or the environmental degradation from mining processes.
ReplyDeleteI had idea how much coal costs per year! In the conclusion of the paper, the authors estimate that conservatively, coal costs around $345.3 billion and can cost as much as $523.3 billion. I have always thought of coal burning being less expensive than alternate energy sources such as wind or solar energy, but this paper, combined with book chapters 8 and 9, really make me think twice about that. Additionally, it is clear in this paper that the costs of burning coal outweigh the benefits, which makes me question why it is still so prevalent, especially when there are other forms of energy that may not have as many negative externalities? I would be interested in seeing where our government currently stands on this topic and would like to know if they are fully aware of how costly coal truly is.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really interesting how the author presented the divergence between the costs (both explicit and implicit) of coal and its high usage rate in the United States both in both the past and present. I found it shocking that when using the value of a human life of $7.5mm, the total costs associated with coal usage was $74.6 billion while the direct economic benefit was only $8.08 billion. Additionally, the author goes on to show that coal usage is actually much more expensive than this, stating that the total externalities of coal use is best estimated at $345.3 billion. This staggering figure displays the overwhelmingly negativity of coal as the primary energy source in the US. Another interesting aspect of the article, which was kind of its meat and potatoes so to speak, was how the author outlined all of the negative environmental externalities associated with the process of using coal. I think it really calls into questions the longevity of this resource, and whether there should be some impulse to accelerate a lessening of its dependence for energy provision.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with the way the authors synthesized all the information regarding explicit and implicit costs associated with coal and created a concise table with best estimates. I agree with Pete; it was pretty sobering seeing the total costs associated with coal hit $74.6B when using a $7.5mm valuation for human life. Humans, in some ways, aren't so different from environmental resources - it's incredibly hard to come up with a sensible non-market valuation for a person. How does one approximate the value of living a full life - or the costs of developing lung cancer from particulate matter. The author's best estimate for costs associated with "excess mental retardation" were approximately $360mm. Even if we are boiling down human lives to IQ detriments and lost productivity, these explicit costs have nothing on the lost utility of these individuals. It's clear from this reading and others that the costs associated with coal - to individuals, families, ecological integrity, and global climate - are too high to continue justifying its outsize use compared to other energy sources.
DeleteThe exposure to CCW and fly ash discussed by the authors was reminiscent of Hendryx’s work, which they cite later in their paper. They say that 7/44 fly ash ponds in Kentucky alone are “high hazard… meaning that if one of these impoundments spilled, it would likely cause… property damage, injuries, illness, and deaths.” These statistics reminded me of the issues facing North Carolina with their hog farms. We read a paper in Social Issues about the adverse health effects of living near one of these pig farms. On top of terrible smell, it’s been found that hog feces DNA particles were found in all 6 dust samples they found. The chemicals that are emitted from coal as it goes through its life cycle are a massive externality not only for their direct effect on individuals who may breathe in the chemicals but also because of the potential to harm the water supply.
ReplyDeleteI think by telling us that the death rate in underground mining accidents is 3,800-6,000 deaths annually, compared to the US being much lower may cause some US residents to believe that the way we mine coal is much safer and that some deaths will occur, but it is not urgent as long as the death rate stays lower than China’s. This is in relation to immediate deaths; the deaths related to black lung disease is extremely high. I was shocked to see how much the costs of coal mining added up to, and when you really analyze these figures, it should urge people to find an alternate energy source for the US’s main source of power. It would be interesting to me to know which figures the government is using to justify the continued usage of coal and how much their benefits and costs are valued at. CCW’s also seem to be a pressing issue at the moment with the dramatic increase in annual production, which causes another cost that the government may be overlooking. The section on infant mortality rate being higher than areas without coal mining may be more persuasive when calling attention to the issue, like we talked about last week. People are more willing to pay attention when it could impact their children.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked to read that in China 3,800-6,000 people die annually due to underground mining accidents. While this fact doesn't make me discount the damage coal mining does in the United States it does put coal mining in a global context, one that I had never considered before. Yes, coal mining in the U.S. is a health and environmental issue that needs to be addressed; however, this fact makes me almost more concerned about coal mining abroad and, more generally, the global market for coal. The paper states that China burns more coal than the U.S., Japan, and the EU combined. Coal production survives because there is a demand for coal powered energy (in addition to lobbying efforts (at least in the U.S.)). I think policy makers need to look carefully at the best policy to address the effects of coal use while also being mindful of the development of countries. I'm assuming that much of China's economic development has been powered by coal (although this may not be true). Are we at a point where new, clean energies can used instead of coal in countries like China or India? This is a part of I think a larger ethical question of how much say a developed state has in a developing state's energy consumption. I would be interested to see a full cost accounting for coal in China. Is it similar to the figures given in this paper for the U.S.?
DeleteThis paper again demonstrates how difficult it is to quantify the compounding externalities associated with pollution. From a business standpoint, it appears as if there is no better time to be mining coal given the technological advances of the past few decades. Thus, it is tricky business assigning price values to externalities in hopes of persuading people to stop burning coal. I think the narrative that goes along with these externalities over time (Table 1 in the reading), is a much more valuable policy tool than any sort of price estimate.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though opinions on coal are dictated by political beliefs rather than by a thorough understanding of the coal industry. I think the only way people will change their minds about coal is if information regarding the impacts of the coal industry on the environment and human health is disseminated in a way that appears to be apolitical. Much like climate change, there are groups that turn their noses to scientific literature and research and pretend as if nothing bad comes from coal; it is likely that their minds will not be swayed, but those who are directly beneath them on the ideological spectrum might be convinced after learning the full story of the coal industry, and it is these people that educational efforts should focus on.
Studies like these really call into question the logic of politicians supporting coal. While the inefficiencies and externalities associated with coal burning are evident, my belief is that the ardent political endorsement (especially in the U.S.) of coal must be rooted in ideological, almost emotional ties to the practice. Some people still associate coal as the primarily force for economic growth in America during the Industrial Revolution. Some may see doing away with the practice of coal mining and other outdated techniques for generating coal energy means that a part of American history and tradition, or economic growth, will be lost. My thought is that some believe by campaigning for subsidies on mining activity in areas like Kentucky, we are protecting parts of small-town America. In reality, this only make more sick, diverts economic growth, and subjects more Americans to preventable stresses. In cases like MTR, we are subsidizing an activity that is highly automated, requires little labor and is employing less and less people with time. The conservative estimations in this paper should be enough to combat this American-idealist view of coal.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting reading that "accurate assessment of coal reserves" is essential to adequate energy planning. From my background in environmental studies, I have learned that this century has seen a mind-shift away from concerns and conversations over calculating fossil fuels reserves, and instead acknowledging that the detrimental effects of pollution will likely reach us before we clean off non-renewable energy resources. I thought this shift would have occurred for coal as well. Overall, the piece did a great job providing a comprehensive list of the costs of coal and recommendations to address them.
I agree with what has been previously mentioned as to the need for politicians to arrive at the same conclusions as Epstein et al. among the many others who write about the negative impacts of coal. More specifically, I was surprised at how rudimentary the disposal of coal byproducts really is. Over 20% of CCW is injected into abandoned coal mines, which are, depending on the geological stratigraphy, closer to groundwater sources and increase the likelihood of contamination. By comparing different figures from the paper the relationship between high concentrations of impoundments and high concentrations of biodiversity is very similar, which holds negative implications for the integrity of Appalachian ecosystems. The cheap and dangerous disposal of coal byproducts speaks to the economic viability of coal production in general. Coal producers must seek these methods or they would likely not be able to generate economically feasible returns, with consideration of subsidies already supplementing coal production. Relevant, digestible information dissemination on the negative externalities of coal may be necessary to provide constituents with the right tools to help align federal and state governments.
ReplyDeleteThis paper does a very thorough job of parsing out all of the costs associated with coal, not just through combustion but also through all other facets of the process. Most people would not think about the costs associated with transporting coal, and even if someone did they would likely only think about the costs taken on by the firms, not the costs taken on by public health or the environment. Table 1 was especially illuminating to read through. It really highlights the negative consequences of mining and combusting coal, and shows that every step in the process up until electricity transmission has its own consequences as well, even if they're not as pronounced as those of mining and combustion.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm being naive and the answer (money) may be pretty simple, but I don't know how you go to a policy meeting with something like this and not get some action. Even though, and they do admit this to some extent, there are several potential issues with their research, be it quantifying unquantifiables, omitted variables they're not accounting for, etc, the disparity between cost and benefits of burning coal are clearly enormous even if not precise. I've been in economics classes where papers will be more or less thrown away because of some sort of logical or empirical strategy error. That's fine, and probably part of the case here, but being off by a little bit isn't going to throw off the results of this paper that much. I just hope that's not the logic politicians go with when they continue to fail to enact policy change.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletehttp://www.southwings.org/our-work/coal-slurry-ash/
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/NPDES%20Coal%20Ash/Coal%20Ash%20Pond%20Maps/Riverbend.pdf
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article64001927.html
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article60027231.html
Impoundments are coal ash ponds (I had just never heard them called impoundments before), which I've heard a lot about. Being from Charlotte, we hear a lot about Duke Energy and their power plants. Duke Energy's Riverbend Steam Station, just Northwest of Charlotte, is one of 13 coal ash ponds cited for leaking in 2016. It's frightening to me that there are any leaks, much less 13 reported- imagine how many are unreported? At this particular coal ash pond, Duke Energy has been granted a draining permit by the Department of Environmental Quality. They are permitted to drain 1.4 MILLION gallons of the most contaminated water from this coal ash pond EVERY DAY into Mountain Island Lake, Charlotte's main source of drinking water. While this is in an effort to clean up the coal ash pond, it is contaminating our water. The spokesperson for Duke Energy says "[they] are taking several steps to ensure that rivers and lakes remain protected and we remain within permit limits." I'm having a hard time grasping how these permit limits keep our rivers and lakes protected whatsoever. In the article "Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal," it says that of the known chemicals used to process coal (which would then be put into these impoundments), 19 are known cancer-causing agents and 24 are known to cause lung and heart damage. How is it possible that such harmful chemicals are legally being drained into the source of drinking water for millions of people? It just doesn't make sense.
If we choose to continue coal burning as an energy method, this study suggests that CCS is the only way to effectively combat CO2 emissions. However, the paper found that CCS is not a viable option because not only is the cost of implementing CCS technology too high, but the CCS method has numerous health and environmental risks when deployed at a wide scale. This paper was written in 2011 and I would argue that many technology barriers have been overcome since then. CCS is currently being deployed at a large scale; the problem comes from policy support and investment in increasing the technology. Conclusively, the paper finds that coal is associated with too many costs and other energy sources should be put in place, in which I agree. While coal burning via CCS is not an effective option, I think CCS is still viable in conjunction with other energy methods such as oil and natural gas to help combat CO2 emissions.
ReplyDeleteI found the coal life cycle paper to be quite instructive and thorough in its examination of the numerous externalities associated with the extraction, transport, processing, and combustion of coal. The authors make it abundantly clear that the environmental costs are staggering, yet still undervalued. I also thought their methodology was fairly straightforward and seemingly adequate for the task. However, I do think the article is missing an important aspect of the problem that will inevitably play into any comprehensive policy making process (whenever that occurs). There is very little discussion of the costs of abatement. I think we can all agree that current coal practices are unsustainable, and the authors’ recommendations at the end of the paper seem like a good place to start to make a change. That said, I would like to know more about the costs involved in making such changes. For instance, in their fifth recommendation the authors suggest putting an end to mountain top removal and restoring abandoned mining sites and local ecosystems. What exactly will that cost? As the authors point out, Global demand for coal is growing as is its importance in the energy industry. Without adequate substitutes, reductions in the usage of coal could adversely affect energy supply. That development, combined with the new costs of abatement, need to be thoroughly understood before any substantive policy can emerge.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought of coal as a not great source of energy but not absolutely terrible either. I feel like the news is always talking about what's going on in the oil market so I just assumed that coal was really no longer a super relevant form of energy. In this paper the authors state how the U.S. in 2005, which wasn't all that long ago, generated 50% of its energy from coal and that China consumes even more! I thought that was shocking, especially since even if the U.S. has slowed down coal consumption, China and India are still speeding up. I had heard of most of the terrible ways in which coal destroys the environment before, but I didn't know before that Appalachia is one of the most biologically diverse regions in the united states. That makes MTR all the more terrible. All in all the final calculation of the externalities relating to coal totally $345.3 billion seems like a crazy number that means coal can't be economically efficient. In the interest of fairness however, I'd be curious to see a similar study on oil, natural gas, hydro, wind, and solar energy generation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was aware that coal burning was bad for the environment, I was shocked to learn how bad it is. Before reading the paper, I thought the only reason we still use coal was because it was so much cheaper. The authors estimate $300-$500 billion (that’s what my country’s total GDP is) in costs of using coal, which is outrageous. And these estimates do not include any environmental and societal burden of coal, which would increase the estimates exponentially. According to the authors prices of coal should be up to three times higher than what they are today. I really hope policy-makers (and everyone) takes knowledge and understands the evident market failure in the burning of coal. We have the technology to completely replace coal, why do we not? According to the authors, if priced correctly, coal would be competitively with alternative energies which are only now emerging. As technology related to alternatives improves and their costs go down, there should no reason why coal is still being burned.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the introduction to this article added a lot to the discussion we had in our last session, particularly regarding the fallacy that increasing our usage of coal will serve as a job creator. This article makes it clear that while the number of people employed in the coal industry may be declining, our consumption of coal is not, thus explaining the political staying power this industry seems to posses. Additionally, the authors are able to articulate the scope of the damages caused by coal. From its earliest stages of extraction to the abandoned mines still emitting harmful emissions, coal clearly creates costs not fully internalized by energy companies. Unfortunately, changing policy regarding coal to mitigate these costs seems unlikely in the current political climate. The current administration's decision to cease all research into the harmful effects of coal will only serve to solidify and perpetuate our dangerous and costly energy consumption habits. It is important that independent scholarly work continues to point out these differences despite the likelihood that their findings will have little effect on those with the power to address these challenges.
ReplyDeleteI previously believed the U.S.’s heavy dependence on coal stemmed from its status as a relatively inexpensive source of energy. It surprised me, then, to realize how heavily we subsidize the coal industry. If the coal industry exerts so many negative externalities on citizens near and far from burning sites, why do government subsidies allow for it to remain profitable? I wonder now how heavily the coal industry invests in lobbying that furthers its interests. As the authors note, the transition to cleaner energy sources requires a heavy amount of capital and time investment; however, this reading left me convinced that such change is not only inevitable, but immediately necessary.
ReplyDeleteThrough out this paper, there were two main things that repeatedly came to mind: The difficulty in accurately assessing monetary costs with so many variables involved, and the difficulty of persuading policy makers when so much money is being discussed. The “monetized estimates from the literature” mentioned in this paper stood out to me because part of me was impressed by the thorough methodology and how some of the billion dollar estimates where estimated to the very last dollar. At the same time, part of me was surprised by how the high “total” estimate was over twice as large as the low estimate and when the estimates are in hundreds of billions of dollars, I feel as if that says something about the validity of the numbers. The other thought that came to mind revolves around the idea of how even though the data and evidence points at the damages done by coal, there are still not enough policy changes. I remember when I did my W&L pre-orientation trip in Charleston, West Virginia we explored both sides of this argument and the methods of presenting the argument between pro-coal and anti-coal were opposite. The anti-coal activists took us to the mining sights and showed us first hand the negative effects that coal had on the community and the land. Meanwhile, the pro-coal presentation was in a board room in an office building with people running the group of incoming first years through a PowerPoint on how necessary coal is for society and how the benefits outweigh the costs. Over all, that experience made me understand how the amounts of money to be made by coal mining can make rapid policy change difficult.
ReplyDeleteThis article was extremely informative. There was a lot I didn't know that I didn't know about coal: the full process and just as important the full extent of externalities. I definitely understood that coal is not a clean source of energy, and Kahn's intro to environmental studies taught me quite a bit about mountain top removable, but the depth of this article was really useful and a good supplementary source to my previous knowledge. At times, the magnitude of measurements and numbers stated was overwhelming and a little lost on me as I felt there could have been a little more context to them (though objectively I understand why it's structured how it is).
ReplyDeleteI thought the sections monetizing mortalities were very interesting, because I never thought of that as something that a) could be measured and b) would be included in social costs (though now that seems obvious).
Lastly, the section of loss of employment stood out to me. Urban economics largely focused on the fact that manufacturing industries are not where the jobs are, where the jobs will be created, or where thriving cities will form. It's becoming clear that areas with such negative externalities regarding environmental issues is going to continue pushing those who can afford to move away. I think there would be a really interesting tie between these two topics!
Throughout this article, the main thought I kept coming back to was; how could anyone argue against this? This article is incredibly convincing and credible, and I would be shocked if there weren't countless other studies out there finding similar results. I know that sometimes based on who is funding a study, the results and data can be skewed to tell a different story, though in this scenario, I can't see how that could even be possible. Are there studies out there fighting against these results with counter data-based evidence or is the push for coal largely a disregard for these apparent environmental issues rather than a claim that they don't exist?
ReplyDeleteThis paper really helped me gain a better understanding of coal's economic, societal and environmental costs. I personally find it mind-blowing that even with so much evidence clearly showing that the costs of coal by far outweigh its benefits, this is still happening! A lot of people are blinded by the idea that coal = more jobs but even this paper explicitly demonstrates that this is not the case. The authors explain that employment in the Appalachian coal mining industry declined by 56% due to the mechanization of MTR and other surface mining between 1985 and 2005. Despite all evidence proving that an increase in levels of mining is directly correlated with higher unemployment rates, President Trump still promises to bring back these coal mining jobs that no longer exist in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was surprised to learn that in 2005, coal produced 50% of the nation's electricity and 81% of the CO2 emission in 2005 and is projected to produced 53% of US power and 85% of US co2 emissions in 2030. I thought that by 2030, we would have come up with some kind of technology that would enable us to use the resource more efficiently, thus causing less damage and reducing CO2 emissions. I also had no idea that so much energy is wasted during the production of coal. Besides this, I liked how this paper presented low, moderate and high estimates of the costs since it takes into account all the assumptions that go into these calculations. However, we can see that even at the lower end of the spectrum, these costs are still very high ($175 billion).
The authors provided a very thorough look at the various costs of benefits throughout the life cycle of coal from extraction to transport, processing, and combustion. Their review also provides comprehensive information that can be used to make a strong case against the continued use of coal. Considering the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been required to perform a cost-benefit analysis for all major regulatory actions since President Reagan’s executive order to do so, I am surprised that regulations have yet to adequately address the fact that the costs of coal usage far outweighs the benefits. Even when “these figures do not represent the full societal and environmental burden of coal”, the costs vastly surpassed the benefits. However, the OMB does meet with stakeholders, including industry members, when developing their agenda, and it is in this manner that I would attribute much of the lack of appropriate policy to originate from. Although the OMB also meets with stakeholders like environmental groups that would advocate against the increased use of goal, it is evident that not all opinions are weighted equally.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked to see the extent to which the government subsidizes coal mining and MTR, even in the face of so many negative externalities. This paper makes clear the correlation between mining and climate change, public health damages, water contamination, loss of land, and much more, yet tax payer dollars go to furthering the magnitude of these damages. With total costs from mining summing up to 345 billion, it is surprising that the government gives 5.37 billion to mining and electricity activities. I think its clear that the government should take a different approach and adopt some of the market solutions we’ve discussed in class so that the costs of mining can be internalized by mining companies. High taxes/fees on mining could force miners to internalize costs and could also help to discourage others from entering the mining industry. Furthermore, energy taxes on consumers that increase the cost of energy usage could decrease the overall demand for coal. Revenues generated from these taxes could be invested in technology for alternate energy forms so that the energy industry can find suitable and sustainable substitutes for coal mining.
ReplyDeleteThe article predicts that coal power usage will grow by 0.8% each year and electricity demand is predicted to double by 2030. If this energy demand is predicted to grow by this much, shouldn’t the government place a cap on coal mining/ usage? They could go about it similar to the way we talked about limiting the number of fishing permits given out. If the government were to establish this cap on the burning of coal, wouldn’t it provide an incentive for firms to make a push towards greener energy sources? If this were to work, the government could then go on to reduce the cap each year by a certain amount, which would benefit the environment and air quality throughout the nation.
ReplyDeleteLast year in my Environmental Studies class I wrote my final paper on Mountain Top Removal in West Virginia Appalachia. During my research phase I noticed I was having a hard time find sources and just general research on the topic. Although this article is about the costs of coal in general, it focusses largely on the economic costs associated with the mining process itself as well as its health and environmental costs. Only a page in I knew that if I had this article readily available as a reference to my paper there is no doubt in my mind I could have effectively supported my claim to end coal mining. I was ultimately very impressed at the extent to which the author went to put a cost onto each and every externality associated with coal. I can't feasible understand as to why we continue to use coal when it costs the economy an average of $345.3 billion and continue to argue that it provides jobs and boosts the economy.
ReplyDelete