Reply #20: The difference is coal is cheap. Insanely cheap. off the charts cheap. [View All]

[Statistical]

The externalized costs (death, environmental damage, CO2 release) are very high however for the third world without running water, reliable lighting, or convenient access to cooking heat those aren't factors worth consideration.

Dollar for dollar coal provides more electricity than any other form of power.

We should phase out coal in this country and the best way to do that is a carbon tax however it is naive to think third world will do it just because we do.

Americans have massive amount of disposable income and if a small fraction of that is eaten up by carbon tax or higher cost of energy it is an annoyance. Someone living on a tiny fraction of our income (even adjusted for PPP) will have different priorities.

We have know coal was bad for the environment for over a hundred years yet we kept (and still keep) burning it. Why? It is cheap and that cheapness has produced economic value for the US. The economic value of coal over last 100 years is trillions of dollars. You think other countries are going to just ignore that?

Third world will adopt renewable energy when they are cheaper than coal. Simple as that.