The coal is still important for the economic wellbeing and personal welfare of the people in those countries, whether it's used for power generation or materials production.
Notice how easy and noble-seeming it is to say that, compared to saying "I believe we should force more people in developing countries to stay in poverty for longer", even though they amount to the same thing?
Please understand, I'm with you that climate change is important to mitigate; I lived through the bushfires and smoke haze this Australian summer, and I worry about the prospect of that being a more normal part of our future.
I'm also expecting a child and have concerns for their future, as well the broader effects of climate change and environmental damage on humanity and nature everywhere.
But I know that it will take more than scapegoating Australian politicians (funny how it's the conservative politicians that get attacked over this, even though their coal export policies aren't substantially different from Labor's) to fix the problem, when the whole reason for the demand for coal is that people in the developing world just want, quite reasonably, a standard of living approaching what we in the west take for granted.
If these discussions involved sensible ideas about how developing countries could modernise their economies without fossil fuels, or acknowledged that large-scale carbon capture will have to be part of a comprehensive climate change solution, then I might be able to start taking them seriously.
But I guess that kind of discussion doesn't deliver the quick hit of sanctimony that so many people seem to crave.
There's no evidence to suggest that we can't alleviate poverty without coal. We can alleviate poverty any number of ways. Your hyperbolic and emotional assertions about the need for Australia to continue selling coal don't inspire confidence.
This gambit of replying with a flipped-around copy of the parent comment might feel clever but just indicates that you’re more interested in cheap point-scoring than earnestly confronting the entirety of the topic. Hacker News is not the place for crappy discourse like that.
There is ample evidence that it can’t be done yet, given that governments and private companies addressing the biggest populations/markets in the world have had many years and every incentive to do it but so far have been unable to. Despite huge investments in renewables, nuclear and gas, they still need lots of coal for the foreseeable future.
Here's a 2015 article from MIT Technology Review that explores the issue in depth: http://archive.is/SXXHl
Across the world, the percentage of fossil fuels used to generate power is dropping. This trend seems likely to continue, and Australians can accelerate it with our economic power. Coal is not required to alleviate poverty. Saying coal is required to alleviate poverty is a hyberbolic and emotional statement.
I’ve shared, without emotion, evidence and analysis of the topic, and you keep replying with what you wish to be true but with no backing data.
The countries that are moving away from coal are replacing it with natural gas, nuclear or imported energy/materials. Renewables in some cases but only where the country is endowed with natural energy resources and/or is already rich enough to do so. There are valid reasons why this is not immediately possible for India and China if they are to continue developing.
All of this would easy for you to find out if you cared to properly understand it and engage in constructive discussion.
> The countries that are moving away from coal are replacing it with natural gas, nuclear or imported energy/materials. Renewables in some cases but only where the country is endowed with natural energy resources and/or is already rich enough to do so. There are valid reasons why this is not immediately possible for India and China if they are to continue developing.
Incorrect. This isn't even true if you're talking about Australian states, let alone countries.
South Australia uses just over 50% renewables [1], thanks to being endowed with natural solar, wind and geothermal resources, but still operates 15 natural gas power stations [2] - exactly as I said in the part of my comment that you chose to quote.
Tasmania uses 93% renewables [1] thanks to being endowed with natural hydro and wind resources, but still runs three natural gas power plants [3] - exactly as I said in the part of my comment that you chose to quote.
Both states are in a first-world, already-rich and already-developed country, also as per the part of my comment you quoted. And they both have tiny populations.
These conditions obviously don't apply throughout India and China. Yes they both use plenty of renewables and continue to expand their renewables investments. And they both use some natural gas but can't use much as they don't have large local gas reserves [4] (particularly relative to their population sizes), and it's costly to ship/pipe in. So, coal it is, however much you and I might wish it to be different.
If you have any independent evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I'm keen to learn, so I encourage you to share it.
