On a related note, they were discussing on the radio this morning a new study that shows that EVs are actually more polluting (from a carbon standpoint) than gas engines in areas that rely on coal, while they are better than gas (on average) in areas that rely more heavily on renewables. Very efficient gas engines (hybrids, for example) apparently remain the best option most places. I'm sorry to say I live in an area that is still dominated by coal. Hopefully the president's new emissions rules start to change that.
I've read a number of reports that basically call coal dead man walking. The only reason it persists in the US is because of politics, while the only reason it exists in China is because they just can't switch away from it quickly enough. I've heard it said that Shake Shack has a higher market cap than the entire coal industry. Which is batshit insane but also an interesting indicator.
So long as a senator from WV or KY can filibuster just as easily as one from NY or CA, we'll be mining coal. In the modern age there's no reason we should be using it for anything other than stuffing Mitch McConnell's stocking. Remember when they tried to rebrand "coal" as "clean coal"? Classic Frank Luntz shit right there, but even the knuckle draggers saw through that one, it seems, as it kinda went away quickly.
Yeah, but as the marginal cost goes down, the mining diminishes. Especially when the subsidies for mining it aren't affecting your state. I can pay extra for solar in LA; ain't nobody gonna be subsidizing coal production if it costs you extra on your bill.
The gosh dang Connecticut Compromise. Last I checked, a Wyomingite's vote for a Senator counts for 70 Californians'. I know the argument originally in 1787 was that small states would get overwhelmed by big states, but to me the Senate is a monument to parochialism and unrepresentative power.So long as a senator from WV or KY can filibuster just as easily as one from NY or CA, we'll be mining coal.
I'd never discourage someone from buying an electric vehicle, even if they live in West Virginia. The Clean Power Plan will definitely see carbon intensity go down. There's a small but real risk of CPP being significantly reduced after the Supreme Court had a recent negative rulings on MATS. I'm no expert in the policy impacts here, but the court scolded the EPA on a portion of MATS that may have similar impacts on some portions of CPP. The low cost of natural gas is going to push some coal off the system, regardless of CPP. And, I want to put a plug in for nuclear. Its emissions are similar to renewables.
I think the court mainly said that the EPA didn't do enough due diligence when looking at the cost/benefit assessment of the plan, but that were that cost/benefit reasonable, that there was nothing inherently illegal about it. They kicked it back to the lower court for review after EPA gets their shit together. I'm optimistic that reason will win in the end.