Climate Change, page-561

If you want to have a sensible discussion, you need to deal in fact and not in presumption and speculation of my stated position. I have called you out for gaslighting me with spurious assumptions and yet you keep doing it.


“but you must also accept that the burning of coal has a negative effect on our environment."

You are gaslighting by implying I’m in denial of this fact. I never said coal wasn’t bad for the environment.

I’m merely pointing out the factual evidence that, for underdeveloped and developing nations, coal continues to overwhelmingly be the form of energy to which they are turning.

By the way, renewable energy capacity doesn’t come into being without significant economic and social impacts.


“Apologies, but it seems your very anti renewables”

Again, more presumption on your part which leads to gaslighting me as having an ideological dog in the fight.

From the very outset, the unambiguous essence of my position has been the continued propensity for underdeveloped and developing countries to continue to look to coal fired generation to power their economic progress.

Nothing more; nothing less.

The view I expressed about renewables related to coal being a preference (demonstrably) in developing and underdeveloped and developing countries.

It was you who posted a video about renewables which you said I should watch, which I did and then I duly pointed out the flaws, misrepresentations and irrelevancies contained in that video.


“it seems you're trying to make the point that coal is the only answer to lift these countries out of poverty, and if that was the case, why has it not happened yet?”

Firstly, where did I state that coal is the only answer? Again with the diversionary gaslighting. You are putting those words in my mouth by – yet again - presuming things, for which you have demonstrated form (almost certainly an outworking of an ideological axe you seek to grind on this forum).

As for why has coal not lifted these countries out of poverty, I’ve answered that question on two previous occasions and yet you continue to ask it.

Notwithstanding, I’ll answer it for a third time:

Because their stage of economic development means they have not had access to energy (be it coal, or anything other forms of energy for that matter) at the levels that developing countries have. Energy intensity is now only rising in developing countries in tandem with their national economic output.

And coal is the predominant energy form to which they have been turning, and continue to turn. Not a supposition, nor a hypothesis, but a concrete cold fact.

I mean, if poor countries had coal fired power generation in place for the past 100 years, and they were still impoverished, then your circumspection would be justified.
But that is not the case: the reality is that poor countries are only now embarking on their path of increasing energy intensity.

(Objectively, the correct analogue for the relationship between coal fired power and economic prosperity is the developed world, where coal has been around for, as you rightly say, more than 100 years.)


"I agree with you, fossil fuels have led to massive increases in living standards for the last 200 years. We now have a better option. I know what I'd rather do (which I have done with solar panels on the roof) I'd rather have a "endless" supply, not be subject to rising energy costs, not have to constantly purchase coal, not have to constantly update and maintain old coal power stations. Not have to continually mine for coal."

Well, for some reason [*], the people making these sorts of policy decisions on behalf of more than 5 billion of the planet’s inhabitants continue to think coal is overwhelmingly a desirable option.
Again, not supposition, nor a hypothesis, but fact.
Not sure what else to tell you.

[*] Probably because coal does not present intermittency problems and probably because its true cost on a unit of power output basis (including fully costing the exercise for investment required in energy storage to counter the intermittency limitations and also the cost of grid stability measures to maintain appropriate levels of system rotational inertia, something that baseload power generations provide, but which solar and wind power can’t) is attractive.


Finally, you concede:

“So of course in certain circumstances (yes, I agree) it makes economical sense to continue with coal.”

Which is:

1.) exactly what I was saying all along when I was referencing coal’s utility value, and

2.) a lot different to your earlier sentiment of developing countries “being forced to use fossil fuel”

It took a circuitous route but you finally got round to acknowledging the reality.

.