“Coal is the filthiest fossil fuel and is cheap only because its dirtiness isn’t included in the bill.”
Having written twice to The Economist in 2010 about the lack of recognition in their journal that the current cost of energy is artificially low because the cost of pollution is ignored; the writer of the article on the Coal Boom, in the 29th January 2011 edition, hits the nail on the head, albeit in general language terms.
See the full article at:
The Economist could be a useful force for enlightening and disseminating the simple fact that, globally, current energy costs are not real, or full costs, unless the cost of removing pollution is included. If you read The Economist regularly, their writers fail to acknowledge this simple fact, with any consistency.
In fact it would be an interesting issue for The Economist to drive:
What are the full costs of the major sources of Energy, which include the cost of removing each form of energy’s pollution?
Too big an issue for The Economist to tackle?
