That's a moot point if there's another viable way to generate the same amount of power without trading lives in the process.
Slave labor also improved your life quite a bit, provided you were a slave owner. Thankfully we found an alternative.
Slave labor also improved your life quite a bit, provided you were a slave owner. Thankfully we found an alternative.
What's your viable way to replace coal today? Include explanations of how your replacement can be as reliable as coal, and how the developing world can afford these sources without sacrificing other government services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States...
Coal only seems affordable if the significant health and environmental costs are (incorrectly) assumed to be zero.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coa... >Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study.
And read closer, please. The study claims to have found indicators pointing to shortened lives, not people being killed by coal, which is significantly different.
And, again: warmth and electricity and live to 65, or cold and darkness and live a little longer. And really, that wouldn't be the trade off, because electricity and warmth also lead to longer lives. So this study is meaningless and shows nothing at all.