Jay, that’s not what their saying, as far as I can see. Nowhere do I see anything about living near a coal-driven power plant. What they’re pointing out is that the wealth that Western societies enjoy is predicated upon cheap and plentiful energy sources. Coal is currently one of the most cheap and plentiful energy sources available and it powers a majority of U.S. electricity-generating power plants.

I’m not sure you have the cause and effect relationship right, either. Are you implying that superior better health, education and higher incomes leads to increased energy production? Can you explain that dynamic? When I look at history, the inverse (what the coal industry is positing) seems to be true. Looking at another fossil fuel source, oil – do you think it’s a coincidence that much of Britain’s heavy industrialization coincided with it’s political conquest of petroleum reserves in Iran? Do you think it’s entirely a coincidence that the U.S.’s meteoric export-driven industrialization initiative in the post-World War II era coincided with it signing economic agreements with Saudi Arabia?

Even if we look at the modern day and focus specifically coal again – I think many economists would agree that a major part of the reason why the Chinese economy is outpacing other India and other “emerging economies” is in part because of its massive coal reserves, which allow for low-cost electrification. This isn’t really a subjective question. We can find the answer objectively. Chart energy use per-capita over the past century for nations around the world then chart “Human Development” indicators (i.e. educational attainment, average life span and so on) over that same century and see which tails which. I’m willing to bet that access to cheap energy resources (or access to cheap energy markets, in the case of net-energy-importers in the EU) almost always precedes a rise in HDI numbers, and not the opposite as you imply.

By the way, I’m not necessarily saying that coal should be our preferred energy resource. I favor renewable energy resources because I feel it makes far more sense in the economic long-term myself. But what the coal industry is saying isn’t spurious at all – they’re pointing out that a transition to non-fossil fuel energy sources will likely result in diminished energy production per capita and per dollar spent. That will likely result in higher prices and changes to the First World standard-of-living. The public has a right to debate whether our nation as a whole should indeed make that trade-off.

Awesome.

The message isn’t that cancer is good for you – the message is that cancer might be better for you than starving or not being able to power your hospital.