OK, so I have just been having drinks with some of the neighbors, one a retired chemical engineer. Inevitably, the topic turned to global warming and Copenhagen. Pretty much most of the company were skeptics, but trying to argue with people like that is a losing proposition, they have their views based on bias and faith and ignorance and little more. So this guy, retired engineer from QAL, basically says, how are you going to power the refinery without coal?:
So here is how you argue with morons like that.
Two centuries ago
coal was a major export from Africa.
Coal was an absolute essential to keep the plantations running, to keep Europe supplied with cotton and to keep the landed gentry and the mercantile industry functioning and in the wealthy lifestyle to which they'd become accustomed. As the plantation owners would argue "without
coal, how would we ever operate... we have to keep on shipping
coal or we will have to shut down. Our spinners and weavers and the clothing industry will shut down. Children will freeze to death because they won't be able to afford new clothes. It will be financial disaster on both sides of the Atlantic. Our whole town and associated industry is based on cheap
coal and we just can't change that overnight. Besides, if you cut out the trade in coal, all the
coal traders will be out of jobs, "
Arguing that it is necessary to keep burning coal to keep the coal trade and heavy industry running today is functionally equivalent to arguing that maintaining the slave trade was necessary to keep the slave traders of two centuries ago employed and the plantation owners in their opulent lifestyles.