meme - but I am going to write a real post later

Another badass quiz from eSPIN-the-Bottle... Which Sexy Are You? MY RESULT:Cool Sexy You keep it real smooth, all James Bond-style. The suave, international hotties will love you. You’re sophisticated, mature, and you’ve got fairly expensive tastes. (And your personal hygiene? Outstanding.) Just be careful not to get too carried away. Big, bold romantic gestures are sexy and all, but there’s something to be said for sharing a laugh or dancing in the rain. (As long as you’re not wearing any suede.) Take This Quiz!

Expensive tastes? Definitely. Personal Hygiene? I try my best. Considering that after waking up today only fifteen minutes before I had to be at work, and the drive takes 10 minutes, and it as snowing, I still washed my hair and was late for work rather than show up with unwashed hair, I'm probably not outstanding, but pretty good.

Schicht im Schacht

When I was driving home today, I listened to a report on the radio about the coal mining in the Ruhr and Saar areas.

There is one company that owns the eight mines currently still in use in Germany.
The peak in coal mining was in the Fifties. Coal mining was one of the major industries after the war, contributing to the recovery of German economy.

However, I think as early as the Sixties, coal mining had to subsidised. There is a lot of coal in the ground, but very deep, so mining is expensive. For a long time, there was an addition to the energy price, the Kohlepfennig, used to subsidise coal mining. But this was ruled unconstitutional in 1994. Since 1995, the subdsidies are paid from the naional budget.

Now the government plans to reduce coal mining bit by bit and stop it altogether by 2018.

And many people hate the idea.
They say that people will lose their jobs - which is certain, as there are people working not only in the mines but also in the industry catering to mining.
They say that it will make us dependent on oil - which is likely true as the government also sticks with the idea of stopping the use of atomic energy.
And, most importantly in the current discussion, they say it will lead to incalculabe costs. Once the mining is stopped, it has to be made sure the mines are safe, so there will be no accidents. Also, even after the mining stops, pumping off the ground water will have to continue, otherwise some regions will pretty much drown.
So the supporters of coal mining say it is much better to continue mining as these are unsurmountable problems.


I would like to disagree.
Yes, people will lose their jobs. But does that mean the national budget, meaning every tax payer, will have to support an unprofitable industry for all times?
Yes, we would depend on oil. As we do now, as nobody actually buys the coal anymore. Besides, I am by no means convinced that the nuclear power phase-out is such a brilliant idea.
But then unlike many west Germans, I remember times when we were not allowed to leave school during breaks and were told to not play outside and not sleep with the windows open because of thick layers of smog over the town - and that was not all the fault of the industrial plants around my home town, it was also due to the heating with coal in so many households. Yes, atomic energy is dangerous. So is crossing the street. (I know that isn't a perfect comparison. I know that there are probably better ways of producing energy. But an atomic plant is pretty clean in comparison to your common coal power plant. And the risks are not as high as painted by some people. This is not Chernobyl. (There is an atomic power plant about 40 kilometres south of where I live. Does that bother me? Not at all. But then I always maintain that if Germany is attacked with nuclear weapons, I hope to be where the bomb strikes. Then at least I'm dead right away and don't have to bother with living in a contaminated environment.))
Anyway, back to coal mining and the third argument: the future costs.

There are actually numbers being thrown around, which I think is pretty funny as there is no way of predicting even what will be needed, let alone how much it will cost, and for how long. Maybe nobody will live in the Ruhr area anymore one 100 years, and flooding it won't bother anyone.
But let's assume those things will have to be done for all eternity, do you really think it is an alternative to keep the mining going and supporting that? As long as the mining continues, it will leave damages to the environment that are added to the bill. As long as the mining continues, the costs will rise exponentially. Personally, if I have a choice of my tax money supporting a failing industry or the prevention of flooding of a town, I'd rather prevent the flooding than support the industry.
Besides, I think that the actual costs of keeping the former mining areas safe is less than the cost for keeping the mines going. Because now, we pay for the workers, and the machines, and the training of new workers, and the construction of new machines, and the retirement of the workers, and the storage of the coal nobody wants.
Then, we will pay for the machines to pump the water (I would think those are cheaper than the machinery needed in a working mine, too). We need to pay a few people to do regular check-ups. We need to pay pensions for the current workers until they die (which is probably not all that long, considering the health risks of mining).

The coal won't crawl off if we don't mine it. It's not as if it won't be there in a few hundred years if there is again a need to use it. And the slight chance that the industry might be needed again in some distant future is, in my eyes, not a good reason to keep paying for that industry until that very distant future.


Oh, and funny story about the gullability (is that a word?) of people: Some power providers offer environmentally friendly power. Meaning, the power coming from your outlet will be won solely from solar or water energy. even if all your neighbours don't bother and get the OMG!EBIL atomic energy.
Uhm? How do they do that?
Or rather, who believes that??