Introduction / Context:
This question weighs an abrupt policy: immediately stopping coal mining. Strong arguments must engage with feasibility and consequences for energy security and livelihoods, not merely state a truism about finite stocks.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Coal is presently a significant energy source and industrial input.
- Alternative capacities (renewables, gas, nuclear) are limited in the short term.
- Millions depend directly or indirectly on coal mining and coal-based industries.
Concept / Approach:
- Policy evaluation considers transition pathways, not instant cessation.
- Arguments that deal with near-term energy adequacy and socioeconomic impact are stronger.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is weak: Finite stock does not imply immediate stop; it argues for managed transition, efficiency, and diversification, not an abrupt ban.II is strong: Without sufficient alternative energy, an immediate stop jeopardizes power supply and essential services.III is strong: Abrupt cessation would harm employment and downstream industries, causing broad economic disruption.
Verification / Alternative check:
Just transitions typically phase down coal with timelines, retraining, and replacement capacity — supporting II and III as decisive concerns against an immediate stop.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including I misinterpret scarcity as justification for an instant halt.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing long-run sustainability with short-run feasibility.
Final Answer:
Only II and III are strong
Discussion & Comments