Long term of course. But you still need power in the mean time, as well as money and jobs.

You’re also assuming those who are good at mining coal could somehow instead be good at both protecting the planet AND making as much money. That’s seldom the case.

How many people are employed by the mining of thermal coal in Australia. You’re taking like it’s greater than 10%. I can assure you it’s not as many as you would imagine.

That assumption is not necessary to make it a huge net negative.

$45 billion in 1913 would be $1,179 billion today purely through inflation. Money that's available right now can be invested to make life better in the long run. That's why governments usually borrow money.

I think it's not that straightforward of a situation.

Inflation does not represent an increase in value. Otherwise Zimbabwe would have turned into the world’s richest country.

Further there is a weak link between resource extraction an long term economic growth. It requires a huge investment in resources and education that becomes worthless after the resource runs out. Just look at West Virginia to see the long term boons from coal mining.

>Just look at West Virginia to see the long term boons from coal mining

I don't understand what you're getting at. Compare the life of an average person in West Virginia today to the average person in West Virginia before coal mining and the person today is immensely better off. Technological improvements are the payoffs from investment.

Technology has increased standards of living everywhere, that’s independent of coal mining because the technology was developed globally. West Virginia however has fallen behind the economic development of other states without coal.

So fill in the blank. Climate change will cost X billion a year by 2050. If you don't have any idea, then it shouldn't be hard to Google an estimate from someone knowledgeable, but shouldn't you already know before you make a comment?

How much has the cost of the fires been so far?