Final answer:
The question of banning coal involves assessing the economic benefits against the environmental and health impacts. Coal's low market price masks its externalities, such as contributions to acid rain, global warming, and health issues. A gradual move towards sustainable energy is seen as essential.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate on whether to ban coal on weighing its economic advantages against environmental and health costs. Indeed, coal is plentiful and inexpensive, making it a staple for electricity generation. However, coal mining and burning have severe consequences, including air pollution with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides causing acid rain, emissions of carbon dioxide contributing to global warming, and the spread of toxins like mercury into the environment affecting human health and ecosystems. Incidents such as the transformation of moth populations during the industrial revolution exemplify the environmental impact of coal pollution, and the plight of coal miners historically points to the health dangers.
When considering the use of coal, one must evaluate the full cost, which goes beyond its market price. These externalities—the unaccounted-for environmental and health consequences—are significant. Policies and regulations like taxing carbon emissions or investing in clean technologies could be used to address these issues, which may eventually phase out the use of coal. While banning coal altogether would be a drastic move with economic and infrastructural implications, a transition towards more sustainable energy sources is widely recognized as necessary by experts.