Wow--$62 billion of hidden costs without even considering, mining, transportation or coal-ash waste, with only nominal GHG emission costs assigned to it.

If these were taken into account, the cost number would easily double or could even triple.

"Clean-coal" is an oxymoron. We don't have to invest in "carbon capture and secuestration" technology if we just leave it in the ground. Nature did us the favor of capturing it during the carboniferous era and secuestering it underground.

Now "homo-economicus" feels the need to dig the carbon back up again and "liberate it" into the air as carbon dioxide in an attempt to emulate the Venusian atmosphere.

How will future generations feel about the mantra--"it's the economy, stupid!"

These kinds of studies should be the norm when ANY nations designs policies to deal with its economy and enviroment.

The Corporate-Government had better do something soon because we are running out of time more quickly than previously thought.

I'm beginning to wonder if the U.S. (others?) is going to use global warming as another "disaster capitalism" event to make money and so what if a large percentage of humanity perishes.

Kyoto is dead and the U.S. does not seem the least bit concerned; as if we have all the time in the world.

I wouldn't put it past the monsters who run this country and their mini-monster representatives to run out the clock, "play the chaos", and watch hundreds of millions die.

All reasonable people say stop the global warming but the U.S. says no and the U.S. has access to the best and most recent data. The Corporate-Government has some of the smartest people in the world working for them. They can't possibly deny what is happening yet they balk at solving the problem.

What is their ulterior motive?

"Because these effects are not reflected in energy prices, government, businesses and consumers may not realize the full impact of their choices. When such market failures occur, a case can be made for government interventions"

Notice the author describes externalizing costs as a market failure. But the significance of this is lost on the great majority of USans, because they haven't been taught to integrate functional markets into their models of an ideal world. Their teachers could have taught them, but that would land them in deep kaka.

So USans' eyes glaze over at the word "market" and they turn to stone when it's preceded by an adjective like "functional". When USans get hip to the benefits that functional markets provide to them, they will readily support the idea. They will understand that externalized costs, collusion, monopoly, manipulation of demand, are all contributors to the systemic market dysfunction in the USA, and the the people's production/consumption slavery.

So the report "noted, but did not attempt to quantify" such huge costs as the the release of mercury--how many IQ points has that cost what percent of our population? And the damage done by mining (take a look at the photo gallery at www.ohvec.org to see why everyone fusses about mountaintop removal mining in particular). And what about acid rain, it's not clear whether that's counted or not. As a citizen of West Virginia, I can name a couple of other costs that aren't apparent to others: the cost of the damage done to our roads when coal trucks weighing 120,000 pounds careen over our narrow mountain roads and bridges, killing people all too often. A few years ago in WV it became a big crisis when it became obvious that the majority of coal trucks were violating the laws--so the legislature solved the problem by giving coal trucks--only coal trucks--the right to carry 120,000 pounds while all others are limited to 80,000. Voila, now they're legal, problem solved! Coal companies are invited to contribute to a fund to repair the roads and bridges--beyond those contributions (if there have been any) the state's taxpayers will pay the cost, estimated in the billions. This illuminates another cost: the corruption of politics by industries with huge profits at stake. If you look at the voting pattern of WV politicians, you will find most are Democrats, usually pretty good on environmental questions, health care, etc. Except when it comes to coal. When King Coal walks in the room, EVERY WV politician reflexively bends over and lifts his skirt, no exceptions.
And then there's climate change. I wonder where they got the numbers for that? Since scientists are worrying that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could push us over a threshold into a runaway warming that could render part or all of the Earth uninhabitable, how many cents per KwH is that worth? Whether we're talking the end of humankind, or "just" the loss of additional hundreds of thousands of species and such severe degradation of ecosystems that thousands of future generations must struggle merely to survive on a desperately impoverished planet...how many cents does that equal?
The problem is that only policy can really address these problems, and policy is set by politicians--and we have evolved into a system so corrupt that industries regularly hire lobbyists to defend the bottom line even at the cost of enormous harm to human beings and the world we depend on. Who cares what the true cost of coal is? What matters to those who make the decisions for us all is what next quarter's profits look like. We will not solve this problem, we will not rescue our great-grandchildren, by voting right or writing letters to "our" representatives. It's time to consider more serious measures.