One of the most abundant and cheap carbon-based fuels found in the United States, coal is used to generate about 50% of U.S. electricity. However, it pollutes the environment in every step of production and use; mountain topping and open pit mines destroy landscapes and contaminate local watersheds. Mercury from coal burning is the leading man-made source of mercury in our lakes and oceans and has impacted fisheries worldwide. Air pollution from coal burning has contributed to acid rain and other air quality issues. As the recent disaster in Tennessee demonstrated, coal ash left over from burning is often stored in huge pools of coal ash slurry that impact water quality. Finally, coal is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emission (a third of U.S. emissions), equal to all the greenhouse emissions from the transportation sector (cars, busses, trucks, trains, and ships). It’s not just one of our most popular energy sources- it’s also the dirtiest.

Because the coal and power industries and consumers do not pay directly for the environmental impact of coal’s use, it is one of the cheapest sources of energy. Coal contributes to the U.S. energy independence. With global warming concerns, coal ash spills, and the environmental degradation in coal-producing states raising the awareness of the true costs of coal use, the coal industry has developed a new marketing campaign to promote the continued use of coal under the umbrella term “clean coal”. The sad truth is that this is an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp” or “efficient bureaucracy”. The most recent aspect of this effort is the promotion of carbon capture, in which CO2 produced by the burning of coal is captured and sequestered underground. Such technology does not exist, however, and numerous technical and economic hurdles must be overcome before it can be made viable. Retrofitting existing coal-fired power plants into “clean-coal” plants is not practical. New plants would have to be designed and built specifically to allow the capture of CO2.

As I have written previously, global warming will have potentially catastrophic impacts on agriculture and coastal areas. Including environmental costs in the price of using carbon-based fuels, especially coal, as necessitated by global warming concerns, will essentially force the U.S. and the rest of the world to abandon coal. In the short term, this would have huge economic impacts for the cost of nearly everything and therefore is deemed not practical or possible. However, the medium and long-term consequences of continuing our reliance on coal are possibly even more catastrophic. Can we balance short and long-term costs in our public, science and energy policy? Or will we ignore the threat of global warming, environmental degradation, and air and water pollution and continue with business as usual? Of course there are solutions to this crisis by quickly phasing in alternative clean energy supplies (solar, wind, geothermal and ocean sources), enhanced efficiency measures, and increased conservation efforts. There are however, considerable political roadblocks since many states depend on coal extraction for much of their state’s economy. For more information about the promise and considerable risks of “clean coal” technologies, see the recent Union of Concerned Scientists report at http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/coal-power-warming-world-0151.html