This NYT editorial on the mythiness of "clean coal" is most welcome, but the conclusion rubs me the wrong way:
But coal remains an inherently dirty fuel, and a huge contributor to not only ground-level pollution — including acid rain and smog — but also global warming. The sooner the country understands that, the closer it will be to mitigating the damage.
If coal is inherently dirty, why should we confine our ambitions to "mitigating the damage"? Why not try to stop using it?
You never see this when people talk about oil. When people rehearse the damage oil is doing to our atmosphere, our land, and our geopolitical posture, they do not finish by meekly calling on Americans to clean up the messes. They say we should reduce and eventually eliminate our use of oil.
Why is coal different?
I know, I know, it’s domestic, but domestic poison still kills. It’s got to be more than that, no?
