SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:
- air
- Arctic
- black carbon
- Clean Air Act
- Clean Water Act
- climate change
- coal
- coal ash
- coal exports
- Congress
- Endangered Species Act
- energy efficiency
- environmental justice
- EPA
- forage fish
- Forest Service
- forests
- fracking
- FWS
- gas
- Interior Department
- mercury
- mountaintop removal
- NMFS
- Obama Administration
- oceans
- oil
- pesticides
- public lands
- Roadless Rule
- salmon
- soot
- Tongass NF
- TSCA
- U.S. Supreme Court
- water
- wolves
Facebook Fans
Related Blog Entries

Blog posts about Earth's magnificent places and creatures were the most popular themes for unEarthed readers in 2012. By far the most-read post concer...

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recently announced a final plan for managing the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a vast and wild area in nort...














I'm no expert, but my gut says clean coal, if not an oxymoron, is likely to prove to be way too expensive compared to the alternatives--efficiency, conservation, and renewables. Federal research and development money should be spent on the latter three. If the coal industry can finance and develop truly clean burning coal (and stop blowing up mountains and burying streams) then more power to them. Just don't expect taxpayer dollars to finance the pipe dream.
Tom
Obama wants to continue the use of coal under the contingency that we'll find a way to burn coal cleanly over the ten years!!
What do you have to say to this?!
It doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
Katie
Post new comment