A mountaintop removal coal mining operation near Blair, West Virginia. Photo by The National Memorial for the Mountains.

Two interesting articles last week discussed the inevitability of coal as the fuel of the future from quite different perspectives. 

The Atlantic's James Fallows concludes that there is simply no cheap way to power the economies of China and the U.S. aside from coal.  But he's hopeful that China, at least, seems committed to finding a way to de-carbonize coal.  

For now, coal is dirty in too many ways—from coal ash residue from combustion, to polluted Appalachian streams, to methane spewed from mines, to mercury poisoning our lakes, fish and drinking water, to billions of tons of CO2 turning the earth into a greenhouse.

While Fallows derides environmentalists for thinking so, the facts prove that for now "clean coal" is truly an oxymoron. Fallows is hopeful, however, that it will not always be so, mainly because there isn't much of an alternative.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill)

Elections matter.  And here's one we reason we know that.  Rep. Henry Waxman today is the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  He's the Waxman of "Waxman-Markey," the House bill that attempted to make a modest dent in the nation's climate change emissions.

You may not have agreed with his approach, but you knew Waxman was trying to do something to address climate change. Don't expect much from the four GOP representatives who are competing to take Waxman's place as chair of the Energy Committees starting in January 2011.  As "Think Progress" reports, three of the quartet are climate change deniers.

Perhaps the most colorful of the four is Rep. John Shimkus (R-IIl.).  Rep. Shimkus said at a committee hearing that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade approach was a graver threat to freedom and liberty than the 9-11 attacks.

An open pit coal mine on public land in Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management photo.

NPR recently ran a story reporting that most Republican candidates for U.S. Senate assert that human activities are not contributing to climate change.  One has even called climate change a "hoax." Never mind that the facts show otherwise.

And, armed with these beliefs, many in the GOP are preparing for an all-out assault on the EPA's proposals to protect our air and planet.

What's happening here?  Some see fundamentalism. But others point to political contributions from Big Coal, among others.  As Tim Rutten of the LA Times observed on Saturday, Big Coal and Big Oil appear to be stealing pages from Big Tobacco's playbook:

The "bathtub ring" at Lake Powell in Utah. Climate change is worsening drought that is reducing the Lake's level.

It's true that the Obama administration is taking climate change more seriously than any of its predecessors.  From the big picture (regulation of greenhouse gases) to the symbolic (solar panels on the White House roof), the President is pushing things in the right direction.

Which is why it's puzzling and disturbing to find climate change deniers apparently running amok in the Department of Justice.  And while what DOJ is up to might seem arcane, it boils down to this: Justice Department attorneys are arguing in court that while global warming is real - that is, the planet IS cooking - that doesn't mean you can sue the United States when it throws another log on the fire without looking at the consequences.

Here's what's going on - and stick with me, though it's a bit technical. 

The Grand Canyon - home of the humpback chub. National Park Service photo.

First impressions can be deceiving.

In 1861, as America entered its first year of civil war, the Government Printing Office published the report of Lieutenant Joseph Ives on his expedition up the Colorado River from the Gulf of California.

Chapter VIII of his report describes an area he called "Big Canyon." While he proclaimed the scene from the Canyon’s south rim "marvellous," he wrote off the area as a worthless wasteland, unlikely to be visited again except by the Indians who lived there:

The region last explored is, of course, altogether valueless. It can be approached only from the south, and after entering it there is nothing to do but to leave. Ours has been the first, and will doubtless be the last, party of whites to visit this profitless locality. It seems intended by nature that the Colorado river, along the greater portion of its lonely and majestic way, shall be forever unvisited and undisturbed… Excepting when the melting snows send their annual torrents through the avenues to the Colorado, conveying with them sound and motion, these dismal abysses, and the arid table-lands that enclose them, are left, as they have been for ages, in unbroken solitude and silence.

The Fourmile Fire in Boulder, CO. US Forest Service photo.

On taking a walk on Labor Day, I looked up and thought, "This can't be good."  A huge plume of smoke filled half the sky.  Boulder's Fourmile Fire was on a rampage, destroying more than 100 homes about 15 miles from my own. 

I knew the smoke cloud would be followed by selfless firefighters, low-flying slurry bombers and water-laden helicopters.  I didn't count on the fact that while the fire still raged, and as families waited anxiously to find out whether their homes had survived, politicians would use the tragedy to push their agendas.

But they did.  Some with more accuracy than others.

A coal mine methane well carved into national forest land, Colorado. Ted Zukoski photo.

Headlines in the last week trumpeted a decision by Xcel, Colorado's largest utility, to convert several old coal-fired power plants into natural gas plants.

The decision was hailed by some as a victory for the environment, since natural gas, when burned, results in fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases.  Some proclaimed the political power of coal on the wane in the West and natural gas ascendent.

That's the soundbite.  The real story is more complicated. First, before we all run to embrace natural gas as the savior for clean air and a less warm climate, let's remember what natural gas is doing to our lands.

Hey, watermelon!  Yeah, you.  Green on the outside, and commie pinko on the inside.  We're on to you.  

We found out about your latest evil plan dictated by your UN masters.  No, not the one to tax us to death for carbon.  And not the one to infringe our liberties by telling us we can't use toxic chemicals in our homes if we want to.  Something even more insidious.  

You want to force God-fearing Americans to sit on uncomfortable seats.  And get sweaty.  And wear silly helmets.  You're part of the international conspiracy to promote ... BICYCLE RIDING!

Don't believe this is real?  Then you haven't been listening to Dan Maes, a major party candidate for governor in Colorado.

White River National Forest, CO - Ted Zukoski photo

America's National Forests, like most public lands, have long been used to generate private sector profit.  Logging, mining, oil and gas, and livestock grazing generate cash for companies and individuals, usually at the expense of wildlife habitat, clean water and low-impact recreation.

The ski industry also feeds at the public trough.  More than 100 ski areas are located on National Forest land, running the gamut from small family operations to the mega-resort corporations like Vail Resorts and Intrawest. 

But lately the pickings haven't been rich enough for the industry's taste. Ski areas want to draw paying customers when there's no snow on the ground.

Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish. Photo: Trey Ratcliff

One of my favorite bloggers, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic, has a short, sweet meditation on the meaning of BP's huge oil spill in the Gulf. It's worth a full read. I don't always agree with Mr. Sullivan, but I always admire his thoughtful attempt to navigate through the issues of our time. His post asks the big questions. It ends:

These wounds, these temperatures, these destructive weather patterns are symptoms of a planet in distress. At some point, those of us who see our relationship to the natural world as something more than mere economics—as something sacred—need to face up to the fact that our civilization is not taking this sacredness seriously enough. When do we ask ourselves: by what right do humans believe we can despoil the earth for every other species with impunity? By what self-love have we granted ourselves not just dominion over the earth but wanton exploitation of its every treasure?

Is there no point at which we can say: this is enough? 

At what point indeed?