Hmmmmm...good to know it's been defeated, though I didn't know a plant had been proposed here. We're already having our water and our infrastructure destroyed by coal here in Knott County, glad to know our lungs can breathe a little easier.

And I appreciate the point about jobs in the post. Even the US Dept. of Energy agrees that renewable energy and energy efficiency creates good, local jobs that can't be outsourced, much more supportive of a sustainable local economy than coal.

Is it necessary to poison the environment in order to survive? Is there a better way to manage and protect our natural resources and our health than by burning coal? Must society be subjugated to deceitful tactics and cover-ups? What price must we pay to boil water?
The Coal Hard Facts: The GreenWashing of Clean Coal
Coal can not be defined in simplistic terms of clean or dirty, but rather, on a whole, as disgusting. The coal industry advertises clean coal adjacent to images of flowers and forests trying to link these natural and pleasant images to the coal industry. In reality the coal industry is a source of toxicants. In truth, coal equals environmental damage due to its inherent dangers. These dangers are not only ignored by our government but being expanded in favor of the coal industry. Coal is a dirty energy source that harms the environment and our health due to unscrupulous practices; renewable sources are cleaner and greener alternatives.
Coal manufacturing power plants are the principal sources of air pollution in the USA. The Sierra Club states that “coal-fired power plants [spew] 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides every year.  Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution, the largest contributor of hazardous air toxics, and release about 50% of particle pollution. Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming.” The Clean Air Task Force supports these facts, adding that, “Coal-fired power plant emissions consist of a multitude of toxic elements and compounds. These include “sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx), particulate matter, hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), arsenic, and heavy metals like chromium, cadmium, and mercury.” The Clean Air Task Force reinforces this statement by proclaiming that coal plants are “the largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2), [and] the leading culprit in global warming and that coal plants are responsible for causing major health and environmental problems.” CoopAmerica, an organization that works on issues of social justice and environmental responsibility insists that, “Coal is the absolute dirtiest of all energy sources and the greatest contributor to global warming: coal-fired power plants are responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990, and have the highest ratio of CO2 output per unit of electricity out of all the fossil fuels.”
These are the facts from four different sources, all maintaining the same theory, corroborated by Grist magazine which clobbers the coal industry by claiming that, “clean coal is an oxymoronic PR stunt ...].” Oxymoronic because coal can never be clean, so calling it clean is like calling a cigarette healthy; clean coal is unfeasible even if the coal industry would like to con the public into believing their claim. This claim is simply unethical and insincere. It’s a PR stunt because the coal industry is trying to disguise themselves as a “green and clean alternative energy source to fool the public into thinking they are just as respectful to the environment and to public health concerns as renewable energy sources are. This tactic, known as “greenwashing” is both misleading and dishonest. Coal pollutes due to its inherent nature, which is destructive and harmful when processed.
The government does not stop the coal industry from polluting, whether that pollution be environmental or ethical; they are both seriously detrimental to the health and well being of society and the planet. Angela Ledford, the director of Clear the Air, “a coalition that includes the National Environmental Trust, the Public Interest Research Group and the Clean Air Task Force says, ‘The Bush air pollution plan represents a step backward from simply enforcing current law.’ The Bush administration has actually weakened existing laws in favor of the coal industry.” This claim is substantiated by the MSNBC news report contending that, “Health problems linked to coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules ...]” There is no avoiding the obvious; clean coal is a misnomer. The Bush administration neither cares about the health of the environment nor the public’s. Not only is coal manufacturing a dirty business, it is a duplicitous one as well. Society needs to take the next step and leave coal behind once and for all, if not for its dishonest and immoral intentions, then for its contamination of the environment as well as our lives.
There is an obvious relationship between the quantity and combination of various pollutants expelled by coal manufacturing and absorbed into our environment. This relationship has a bearing on our environment’s health. The fact that “clean” coal and the well-being of our environment are tied together is extremely perturbing because clean coal is a major source of mercury poisoning in our streams, rivers and other water bodies. GoSun Solutions says that coal plants “Generate 170 pounds of mercury per year, yet it only takes 1/70th of a teaspoon in a 25-acre lake to make fish unsafe to eat.” Coal plants spewing filth directly into the air or wasting our precious water resources to “wash” coal without even paying for that water, is not making the environment or our health any safer. Mercury contamination ensues due to coal plants harvest- ing pure water from our rivers without clearly publicizing this maneuver. They know that it is morally wrong but financially advantageous. They know full well that speaking the truth would perturb people because these resources belong to everyone, not just to the coal industry for their own personal use so they can avoid water costs by diverting it directly from rivers to avoid buying that water, then they poison it with toxic waste like mercury, before finally putting it back into our environment so we can all drink it and die.
Coal plants do not have the onus of protecting people before profits as a priority as most of us believe they should have. The unethical exemption from protecting society and the environment from harm is upheld by the EPA. This is revealed in the following example of the Paradise Coal Plant which is being tacitly supported by the EPA. The Center for Biological Diversity demonstrates the proclivity of the EPA to ignore transgressions on safety thresholds by the coal industry that were established by the EPA itself, and yet, are now being brushed aside and completely abandoned seemingly as quickly as possible: “The Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and two Kentucky residents filed suit against The Tennessee Valley Authority's Paradise power plant in Kentucky because ‘the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still hadn't ruled on our petition challenging a permit for one of the most polluting coal-fired power plants in the nation. ‘TVA Paradise,’ burns more than 7 million tons of coal and emits thousands of tons of air pollutants each year -- pollutants the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed hazardous to human health and the environment. The plant also heavily contributes to greenhouse gas pollution: Last year, it spewed out more than 14 million tons of carbon dioxide.” This scrambling to weaken the current laws is due to fear of the new Obama administration establishing a more hands-on approach of active involvement to protect society from the unethical greed of the coal industry. This is an extremely worrisome situation because it demonstrates the precariousness of society in relation to the coal industry and its profits. This is a terrible transgression by the EPA of allowing the Paradise plant to clearly and unabashedly harm both environment and humanity. Even more painful is to see ethics being supplanted by politics. The government, represented by the EPA, and big business coal manufacturers, are in cohorts to protect business before nature or society.

Marc--a little proofreading help:
At the start of line 12, did you really mean to say "Coal manufacturing power plants"?
Also: In the last line, I think you want "cahoots" instead of "cohorts."

Thanks for a great and informative article!
Cheers--
~~Ant-eye Oberst
Berea, Ky

Can anyone direct me to a source(s) of materials on "coal to diesel" and the necessary environmental controls that would have to be in place, under current or proposed laws and regulations, t protect us? The "Clean Coal Power Resources" of Louisville is proposing a project in McCracken Co, with $550 Million in state incentives already pledged if it happens. Where can we find complete information on this technology? They supposedly have a place to dispose of the excess carbons by deep drilling, or some such technology. Has this technology been tested and proven? I thought the state was just now beginning explorations of that type of "carbon sequestration" for environmental safety? If anyone knows of sources of information on this issue, please let us know.

Larry Kelley

Your article on "the green washing of clean coal" is factually incorrect and is so one sided to be laughable. The writer is the perfect example of an environmental nutball and your web site, a nutball web site.

Erik, Have you anything to offer besides name-calling? Do you have you a point with facts to support it?

In support of Eric, Mark you are way off base especially with your quote of coal generating 170 pounds of mercury per year. Mercury is an element and is not a manmade substance. There is approximately 200,000 tons of mercury on the earth and it has always been on the earth. I am not saying that coal is clean however, great strides have been made to clean up the way it is burned especially as we go into phase 3 of the clean air act. Furthermore, coal is the most abundant natural energy source in the world and the most cost effective and will always be. I am in full support of alternative energy sources being found and tested but people need to face the facts that these alternative sources will be way down the line and most likely not become a main source in our lifetime. I mean how long have we been waiting for solar energy to come into play? 40 years and counting. Wind power seems like a good play except you will see your energy bills rise by as much as 400% because of the cost involved. Instead of bickering back and forth and spewing out inappropriate quotes everyone should be realistic and work together to fix the problem.