With a rapidly growing population, the U.S. continues to need additional electric generating capacity. The U..S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration predicts that the U.S. will need almost 30 percent more energy by 2030. While demand for electricity is slowing as a result of the recession in the U.S., demand is likely to increase as the economy strengthens. Each one percent increase in U.S. GDP requires about 0.33 percent increase in energy use.

Since half of the electricity produced in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, the imperative of restoring strong U.S. economic growth may mean that more coal- fired generating capacity must be constructed. Electricity produced from coal fired plants is usually cheaper than natural gas and nuclear sources . Electricity produced from wind and solar tends to be significnatly more costly than conventional electric genetation, both have to be backed up with conventional power because the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine continuously.

Most experts think that capturing and storing CO2 from coal fired plants is at least 15 years in the future. Therefore, prohibiting new coal-fired plants in the U.S. will raise the cost of electicity and impede future economic growth.

With its high CO2 emissions and central place in the US (and global) energy infrastructure, ‘fixing’ coal is arguably at the center of a successful resolution to the climate challenge in the United States and the world. At present, coal is responsible not only for significant CO2 emissions, but also for environmental damages ranging from mountain top removal to mercury emissions. However, it offers a plentiful and low cost fuel that today provides more than 50 percent of U.S. electricity production, and we do not, at present, have either the financial capital or technological alternatives within reasonable costs to call for an immediate phase-out.

If we are to solve the climate problem, our current generation of conventional, CO2 intensive coal plants must be our last. A price on carbon as part of a larger strategy to move into non-emitting sources is clearly critical. However, the urgency of the climate change challenge means we cannot wait for the coal problem to be solved through such pricing mechanisms alone. For the next 20-30 years, we must pursue a set of complementary strategies that will transition the electricity grid away from coal over the long-term while reducing its destructive environmental impacts as much as possible in the short term. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a critical part of such a strategy. In practice, this means that new coal plants should only go forward under a narrow set of conditions.

First, on a generator-by-generator basis, new coal plants should be the option of last resort. Even under optimistic assumptions, CCS is projected to capture well below 100% of CO2 emissions; many believe it will capture less than 80% even under optimistic scenarios. Thus, even with CCS, coal will always be a liability from the perspective of climate change. Cleaner renewable energy sources and demand reduction through energy efficiency should be the first alternatives whenever possible.

Second--and as soon as possible--all new coal plants should be designed and engineered to capture the majority of their CO2 emissions for either long-term storage or industrial use. This requirement would facilitate a rapid transition to broad-scale underground CO2 storage if and when the technology and infrastructure make it possible. Currently, "carbon capture ready" is poorly defined; often it means only that a utility has set aside acreage for capture facilities. Carbon capture needs to be built into the plant design, and implemented on day one.

Third, we should not build new coal plants in locations where the surrounding geology is not conducive to long-term underground CO2 sequestration, or where a lack of CO2 pipeline infrastructure would mean massive and costly delays for adequate CO2 storage. Nationally, the U.S. has huge sequestration potential—some have called it the "Saudi Arabia of sequestration." But just as wind is not universally feasible, neither is sequestration. New large-scale CO2 pipelines are not currently being developed, and are likely to be prohibitively expensive in many cases.

Finally and most important, we must immediately embark on a "crash program" to develop and deploy carbon storage capability on a massive, global scale. Underground storage is the only option on the table for dealing with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants. We now know enough about CCS siting, regulatory and liability challenges to quickly move towards industry-scale demonstrations. But CCS will require billions—not millions—in research funding. The G8 goal of 20 CCS demonstration projects requires funding on the order of $1-1.5 billion per project. Investments on that scale will not happen fast enough without public subsidies, which should be a priority for the next Administration.

Margaret’s question addresses one part of the coal problem: the challenge of developing new technologies that would allow us to burn coal without releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But, even if burning coal were completely clean, mining coal is extremely destructive to the land. In my home state of Tennessee, strip mining and mountaintop removal mining have ravaged the landscape, destroying forests and watersheds.

In the Appalachians, mountaintop removal mining for coal is causing irreparable damage to landscapes from Ohio to Tennessee. Hundreds of square miles of watershed streams have been destroyed. Intact, biologically diverse ecosystems are our best defense against the impacts of global warming. In addition to storing carbon, they provide other critical benefits including clean air and water. We need forward-looking energy policies that protect, rather than destroy, these important places.

As noted by some of the others who have posted here, coal is one of the dirtiest energy sources there is. It is dirty to burn, and it is dirty to mine. Coal provides nearly half of our nation’s electricity, while contributing 73 percent of the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere by the electric utility sector. We need to find ways to reduce our use of this polluting fossil fuel. While it isn’t realistic to think we can just quit burning coal in the short term, neither should we do anything to encourage its increased use by building new coal-fired plants. Instead, we need to redouble our efforts to move away from electricity supplied by coal, and bridge to cleaner sources of energy.

We must make it an urgent national priority to produce more of our energy from clean, renewable sources. The sooner we do that, the better off we will be as a nation. And while we’re working on clean energy technologies, we need to be much more aggressive in cleaning up the coal-fired plants we already have. The pollution they cause is simply not acceptable—especially in a world challenged by global warming.

Coal energy is cheap only in the most short-sighted of views.

Absolutely not! That is the same as saying that we will stop growing our economy. America’s economy depends on readily-available, affordable sources of energy for our hi-tech, energy-intensive industrial sector to operate. Coal is our most abundant domestic energy source. Proposing to stop building coal-fired power plants until the technologies are perfected is akin to banning production of all gasoline-powered cars and trucks until fuel cell vehicles are available to replace them. These kinds of steps would surely be the nails in the coffin to sink American hopes for economic recovery and send us into Depression.

Clean Coal is a relative term and does not mean zero CO2. It means lower criteria pollutant emissions and more efficient utilization of coal to produce power, which will lower GHGs. Carbon capture and storage is an additional step that may lead to virtual elimination of GHGs from coal-fired plants. Admittedly, it will take years to fully develop, but it is impractical to stop building coal-burning power plants altogether because there are insufficient alternative energy supplies at present, and some of those alternatives are also being rejected.

Many of the same groups who oppose new coal-fired power plants appear opposed to any steps that might make coal a more attractive option from a GHG perspective. We have seen this rejectionist approach before on nuclear as well as other forms of energy, such as siting of transmission corridors for the new, greener grid that will power all of those so-called "zero emission" electric cars.

Natural gas-fired power plants are one alternative (if enough gas were to be made available) but they also emit GHGs, and environmental groups are not calling for a comparable moratorium on new gas-fired plants until they can be built without GHGs. Another alternative is development of nuclear power, which many environmental groups also oppose.

A reasonable approach is for the government to expedite development of these environmentally-desirable alternatives by investing in the work already in progress toward these lower-emitting technologies. In the meantime, the public good would not be served by a ban on building new coal-fired power plants, and in fact, great economic harm could result.

In a cap and trade program, Coal Emission Rights (CERs) might be used as a temporary means to transition to clean coal. For the first 5 years, the Government could distribute (prorata to baseline emissions from coal) rights to purchase allowances at a fixed price of, say, $20 per ton. The number of CERs might be such that annual co2 abtement is only 1 or 1.5% (rather than 2%) during the initial 5 year period. The CERs would be freely tradable. And the Government could use the CER exercise proceeds to fund pilot plants and resolve externalities like sequestration liability and co2 pipeline rights-of-way. Unlike the many proposals to create a price cap for co2, the CERs allow for an unfettered carbon market - while still providing cost containment to the sector that needs it most.

The CERs are a transitional tool that gives clean coal technology a chance to develop without destroying the industry that supports our most abundant conventional fuel. Coal Emission Rights limit the downside of being "short" abatement without an adequate replacement technology. This provides critical stability for the stakeholders (investors, customers, and employees) of coal-dependant companies. And the CERs would only be needed for one, or possibly two, five-year periods before clean coal technology is sufficiently advanced to compete on a level playing field with other clean technologies (most of which are currently subsidized in any case).

Lastly, the reduced abatement from CER exercise could be made up through increased stringency in the later years of policy.

The term “clean coal” should be avoided because it is so misleading. It wrongly suggests that we have solved -- or will soon solve -- the many environmental problems associated with mining, transporting and burning coal.

Recently the term has been used to refer to technology that would capture and store power plant carbon dioxide emissions. While carbon-capture-and-storage technology is worth further investigation to determine if it can be a useful tool to address global warming, it is still unproven and faces many challenges. We cannot assume it will play a significant role in cutting global warming pollution until we know whether it works at a commercial scale and what it will cost.

Even if carbon capture and storage does someday work on a commercial scale, coal will still be dirty. Carbon dioxide emissions are only part of coal’s lifecycle. Mining and transporting coal also pose serious threats to the environment, and coal-fired power plants release other emissions besides carbon dioxide that pollute our air and water.

The Union of Concerned Scientists supports more research and development of advanced-coal and carbon-capture-and-storage technologies, including five to 10 full-scale carbon-capture-and-storage demonstration projects to test the ability of emerging capture technologies to cut coal power plant carbon dioxide emissions. The funding should come initially from a fee on coal power production and later from a small portion of auction revenues from a cap-and-trade program. To reduce coal’s impact over its entire lifecycle, the federal government also should ban mountaintop removal mining, strengthen oversight of mine waste slurry impoundments, and tighten and enforce mine safety laws, among other things.

Additionally, it is critical that policymakers say no to the more than 100 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing board that do not have carbon capture-and-storage technology.

The country can meet its near-term energy needs and make significant emission reductions using readily available renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies. And to help meet long-term needs, Congress should pass a national renewable energy standard requiring utilities to ramp up their reliance on energy efficiency and wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

If carbon capture and storage is going to work, the industry must address fundamental problems of scale, safety and cost:

Scale: For the technology to make a meaningful contribution to reducing global warming pollution, it would require an enormous processing and transportation infrastructure to handle a volume of liquefied carbon dioxide rivaling that of the oil consumed in the United States today. Put another way, the Department of Energy estimates that the annual storage space needed for a typical 600-megawatt plant’s emissions would be approximately four times the volume of the Empire State Building.

Safety: Demonstration projects will have to determine if carbon dioxide can be stored indefinitely and in what type of underground geologic formations. Slow carbon leaks could undermine the technology’s effectiveness as a global warming solution and contaminate groundwater. Fast leaks from a storage site or a pipeline could threaten local residents.

Cost: Current coal plant designs cannot cost-effectively capture carbon dioxide. Studies estimate that adding the technology to a conventional coal plant would dramatically increase cost and reduce energy output. Although there are advanced coal plant designs that are better suited for carbon capture, it still would be extremely expensive to add the technology, particularly as a retrofit.

Despite these challenges, carbon-capture-and-storage technology has enough potential to help curb global warming to warrant large-scale demonstration projects. These projects would help determine how the technology compares with other low-carbon energy technologies and whether it merits broader deployment. However, coal’s other environmental and societal impacts must be factored into any assessment of the viability of carbon capture. Coal can become cleaner than today, but one way or another, “clean coal” always will be an oxymoron.

We should not take any options off the table until we understand the consequences. Our experience in the past has been that by limiting the alternatives available to policy makers the consumer usually pays dearly. The current economic downturn probably will limit growth in electric power demand in the short term. This may provide the opportunity for the Obama administration to exercise the leadership that is necessary on energy and environmental policy.

Those of us who have stated that we need all our fuels can only answer such a question with no, the nation should not stop building new coal-fired power plants until the technologies are perfected to burn coal without releasing greenhouse gases. Others have stated it well, so I'll be brief: eliminating coal from the conversation puts upward price pressure on the fuel that must replace it, natural gas. While you might think that a group representing natural gas producers would be all in favor of that, we hold the competitive market more dear than an artificial uptick in profits. The economic disruption and distributional effects caused by not letting consumers choose the fuel they want would be harmful.

This topic exposes how much we are still talking past each other. The other responses demonstrate that we cannot even agree on a definition of "clean coal." I trust we can at least agree that consumers should freely choose from among their fuels in a compeititive market, not the government through a mandate. If through legislation we end up with a carbon premium, the market will decide how much of each fuel to use, and that's the way it should be.

The Coal Industry would dearly like to have it both ways. On the one hand they want to say we don't have to worry about coal emissions destabilizing the planet's climate or otherwise harming the environment or our health because from now on coal will be "clean." On the other hand, they want to define clean coal as any coal technology that has environmental advantages over the kind of combustion and emission controls that were typical when the Clean Air Act was revised EIGHTEEN YEARS ago -- in 1990. On the National Mining Congress website we find this comment: "Clean coal technologies burn coal more efficiently with reduced emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxide (contributors to acid rain),..." NMC says nothing about clean coal reducing emissions of carbon dioxide -- because they know that today's clean coal technology doesn't do any such thing.

Now, should we permit the construction of new coal plants which are designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide? Plants, like, say, the once proposed and now cancelled Future Gen? Or the now cancelled Huntley, New York NRG project? Absolutely. We do need to test true Clean Coal, coal that doesn't emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

But that's not what the coal industry is talking about when they prate about "clean coal." They are talking about building hundreds of new pulverized coal plants which not only won't keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere when they open, but in many cases are being designed and located to make it impossible to ever clean up their CO2 emmissions -- even if we do perfect technology to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere.

And the mining industry has no intention, in fact, of deploying even their definition of clean coal -- they are actively fighting in courts all across the country efforts to ensure that we place the clean air technology we do have for coal on their older power plants. Nor does their vision of clean coal extend to the way coal is mined. EPA Administrator Steve Johnson let that cat out of the bag last week when he declared, in supporting the Bush Administration's last minute effort to permanently legalize mountain top removal mining, that "Americans shouldn't have to choose between clean coal and a clean environment..." No, if clean coal was really clean, that would be a silly concept. But Johnson knows better -- and if mountain mining represents "clean coal," you really have to shudder at how bad "not so clean coal" would be.

Hal Quinn's language in his post on this topic is tempered, because of his audience. But what do his members really think about the urgency of solving the climate crisis. Here are some quotes from Massey Coal CEO Jim Blankenship at a recent event in West Virginia to a friendly coal audience:

"They can say what they want about climate change. But the only thing melting in this country that matters is our financial system and our economy."

He also explained where the real risk of a Communist take over of the U.S. comes from -- it all begins with energy efficiency:

"Jimmy Carter understood that there was a risk if we increased our dependence on foreign oil. But did it not sound similar to Obama? Turn down your thermostats? Buy a smaller car? Conserve? I have spent quite a bit of time in Russia and China, and that's the first stage. You go from having your own car to carpooling to riding the bus to mass transit. You eventually get to where you're walking. You go from your own apartment and bathroom to sharing kitchens with four families. That's what socialism and the elimination of capitalism and free enterprise is all about."

And this communist ideology -- energy efficiency -- has dangerous allies in high places, like the editor of the Charleston, WVa. Gazette:

"It is as great a pleasure for me to be criticized by the communists and the atheists of the Charleston Gazette as to be applauded by my best friends," he said. "Because I know they are wrong. People are cowering away from being criticized by people that are our enemies. Would we be upset if Osama Bin Laden was critical of us?"

He went on to criticize environmental organizations, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid with the following terms, which he said were the only ones the general public could understand:

"Totally wrong. Nonsense. Absolutely crazy."

"When we talk about it in more articulate ways, the American public doesn't get it."

So we should understand what's really going on here. Most Americans may want to solve the problem of burning coal while capturing its CO2. Not the coal industry. Because if we solved the technology problem, they would then be expected to clean up their plants, and they have no desire to spend that money. So when they talk about clean coal, they don't mean capturing carbon dioxide -- they are in no hurry at all to crack that nut -- and they don't even mean using the technology they have had since 1990 to clean up other pollutants -- they want to keep operating their dirtiest facilities with no pollution controls, if we let them get away with it.

It's all about keeping their profits high and their facilties cheap to operate. And we shouldn't let them do this to us.

Two realities come to mind: First, economic: Coal is our most affordable and abundant fuel to generate electricity. Half of our electricity comes from coal — twice as much as nuclear. Coal is one-third the cost of other fuels to generate electricity. The U.S. has more coal than any other fuel. To meet our future energy demand and keep our economy globally competitive, coal must be part of a balanced portfolio to generate electricity that also includes nuclear, natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency. We’ve got to use and advance everything we’ve got.

Second, environmental: Even though the use of coal to generate electricity has nearly tripled over the last three decades, due to technology advances, today's coal-based electricity generating fleet is 70 percent cleaner than it was in 1970 (based upon emissions per unit of energy produced). However, despite the economic downturn, global demand for coal continues to increase. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, in 2007 alone, China added more coal-burning power plants than Great Britain has built in its entire history.

From a global perspective, coal is not going away. But we do have to find an economical way to decarbonize coal so it can remain part of a diverse fuel mix in a carbon-constrained world. President-elect Obama himself said, "What we need to do is to put clean coal technology on the fast track, and that means money. It means investment in research."

That’s why we’ve said all along that the new President and Congress have the perfect opportunity to fast-track clean coal research and stimulate the economy at the same time. With Congress expected to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the next two years, such action must be coupled with a fund for the technology transformation that is essential to de-carbonizing the economy. Such a technology fund will endow our climate policy with the tools to achieve our goals, and it will help provide economic stimulus throughout the country—through both public and private investment.

As the third-largest consumer of coal in the nation, we’re optimistic that this is both feasible and practical. That’s why we’re building a new 630-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant in Indiana. When completed in 2012, not only will this be one of the cleanest coal-fired power plants in the nation, but it will have the capability to pioneer the capture of carbon emissions at utility-scale and store them permanently underground. This project has enthusiastic support from the state of Indiana, the Clean Air Task Force and the Indiana Wildlife Federation.

This plant could serve as a template for decarbonizing coal and its technology employed worldwide—a great example of why we need to continue the use of coal even as we pursue these new technologies.

Turning our backs on coal is foolhardy. Keeping coal in the mix can help solve our climate and economic challenges. Coal is an economic and energy necessity because it can continue to supply today’s generation needs and tomorrow’s with electricity that is affordable, reliable and clean.

Our customers require power 24x7. Only coal and nuclear plants can do this today. Neither wind nor solar can provide power 24x7. Switching to natural gas for baseload generation would result in an unacceptably high price for a fuel critical for home heating. Additionally, taking new coal out of the mix for the foreseeable future would require an accelerated build-out of nuclear plants to meet the needs of American consumers. Those who oppose coal are often the same ones who oppose nuclear.

We can build a bridge to a low-carbon world but not overnight, and not by taking coal off the table.

Let’s be real, according to the EIA 2008 Annual Energy Outlook, coal’s share of electricity generation is and will remain between 48 – 49 % from 2006 – 2018.

Unless we can find an affordable and reliable alternative, or people are willing to so with less electricity or be willing to pay much more for electricity, the nation cannot afford to stop building coal fired power plants until CCS technology is perfected.

At present, there are few alternatives to coal and perhaps no viable alternatives at the present time. Solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy and are therefore, not a suitable for base load power supply for powering the nation. The prospect of rising natural gas demand (and a concomitant rise in natural gas prices); the looming prospect of formation of a natural gas cartel that could drive up natural gas prices; and failure to enable greater domestic natural gas exploration and development all suggest that natural gas fired power plants may be not necessarily be counted on to fill the void. Moreover, the rising cost of materials for nuclear power plant construction and the difficulty and long lead time of permitting new nuclear power plants means reliance on coal until we can construct these much needed facilities. As for renewables, notwithstanding the added expense, even if they are constructed, there is no way to transmit the power generated to where it is needed as the transmission capacity just isn’t in place. In addition, we can’t keep pretending that renewables are cheap; they are not, though they appear so as they are heavily subsidized.

As for coal, the MIT coal study recommendation that much more money should be spent on developing and proving sequestration possibilities should be given high priority. If people really want CCS, we need to get there quicker, and this will cost money. In the meantime, it should not go unnoticed that newer coal-fired power plants can operate much more efficiently than older units, and older units can themselves be improved to operate more efficiently, thereby foregoing significant increases in emissions. In addition, new plants can be built with the capability to add on CCS once it becomes economically affordable and older plants where possible, can be retrofitted with CCS capabilities.

Additional emissions also can be avoided by improving grid efficiency and reducing customer side demand for electricity. All this can be accomplished through implementation of smart grid and demand response technologies.

The bottom line, however, is that despite impatience, all this will take time. And as to the “greens” challenging the “construction of nearly every new coal fired power plant on the drawing board throughout the nation,” all that can be said is that they are also challenging new nuclear power plants, oil refineries, expansion of oil and gas production and even large wind and solar projects. Since there is really no form of energy acceptable to the greens, it is becoming very clear that their real goal is the deindustrialization of the U.S

That’s like saying the Wright Brothers should never have been allowed to fly until they could reach the moon. How much progress in cleaner coal-based generation are we willing to sacrifice for lack of complete achievement of an objective we all share? And if we don’t build coal-based generation in the U.S., do we not build it anywhere? What about the 1.4 billion people around the world who do not have access to any electricity? Are they supposed to halt their long and difficult walk out of poverty until carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) is available to them as well?

Thirty-one new coal-based power plants, representing more than 19,000 MW of capacity and $33 billion of investments, are currently under construction in the United States. Those plants will be 70- 90 percent cleaner than plants built in the 1970s and significantly more efficient than existing capacity thanks to clean coal technologies. While none are currently capable of capturing greenhouse gases, according to Energy Information Administration data, every one percent efficiency improvement in the nation’s coal-generated electricity reduces carbon emissions by 60 million tons and is equal to 12 times the current wind generating capacity in the United States.

Clean coal technology—specifically carbon capture and storage —is essential to U.S. and global approaches to climate. It’s not the complete solution; greater energy efficiency and conservation, new alternative fuels and aggressive build out of renewable and nuclear-based energy will also be needed. But CCS will be the backbone of carbon reductions here and abroad.

That’s not just because Americans rely on coal to meet half of their electricity and 30 percent of their total energy needs. It’s also because coal has been the fastest growing fuel worldwide for the last five years. Countries around the world are depending on coal to sustain their economies and to provide affordable energy at a time of tremendous financial uncertainty.

There are cost, technology and regulatory hurdles that must be overcome. And these obstacles are the chief reasons CCS has not be installed at a major U.S. utilities. But as costly as the research, development and deployment will be, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2005 report found that CCS could reduce the costs of stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by 30 percent or more compared to scenarios where such technologies are not deployed.

A substantial public-private partnership will be needed to develop and bring the necessary technologies to the marketplace. And we are fully committed to that effort. Last week’s announcements outlining coal company grants to university research on CCS and clean coal technologies is only part of the real work that is already underway. Domestically, there are currently four proposed CCS projects set to begin construction within the next two years, with 11 more internationally.

A key component of the pathway forward is to ensure the construction of the FutureGen plant in Mattoon, Ill., which Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and others recently re-committed to move ahead with the new administration. FutureGen will be the world’s first near-zero emissions coal-fueled plant and will use technology that can be deployed throughout the world.

But FutureGen and other early-stage projects must be augmented by a sustained investment commitment from Congress and the administration devoted to the development and commercial deployment of CCS technologies over a variety of coal-based generation platforms. Bipartisan support for this initiative has led to proposals in both the House and the Senate, with strong endorsement coming from Western governors at their meeting last month. Further, the World Resources Institute has completed an excellent analysis of why public sector financing will be needed to ensure early CCS deployment.

CCS is a reality and can lower the overall cost to the economy of stabilizing and reducing carbon emissions. The U.S., however, currently lacks the necessary regulatory and statutory foundation and the financial commitment necessary to finalize development and to achieve commercial deployment of this vital technology. We most move forward on these critical public policy needs, but in the interim we should not deny the benefits of cleaner and more efficient coal-based generation.

All the pieces exist at commercial scale for coal gasification for electric power with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration. What is needed are plants that put together in one place gasification, capture, and sequestration.

Since costs for new technologies often increase with the first few plants (as initial problems are overcome), a dozen or so such plants will probably be required before true commercial costs and operating procedures are well understood.

No, the US should not stop building new coal-fired power plants until the technologies are perfected. Instead, we should build plants in order to perfect the technologies.

China's GreenGen will start producing electricity in 2012. We could easily be left behind. It doesn't have to be that way. The current Congress considered a bill that would have provided a $1 billion annual fund to put all the pieces together in a dozen “clean coal” plants so we can take back the lead and show how it can be done in an efficient and affordable way. The new Congress should pass such incentives without delay.

First of all, there is no such thing as "clean coal." Coal is dirty when it's mined, and it's dirty when it's burned. Pollution from coal-fired plants is not only the biggest contributor to global warming, but it is also responsible for 24,000 deaths a year in the United States. This is why NRDC and other groups launched our campaign to bust the "clean coal" mythology.

However, coal is a widely available and relatively cheap fuel, and coal-fired power will be with us for some time to come, even as we transition to cleaner energy sources.

The challenge is to minimize coal power's carbon footprint and to put an end to disgraceful mining practices. The steps we must take are clear, and they start with a belief that no coal plants should be built unless they capture and store their carbon pollution.

1. We must reduce all pollutants from coal, and the best way is to do this is to increase our reliance on truly clean alternatives like efficiency and renewable energy. For instance, making just 5 percent of American homes more energy efficient would eliminate the need for almost 13 power plants by 2030--if we added another 5 percent every year we would avoid almost 300 plants by then.

2. We must move as quickly as possible to install technologies that can capture carbon from coal plants and store it underground. Sequestration technologies are not widely used today because there are no limits on carbon pollution. With effective caps on pollution, these systems can become standard practice for all new plants. A cap and auction program will generate the funds needed to make this happen and standards will ensure that private investments in coal do not load the air with global warming pollution.

3. We have to end mountaintop removal mining. This practice entails blowing off the tops of mountains to get at thin coal seams, and then dumping the mining waste into the valleys below. There is simply no justification for it, and no way to remedy it without banning the practice completely. Miners have told one of my colleagues that though they want coal mining, even they're against that kind of coal mining.