It's time for this instead.

According to the CNN poll,"most Americans blame emissions from cars and industrial plants as the primary cause of global warming and believe the United States should reduce levels even if other countries don't, a survey shows."  In short, "Sixty-six percent of Americans believe the United States should do what it can to reduce global warming, even if other nations ignore it."

And of course you have to consider the economic impact of freezing or phasing out coal use.  But that impact is much smaller today than it used to be.  Coal mines used to employ over 19,000 people in Virginia, but today that number dropped to just 4,353 by 2003.  How many jobs would be created statewide by putting a solar panel on every roof and wind farms whereever feasible?  I'd have to think a lot more than 4,000.

On Coal Power Plants, they produce pollution besides carbon dioxide.  They produce sulfur dioxide (acid rain), nitrogen oxide (smog), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, mercury, arsenic, and lead.  And do they pay for or even account for the effects this pollution has on the environment or surrounding communities?  And even if they did, would they really pay for it given the new hybrid "regulation" that the VA electric industry is under?  Since they don't, consumers never really see the true price of coal power.  All of coal power's byproducts are pretty nasty which is why people don't want to live near coal fired plants.  Despite what the coal industry would have you believe, there is no such thing as clean coal.  And much like tobacco, coal is a product that may provide us immediate pleasure, but hurts us in the long run.  We know this to be the case.  And like smoking, we must quit.

To your concern about economic disruption, that, at least for me, calls for innovation on the part of those affected communities.  And to the extent they need government assistance in the forms of guaranteed loans for new business ventures and money for job training, then we should provide that assistance.  The greatest natural resource we have as a nation is our own people and their tremendous combined power  Coal pales in comparison to that. 

Who is that scientist of the future that will discover that use?

Perhaps you are in a similar situation. In which case, you should take a look at a geologic map of North America. I think even without a good understanding of geology, a geologic map will make it pretty clear that despite being next to each other, the countries are very different. Just looking at one, the bits of Canada with oil, like I suspected, are a lot larger and older, and seem to have be relatively inactive tectonically for quite some time compared to similar rocks in the US. What's going on Mexico is more complicated, but the only bits that seem similar to the US (to my eye) are (surprise, surprise) places like Texas, where we already know about much of the oil.

Regardless, while the US does have some oil, it is insignificant next to our demand. A friend of mine who is working in the oil industry in the US (former roughneck, moving to a more exploration-type job) recently mentioned that his company currently expects it to remain economically viable for them to produce oil in the US for about 10 more years (to understand why that might be, take into account that he also told me that a good well in the US produces about 1000 barrels a day; in the Middle East, they generally shut down wells that don't produce at least 5000 barrels a day, because it's not worth the trouble).

On the issue of coal: just because we have a lot of something, doesn't mean that we should necessarily use it. Now, frankly, I suspect that alternative uses of coal will arise, or current alternatives will become more prominent. However, that's something that will be best determined by the market, I suspect -- and the coal mining industry can distribute funding for research if they want to tweak the market in their favor.

Look, we all know the answers, so let's stop wasting our time "debating" the non-solutions.  The answers are:

*ENERGY EFFICIENCY!!!
*Renewables like wind and solar
*Advanced biofuels that produce 10, 20, 100 times more energy than they consume.
*Safe nuclear power, assuming that we can deal with the storage and proliferation issues.

More oil exploration in the US?  We're already doing that in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, but it's not going to solve our addiction to foreign oil and it's not going to save the ice caps from melting.  So much for that "solution."

I never "removed" nuclear "as an option," and in fact am very much open to it (as I've said a million times) if the issues of waste disposal, safety and proliferation are taken care of.  In general, I disagree with the entire thrust of your argument that we need coal because the technology isn't there, etc.  To the contrary, what we've got now is a massive market failure in which the true cost of coal, including environmental impacts, is not included.  Why don't we try pricing fossil fuels with all externalities included, then see whether renewables -- let alone energy efficiency!!! -- are competitive.

Finally, with regard to the issue of "energy independence," that concept is essentially meaningless; what, are we going to revoke comparative advantage and the benefits of trade?  The issue is that our heavy consumption of oil complicates our foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and ends up sending money to countries and groups that hate our guts.  One analyst called oil the "devil's excrement," and for good reason -- it corrupts everything it touches.  Let's get off of it.  But let's NOT replace it with coal, exacerbating ANOTHER severe problem (global warming) while attempting to solve the other one (dependence on oil imports from unfriendly regimes).  That wouldn't be too bright, to put it mildly.

"Coal mines used to employ over 19,000 people in Virginia, but today that number dropped to just 4,353 by 2003.  How many jobs would be created statewide by putting a solar panel on every roof and wind farms wherever feasible?  I'd have to think a lot more than 4,000."

A well planned fast transition out of coal should include a safety net for the miners.  (Empathy note: My dad ran a tavern across the street from the coal mines and I used to see black faced miners coming in after a day's work.  This was anthracite country.  The mining industry died there in the 50's and there were lots of hard times ahead.)

Someone like a Mark Warner has the brains and compassion to put together such a safety net plan.  Create incentives for the new energy providers to locate in the coal mining regions, e.g., the miners would now be employed in fabrication of new energy machinery.  This is not only compassionate, but removes the political opposition to smart energy within the coal areas.  It should be an easy sell -- it's a deplorable way to make a living and no miner I ever met thought it was a good job.

Political footnote: in the days when Republicans were good guys, people like Republican Governor Bill Scranton of Pennsylvania worked on plans to diversify the job base in northeastern Pennsylvania after the mining industry died.  Too bad he lost the nomination to Barry Goldwater (it wasn't even close.)