Coal, obviously, is one of the biggest roadblocks to averting catastrophic climate change. China, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, gets 75% of its electric power from coal. The US, number two on the carbon dioxide hit parade, gets half of its electricity from coal-fired plants. Worldwide in 2006, coal (and peat) generated 41% of the electricity, according to the International Energy Agency, and 26% of total primary energy supply. (Oil accounts for 34.4% of TPES.) I've written about coal here a number of times. See Coal Takes Some Lumps and King Coal for instance. I also highly recommend the magisterial Big Coal by Jeff Goodell.
The Center for American Progress recently took a close look at some of the politics, law and policy around coal mining and power production in the US. Their coverage hangs its hat on the decision by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board on November 13 that the EPA had no valid reason for failing to place limits on the global warming emissions from a proposed power plant in Utah. This has tremendous implications not only for this plant but for scores of other proposed facilities throughout the country. The Sierra Club took the lead on bringing this critical challenge to the EAB and their press release proclaims the decision nothing less than "the start of our clean energy future "
It was a little over a year ago when Kansas blocked two new coal plants because of the threat of warming they represented. I wrote then about that landmark decision here and included a most-lucid video of the Kansas Health and Environment Secretary explaining the decision.
The incoming administration is going to have a lot more to say about environmental rule making and I daresay things are going to be done just a tad differently than they've been done over the past eight years.
