Well, there are so called conservatives that fit that description as well. It's not just liberals.

Too bad some of you get so hung up on your party line and hatred for those you perceive as "liberals" that you can't focus on the imortant issue being discussed. There is no such thing as "clean coal. It's a green marketing ploy and nothing more. Yes, we need energy but there are alternatives that need to be explored and developed. We have the technology and the inventive spirit that made the country great. We can use that inventiveness to save our country and our civilization or we can act like a bunch of stubborn know-nothings clinging to archaic ideas to the bitter end. I prefer progress to decay and destruction.

Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr? Credibility? Don't make me throw up. Al Gore...who uses more electricity in a month than most of us do in a year. RFK, Jr. who flies around in private jets, vice commercial, because the jet was going there anyway preaching do as I say and not as I do. Give me a break!

What the opponents of MTR are asking is that we employ conservation in our use of electricity, which would decrease the demand for coal which would decrease the rate of destruction by MTR. They are also asking that the laws be enforced during the permitting process for MTR mines, which would protect their communities. They are also encouraging the exploration of alternate energy, as coal is a finite resource. These requests do not sound that radical to me.

Aside from the time and productivity wasted, think of the uh, pollution, that would be left behind by enough horses for our modern commutes.

We could be using nuclear power by now, but the same people who want to block coal now, blocked nuclear 30 years ago.

Windmills aren't going to cut it, so I guess we'll have to wait for Captain Kirk to deliver the dilithium crystals.

The problem with do-gooders, like Anne, is that they don't want to burn coal for power, they don't want to build nuclear plants for power, they don't want windmill generators because they kill the birds, and heaven forbid, they don't want drilling for oil or natural gas off the coasts or in ANWAR. I guess they want us to return to the horse and buggy days, and everyone could gather around the one allotted kerosene lantern at night. They're bent on turning the United States into just another third world country.

You lost me at Gore and Kennedy.

Very informative. Interesting that we focus so much on the "dirty" aspects of coal when it is burned, and pay so little attention to what happens prior. US News, Harpers,Washington Post, NY Times and Vanity Fair have all had recent articles on this. I suppose you know that dispensing with coal completely is unrealistic, however alternate renewable energy and simple conservation would be good places to start.

But I do not feel your pain. Any chance of credibility for your arguement went right out the window with mention of Gore and Kennedy in the same sentence that included the word "reputable."

Al Gore and Ted Kennedy are to environmentalism as Charles Manson is to being a humanitarian

Coal is dirty and polluting, yet what are we to do? The radical environmentalists have made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear reactors for electrical generation; a viable option that could produce less waste if, again, radical environmentalists (bill signed by Carter) let us re-use the fuel in the plants.

So what do we do?

Even without an increase in prosperity, our demand for energy will keep rising. This is due to a growing population.

Since most of our population growth comes from immigrants, if we wish to stabilize or decrease our use for coal, we need to stabilize our population growth and immigration. Immigrants come to America to enjoy our opulent lifestyle. They too want their two-car driveway, the modern home with all amenities, their TVs and cell phones. They too want their share of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, sports. Those who lack industry also want their freeloading welfare benefits.

So, we now have two solutions to dirty facts about clean coal: stop sipping it overseas; and limit population growth from immigration. Please don’t expect me to limit my lifestyle in order to help the Chinese develop in their country or to benefits aliens from South of the Border.

It seems to me that we have to decide if we need more energy or limited energy. By limiting energy, we limit growth and prosperity. We limit our standard of living.

Prosperity translates into consumption which in turn means more pollution which again some believe contributes to global warming.

First, most of our coal may be shipped overseas to emerging nations whose prosperity is rising meaning an increase in consumption, with resulting pollution and global warming. We could get selfish and keep all the coal to ourselves and contribute to a lessening of pollution. Or we can share the existing production with people of other countries.

However, by shipping our coal to other lands, only a few are enriched at the expense of quality of environment especially as described in the above letter.

As for me, I say let’s keep using coal as a form of energy but let’s stop polluting our environment for the purpose of shipping coal to foreign lands. Let them find their own coal.