The future of coal use is inextricably bound up with the climate debate. While nuclear power’s carbonneutral credential has split climate alarmists, the reemergence of King Coal the bête noir of ecowarriors everywhere as the fuel of choice for power plants has reunited them. The result is an outright declaration of war on coal use. For Greens of all shades, coal and its carbon dioxide emissions represent nothing less than the apocalyptic tipping point for the planet’s future. And in its cause, governments are to be swayed, courts besieged, and the battle taken to the streets.

If Europe was the early theater for the war between overly ambitious carbon dioxide emissioncutting targets and coalfired power aspirations, the frontline today is Kingsnorth, 30 miles east of London. E.ON, Germany's largest utility, has filed an application to replace Kingsnorth's aging power plant, due for closure in 2015, with Britain's first new coalfired plant in 30 years. With six other applications pending, the government's decision over Kingsnorth could set a precedent for the U.K. and Europe. Kingsnorth has consequently become a cause célèbre. Caroline Lucas of the U.K. Green Party said, Kingsnorth is absolutely on the frontline of whether or not we manage to avoid the worst of climate chaos. She adds, If Britain, one of the richest countries in the world, can't deal with climate change without resorting to coal, it undermines our message to any other country to try to do differently.

NASA's James Hansen, the high priest of climate alarmism, has signed up for the cause, writing a passionate letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a copy to the Queen. In his letter of December 2007, Hansen says:

• Coal clearly emerges as central to the climate problem.

• Due to the dominant role of coal, the solution to global warming must include the phaseout of coal except for uses where the carbon dioxide is captured and sequestered.

• [The] decision to phase out coal use, unless the carbon dioxide is captured, is a global imperative.

• …[If] coalfired plants do not capture and sequester the carbon dioxide, it could be a tipping point for the world.

• …In setting your national policies, you have the potential to influence the planet.

Even though the new Kingsnorth plant would be 20 percent more efficient than existing ones, unimpressed Green campaigners have laid siege to the plant to register opposition. E.ON's bid proposes two new twin 800megawatt burners at a cost of around $3 billion. If the government gives the goahead, however, it is likely to include the demand for an experimental carbon capture facility at the additional cost, ultimately to end energy users, of up to $800 million.

With a third of British power stations due to close in the next 15 years, refusing E.ON's application at Kingsnorth could effectively close the door to more coal use in the U.K. But ignoring substantial domestic British coal reserves comes at a price, as E.ON spokesman Jonathan Smith told Sky News. If we assume that no other coal use is to go ahead, [the U.K. will]…have to buy more gas, said Smith, who added, The price of gas has an effect on wholesale electricity, so if you have 80 percent of electricity generated from gas, it's a fair bet the price would go up. Rival energy giants British Gas and EDF have already recently increased gas prices by 35 percent and 22 percent, respectively.

Although Hansen appears sufficiently persuaded by a government green light for a Kingsnorth that includes a carbon capture and storage C.C.S. loading cost, the use of unproven C.C.S. techniques hasn’t abated the Green lobby’s ire.

Twofifths of all global carbon emissions are caused by power generation from fossil fuel burning, with coal the major factor. Yet Germany, with the full support of the Climate Chancellor, has announced plans to build 16 new coalfired plants by 2012. In fact, across Europe roughly 40 new coalfired plants are planned over the next five years, with Italy committed to converting its oilfueled plants to coal. All of which reveals a contradictory faultline running between the E.U.’s energy policy and its rhetoric about fighting climate change.

In the U.S., 28 coalfired plants are under construction, with another 66 planned. Here, too, the Greens’ war on coal has begun to hurt. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision last year to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, Georgia has blocked construction of the proposed coalfired Longleaf plant. Last year, regulators in Kansas rejected a similar application on grounds that global warming is a threat to public health and agriculture. In July, Wisconsin issued a directive stating that coal may not be considered as a fuel source at stateowned heating plants. According to Mark Goldes of Magnetic Power, Inc., climate concerns in the U.S. are beginning to play a major role, with more coalfired plants being abandoned than rejected. He reports that 59 plants were cancelled or put on hold in 2007, with only 15 of those rejected outright by regulators. For the other 44, the utilities themselves made the decision.

Meanwhile, as the future of coal use in the West remains in doubt, the coalfired economies of China and India are going full steam ahead, trouncing Western attempts at minimizing global carbon dioxide emissions. China activates one new coalfired power station every week, and its runaway economy, with an astounding 10 percent annual growth, accounts for a massive 43 percent of emerging global coal demand.

India has recently approved eight huge new power plants that will boost electricity generating capacity by a massive 50 percent. The inherent dichotomy between energy and climate priorities is most vividly seen in the funding of these plants. . In April, just a year after Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, pledged to significantly increase funds in the fight against climate change, the Bank’s board agreed to loan $450 million to help the new $4.1 billion Tata power plant in western India become operational. Due online by 2012, Tata is expected to immediately become one of the world's top 50 emitters of carbon dioxide. Its carbon dioxide emissions alone will outstrip those of many mediumsized countries. According to the Bank's Information Center analysis, investment in coal, gas, and natural gas projects rose last year by 60 percent, compared to a mere 9 percent rise for alternatives to hydrocarbon based power.

Zoellick blames the apparent contradiction on the need to meet the challenge of climate change without slowing the growth that will help overcome poverty. And right there is the crux of the matter. The Tata project will provide power for over 16 million people, most now lacking electricity and living in poverty. Western environmentalists often claim that such poor communities must retain their culture and identity, but all too often that is code for “remain in a powerless poverty.” Who will tell the people of western India that they should forego their cheap coalfired electricity?

Regardless of how the coalversuscarbon dilemma is resolved, the sheer scale of carbon dioxide emissions from the fastindustrializing economies in Asia and beyond is destined to render the Greens’ war on coal irrelevant. Irrelevant, except for the damage it would inflict on the poor, even in the West. More than this, the growing demand for coal, and the consequent rise in carbon emissions, is set to settle speculative claims over the alleged link between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. Even if the alarmists are proven right, at least we will have had the moral satisfaction of seeing a new coalpowered era delivering millions from grinding poverty, as we all sink beneath the waves.