Coal
in sentence
1278 examples of Coal in a sentence
As inexpensive natural gas has eroded coal’s traditional share of electricity generation in the US, importing cheap
coal
from the US has become more attractive to Europe.
Especially in Germany, the Energiewende (the shift away from nuclear energy following the Fukushima catastrophe in 2011) has led to an increase in
coal
consumption.
Indeed,
coal
is on track to provide more than half of Germany’s electricity supply.
Greenhouse-gas emissions may have dropped as a consequence of reduced production amid the economic recession, but the
coal
resurgence does not bode well for future targets.
A low-carbon growth path requires neither
coal
nor new nuclear power.
Australia, for example, is a large
coal
exporter but imports most of its refined fuels and holds just three days of fuel stockpiles.
In Heiligendamm, the G-8 leaders, together with representatives of major emerging economies (Brazil, Mexico, China, India, and South Africa, who have a critical stake in energy consumption to continue to generate economic growth), will discuss a comprehensive approach encompassing a set of energy options, from energy efficiency and renewable energy, to clean coal, carbon capture and storage, and carbon sequestration.
The question of whether to use
coal
or nuclear power is simply no longer apposite: without a breakthrough in renewable energies, global energy demand cannot be met, not to mention the dangers of a new Chernobyl.
As much as Trump might like to revive steel and
coal
in the so-called Rust Belt states that were crucial to his electoral victory, that is likely impossible (as is bringing back large numbers of manufacturing jobs from abroad).
Indeed,
coal
power is already on its way out in the US, as health and environmental (not just climate) concerns force plants to shut down.
Natural-gas production, meanwhile, is at an all-time high; its 33% share in power generation now exceeds that of
coal.
The outrage of Australia’s conservatives reminds me of the reaction I received when I testified before the US Congress in 2013 that we should “keep our
coal
in the ground where it belongs.”
David McKinley, a Republican congressman from West Virginia, in the heart of America’s
coal
country, replied that my words “sent a shiver up [his] spine,” then changed the subject to the crime rate in Seattle, where I was Mayor.
When enough people say no to investing in fossil-fuel production, the next step has to be keeping coal, oil, and gas in the ground.
Oil and
coal
companies and their political allies warn us of fiscal catastrophe if we do that – as if heat waves, droughts, storms, and rising seas did not bring their own fiscal and social catastrophes.
But they cannot prevent the worst of global warming, particularly if they result in
coal
and oil simply being sold elsewhere.
Its leaders bucked the power of
coal
and oil interests, which wield enormous power in Australia.
One thing is clear: if we are not to be totally reckless with our planet’s climate, we cannot burn all the coal, oil, and natural gas that we have already located.
About 80% of it – especially the coal, which emits the most CO2 when burned – will have to stay in the ground.
Obama also called for an end to public financing of new
coal
plants overseas, unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies (which are not yet economically viable), or else there is, he said, “no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.”
According to Daniel Schrag, Director of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment and a member of a presidential science panel that has helped to advise Obama on climate change, “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on
coal.
On the other hand, a war on
coal
is exactly what’s needed.”
Yet most of them, including Schrag’s and mine, continue to invest part of their multi-billion-dollar endowments in companies that extract and sell
coal.
(Compared to most of the world’s population, even the American and Australian
coal
miners who would lose their jobs if the industry shut down are affluent.)
In these circumstances, to develop new
coal
projects is unethical, and to invest in them is to be complicit in this unethical activity.
While this applies, to some extent, to all fossil fuels, the best way to begin to change our behavior is by reducing
coal
consumption.
Replacing
coal
with natural gas does reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, even if natural gas itself is not sustainable in the long term.
Right now, ending investment in the
coal
industry is the right thing to do.
Indeed, the parallels with the role of
coal
and steel in forging the European Union are clear enough that, over the past month, Joschka Fischer, Germany’s former foreign minister, has called for such a union.
From the moment Europe's
coal
and steel industries were merged in an effort to prevent future wars on the Continent, the "European project" has often relied on economic interests to propel itself forward.
Back
Next
Related words
Energy
Which
Power
Would
Plants
Their
Other
Emissions
Natural
Electricity
Carbon
There
Nuclear
Climate
Global
While
Fuels
Countries
Could
Production