Not what I would expect from Business Week, this is a good piece that explores more than business. One of the most eloquent sections is the sidebar that shows the electoral votes of big coal states. It both absolves the author of the need to say outright that both senators are pandering to coal voters and proves the adage about how many word a picture (or chart) is worth. The piece does lean a bit more on Obama than McCain, who also endorses the mythical carbon sequestration. But, other than that, does a good job of painting a big picture.

The political tie is interesting, but this feels a little biased and is lightweight overall.

Timely article with Virginia just approving a coal fired power plant. Reading the article left me wondering how do voters in the top 10 coal producing states feel about coal mining? Will voters be more likely to vote for a candidate that supports mountain top removal, increase CO2 and mercury emissions, black lung, diversion of huge amounts of water for coal mining, etc then a candidate who is for a renewable energy source that does not contribute to global warming? The millions of dollars used for the 'clean coal' campaign gives new meaning to how clean is clean.

We are already seeing ads for the mythical "clean coal" in my state. This article points out some of the industry's claims like: "These steps, he says, "may actually spur more research on carbon capture and sequestration." referring to the advantages of as an yet unbuilt "clean" plant (note the quote does not say how the plant would run clean when it is built).