This article in the New York Times again hits on the paradox that a country dependent on coal cannot quickly become green. "21 coal-fired power plants that emit more than 75 million tons of carbon dioxide annually and generate 80 percent of Missouri’s electricity," writes Felicity Barringer (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/09coal.html?_r=1&ref=earth). Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa also depend on coal generation for power. Coal cannot be out of the picture as environmental groups like the Sierra Club or NRDC paint our future of energy to be. My point is not to suggest that our future won't be full of wind, solar, renewables, etc. I am for alternative energy as long as government funding is available. We cannot be anti-coal or anti-fossil fuel without realistically understanding the scope and volume of alternative fuels available. Even the capacity available is not enough. What about the extra transmission needed to funnel that power where it is needed. Do not be anti-coal until you propose a realistic alternative within a reasonable budget that a capital-constrained economy is willing to fund.