By GottaLaff

The Monroe Power Plant in Monroe, Mich., with four coal-fired generating units built in the early 1970s emitted 19.4 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, the ninth largest amount among U.S. power plants. | Renee Schoof / MCT

Environmentalists are right. There is no such thing as clean coal.

Maybe Prez O should read this:

On the face of it, making the nation’s abundant supply of coal less polluting is alluring. Keeping coal in the energy equation preserves jobs, and a way of life.

However, some scientists, clean-energy advocates and electricity producers are questioning Obama’s approach. Instead, some argue, the world should phase out coal, use natural gas more efficiently and put more emphasis on renewable energy.

Critics of the administration’s coal strategy also say it will be too expensive to retrofit existing plants with new technology, capture the carbon dioxide, compress it and pipe it to underground storage. More coal also would be needed to run the capture equipment.

What’s more, the process wouldn’t reduce coal’s other pollution problems: smog, mercury, and the toxic metals such as lead and selenium in coal ash. Continuing to rely on coal also would do nothing to end the environmental damage of mining the coal itself. [...]

The Sierra Club has said it likes the president’s overall energy plan, but disagrees with him on coal.

And while we’re at it, until there’s a safe way to store nuclear waste, ix-nay on the ukes-nay, too.