Other Answers (3)

• Because coal creates a lot of problems we%26#039;d rather not have to deal with (such as air pollution, global warming and non-radioactive waste (i.e. waste that doesn%26#039;t decay over time)).
  
  In fact the biggest problem with coal is that we%26#039;re not running out of it (and if you want liquid fuel from coal that is actually cleaner than oil from the middle east you%26#039;ll have to use a nuclear reactor to provide the energy instead of burning coal and if you do that you may as well take the next step and just cut coal out and get the Carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere).
• Mother Jones was from a different era, when there was actually coal to mine.
  Coal is also polluting and the reason we have the environmental problems we have now. CO2 emmissons.
  
  edit - You could also burn all your forests, but it wouldn%26#039;t be a smart idea. Coal is already an environmental problem (in the past for the West and currently in China).
  It%26#039;s time to move away from fossil fuels not search for more. I agree that nuclear is a far better option.
• I dunno. I prefer the 7 letter word Uranium (or Nuclear), which buys a few hundred years. It%26#039;s just that people are to dumb to realise that modern powerplants aren%26#039;t like Chernobyl. They can%26#039;t meltdown.
  
  Besides, coal still mean CO2 output, nuclear power doesn%26#039;t.