President Obama has issued marching orders for the rapid national adoption of "clean coal" technology. Last week, shortly after his budget address, he ordered a high-level task force to deliver a plan within 180 days determining how "to overcome barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with the goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects on line by 2016."

Obama's executive office memorandum looks like a big victory for the coal industry, which was already handed $3.8 billion in last year's stimulus act for carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development and deployment. He did not simultaneously order a similar plan for a big roll-out of solar or wind energy to level the playing field.

Making good on campaign promises, the president is throwing the full weight of his administration behind a moonshot effort to make coal the "clean" energy technology of choice and open a federal pathway to a profitable future for one of the nation's most polluting industries.

Three factors have cemented Obama's support for carbon capture and sequestration technology: political necessity, economic opportunity and the backing of some of the most powerful mainstream environmental organizations operating inside the Beltway.

After a flood of wet coal ash swept from a power plant containment pond in December 2008, contaminating a river and covering 300 acres of eastern Tennessee, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would decide whether to issue new coal ash regulations by the end of 2009.

As that deadline approached last month, however, the agency admitted its findings would be delayed "due to the complexity of the analysis."

If it were simply a question of how best to protect the public, the decision would have been made weeks ago, health and environmental advocates say. But it appears cost has become as significant a factor as protection.

On Thursday night, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will step onto a stage in the heart of Appalachian coal country to debate Mr. Coal himself, Massey Energy CEO and global warming skeptic Don Blankenship.

There’s little question who has the home field advantage at the University of Charleston in West Virginia.

By Nick Engelfried

Part of It's Getting Hot in Here: Climate Generation, a month-long series at It's Getting Hot in Here reflecting on the state of the youth climate movement.

Just a few years ago, the Northwest climate movement in the United States was composed of a dedicated but relatively small group of folks working to inject the energy of the youth voice into the climate debate.

Those early years saw the solidification of the Cascade Climate Network, increased student involvement in passing state and local climate legislation, and the launching of several region-wide initiatives that continue to influence policy decisions in the Northwest today.

As we enter 2010, I believe the Northwest youth climate movement is becoming stronger than ever before. We’ve expanded onto new campuses, helped pass a slew of climate laws in both Washington and Oregon, and are becoming increasingly involved in the national and international climate dialogue.

Sunflower Electric Corp. today submitted a revised permit application to build a new coal plant in Holcomb, Kan., reviving a long-running effort to break ground on a locally polluting facility that would send most of its electricity to customers out of state.

The saga first drew national attention in 2007, when the head of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment rejected Sunflower's air permit request, making history as the first state official to base the rejection in part on the potential dangers greenhouse gas emissions pose to human health and the environment.