Basically the same argument Hillary Clinton made during 2016 campaign. Too bad WSJ didn’t reinforce then..
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Absolutely. Great piece. We don't burn wood or dung, why the archaic desire to keep burning coal?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
As it should
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Rational folks who keep themselves educated on the subject already knew it. Team
#MAGA is in denial.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
they have had the technology for over 40 years as to where we wouldn't need such fossil fuels anymore!
#0PointEnergy#IJSThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is time to face facts. Mining for coal is, simply put, not cost effective. Mine the earth for the best use of thermal energy readily available! Invest in this utility: PYROLYSIS by STRATA!https://youtu.be/ua35kDItI-A
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
WSJ reporting is what is headed for obsolescence not coal
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
how difficult is it to create better healthier jobs for 50000 coalminers in the US?! 0,03% of working population.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How about natural gas, for starters..
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What about “clean” coal?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There is not much alternative available to replace coal yet.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.