I have finally found a legitimate use for coal, which I've consistently derided as evil crap whose only supporters are coerced by direct economic benefit. I don't claim much cleverness in my "discovery," since others have understood it for a while:

Coal is a bargaining chip, or, as Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, puts it, "a universal fig leaf."

In a story in Scientific American, he is quoted as saying,

"For people who want to say they're not against coal when they really are, they hold up [carbon capture and sequestration]. If CCS works, then coal is fine. If you are a coal supporter, it lets you say to your coal people, 'I know you're going to get hit by cap and trade, but we're going to give you CCS. It's going to protect you, more or less.'"

That would be me he's describing. Actually, that would be the reconstructed me, if there was such a thing. Heretofore, I've only wanted to scorn and deride coal supporters, to give them nothing for their black rock, so that all resources for energy can flow toward renewable sources, which I'm convinced is the only way forward.

I write disappointingly when Obama continued his support for CCS study past the election, when I'd hoped it was just electioneering lip service. (Where's a two-faced pol when you need one?) The economic stimulus bill included $3.4 billion for development of CCS.

I also mocked when the Waxman/Markey bill included funding for it, but they're the smart ones; I merely have been providing yet more proof that I'd make a lousy politician. The point of the Scientific American article is that coal, in fact, may hold the key to passage of Waxman/Markey:

"We understand that coal's going to be part of the energy mix for a long time," said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at Center for American Progress, the progressive group founded by former President Clinton's chief of staff, John Podesta. "Politically, you can't pass legislation without support from coal."

I still think it's a bummer that billions will go toward funding a technology that no one has proven and seems unlikely in the extreme. We don't have enough money to gore everyone's ox; we have to make smart choices. It's turning out, though, that even if we're throwing the money into huge holes into the ground we'd ostensibly one day fill ith CO2, funding CCS is a smart choice.