Dear Editor,

An excellent editorial ("When king coal has no clothes", November 22) that unfortunately leaps to the wrong conclusion. After an accurate assessment of the coal conundrum and the urgency of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the writer seemingly selects at random the pea-less wallnut – "Coal must be made cleaner, very soon, to slow the damage".

Your writer might offer better advice after talking to the following people: Jeremy Leggett, Dr David Mills, Vinod Khosla, Travis Bradford, Dr Mark Diesendorf, Karl Kruszelnicki (who now has his numbers down pat) and perhaps your own regularly impressive environment editor Marion Wilkinson (although her position on coal is unknown to me, her reporting has been infallible – if Ms Wilkinson doesn't appreciate the danger of coal it would be surprising).

I have heard it said that Al Gore endorses CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) in "An Inconvenient Truth". He doesn't. What Gore says is "Carbon capture and storage; you're going to hear a lot more about that one". He throws it out there knowing it will be controversial. Like Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull, Gore knows it is suicidal to face the mighty coal industry head on, too soon.

If renewable energy is unproven, then CCS is more so. There are problems with long development cycle, site availability (both immediate and long term), acidification and seismic activity. There is the retro-fit problem and the cost/efficiency trade-off. And all of these are insignificant alongside the biggest problem: a hand full of clean coal seemingly legitimises mountains of dirty coal.

By comparison, the suite of exciting renewable energy projects taking place around the world hold unbounded promise. Visit the site www.renewableenergyaccess.com regularly for a shot of inspiration. Clean coal? Sure, until you burn the bloody stuff.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood