By the way, President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order Revives the World’s Oldest, Dirtiest Fuel—but at What Cost?
________________________________________
“A Dawn We Dare Not Embrace…
________________________________________
By Germán & Co. Karlstad, Sweden | April 18, 2025 Coal's legacy is closely tied to colonialism. This is not a political statement but rather a historical fact. Coal extraction often occurred alongside the subjugation of Indigenous peoples and the exploitation of their lands. For example, in southern Africa during the late 19th century, British and European companies established coal mines to fuel the machinery of their empires, mainly ignoring the disruption caused to local communities.
In the late 20th century, British coal mining began to decline, particularly after Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher closed more than 150 mines in the 1980s. As a result, the UK turned to importing coal from former colonies and poorer nations. This practice resulted in a "neo-colonial" trade that outsources the environmental damage and social upheaval caused by mining to the —Global South—. Although the coal was sourced from these regions, the carbon emissions from burning it still had a global impact. The cruel double effect of coal era: mining devastated communities abroad, while the resulting climate change—shown through droughts, floods, and heatwaves—primarily affected the most vulnerable regions.
Coal, without question, was the lifeblood of the Industrial Revolution, fueling the fiery furnaces of factories, propelling colossal locomotives, and illuminating cities across the globe. Yet a grim truth lurks beneath this impressive facade of steel and steam. The very substance that ignited modern progress also cast a dark shadow over miners' lives. As they toiled in the depths, the fine dust of coal infiltrated their lungs, paving the way for the devastating "black lung" disease, a relentless foe that often led to a tragic end.
As coal resurfaces in contemporary policy debates, it is imperative to confront its grim legacy—a history of suffering and sacrifice that has left an indelible mark on our planet. Any attempt to resurrect coal must reckon with its haunted past, a past that continues to cast long shadows over our present.
Cities in India, Pakistan, and regions of China frequently top global PM₂.₅ pollution rankings, a grim testament to the enduring impact of coal-based power and heavy industry. While some nations, like China, have made strides with aggressive measures such as plant upgrades, the specter of coal pollution persists. Coal-fired power plants remain a primary source of air pollution, releasing toxic emissions like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter—all linked to severe respiratory issues and other health complications.
The air is often polluted in regions heavily reliant on coal, such as parts of China and India. In 2023, Begusarai in India earned the dubious distinction of being the world's most polluted city, its air choked by coal fumes and other pollutants. Meanwhile, in the United States, regulations like the Clean Air Act, initially enacted in 1963 and significantly amended in 1970 and 1990, have been instrumental in curbing emissions from coal plants, leading to notable improvements in air quality and public health.
As we stand at this crossroads on April 10, 2025, the choice is clear: We can either embrace a future free from coal's toxic embrace or risk repeating past mistakes. The path forward demands a commitment to cleaner, sustainable energy solutions that protect our health and the environment. Coal's legacy is a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked industrialization and the urgent need for a greener tomorrow.
________________________________________
“All-American coal…
President Trump's 2025 executive order on coal goes beyond simple rhetoric; it mandates specific actions to revive the struggling fossil fuel industry. After years of moratorium, federal land is now open for new coal leasing, effectively declaring an “open season” for mining companies on public lands. The Department of the Interior has been instructed to identify valuable coal reserves beneath federal soil and expedite the extraction permitting process. At the same time, the Department of Energy has designated coal as a “critical mineral,” placing it in the same strategic category as rare earth elements and lithium. In Trump's administration’s view, coal is not a relic of the past but rather a cornerstone of national security in the present.
The justification revolves around the exploding electricity demand from AI data centres. “The U.S. is way ahead right now in the AI race with China,” Trump boasts, adding that reliable power for server farms is essential to maintaining that edge. The administration argues that by tapping into “all-American coal,” the nation can ensure an uninterrupted power supply for AI development, from machine learning research to Pentagon supercomputers. The order even flirts with emergency powers: it hints at using wartime authorities to reopen shuttered coal-fired power plants and halt further closures of ageing facilities. In essence, the White House is willing to reach into its national security toolkit to prop up coal, casting the issue as an issue of strategic dominance in technology. (2)
________________________________________
“The U.S. is way ahead in the AI race with China…
This is undoubtedly a strong justification. For decades, China has struggled with severe pollution. Coal-based power generation, essential for fueling massive industrial output—a byproduct of globalization—shrouded many Chinese cities in a near-constant haze. Notably, during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, international athletes expressed concerns that prolonged exposure to the city's polluted air could harm their health and athletic performance. In response, China was motivated to aggressively reform its environmental policies and invest heavily in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.
A vital realization is that achieving success in AI at the expense of clean air and public health is no victory. Turning regions such as Virginia and Silicon Valley into smog-choked enclaves would be disastrous, jeopardizing the well-being of their communities and betraying the innovative spirit that drives American technological leadership.
Therefore, the challenge is ensuring American AI dominance is not solely about computational power and market share but also about setting a pioneering example of sustainable, responsible, and globally considerate innovation. By learning from China’s environmental missteps, the United States can—and should—demonstrate how to lead in AI without sacrificing clean air, public health, and the broader ecological future.
Even a president’s executive pen cannot efficiently rewrite energy economics in 2025. Coal has been outcompeted by cheaper natural gas and more affordable renewables for years. The new executive order implicitly acknowledges this uphill battle – it is a dramatic intervention because market forces have not been kind to coal. One senior official admits it is “unclear” if the initiative can significantly change coal’s fortunes, conceding that tech companies – even those building AI data centres – have mostly embraced cleaner energy sources like wind, solar, and nuclear. Indeed, Google, Microsoft and other tech giants have spent the last decade setting ambitious climate goals (Google pledges 24/7 carbon-free power by 2030, for example) and investing in renewable electricity for their facilities. They may not be eager to reverse course and feed their AI servers with coal-fired electrons. Trump’s order, however, pointedly asks: What happens if they don’t have a choice? By rolling back regulations and elevating coal’s legal status, the administration seeks to tilt the playing field – legally and politically – in favour of coal-fired power.
________________________________________
“Strange decisions…
President Trump’s coal push draws an uncomfortable parallel with the pollution crisis that once plagued China. In the early 2000s, China’s breakneck industrial growth—primarily powered by coal—blanketed cities in smog so thick that international athletes at the 2008 Beijing Olympics voiced concerns about air quality.
International pressure, along with a growing self-awareness of environmental issues, has compelled Beijing to invest heavily in renewable energy and to modernize its electrical grid. While China continues to be a leading consumer of coal, its shift toward solar and wind energy has resulted in one of the fastest clean energy expansions in history.
Environmental activists caution that chasing AI dominance at the expense of clean air and public health risks repeating the same mistakes. “Turning Virginia or Silicon Valley into the next Beijing or Begusarai smog bowl is not a victory,” says one climate advocate. “We can’t sacrifice our communities or the planet just to power more server racks.”
________________________________________
“A Battle Fought Before…
The new policy revives a debate that’s been simmering in U.S. politics for over a decade. During his first term (2017–2021), Trump pledged to end what he called Barack Obama’s “war on coal,” rolling back environmental regulations and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Despite those moves, coal production kept falling, driven by cheap shale gas and renewable prices. By 2020, U.S. coal output was at its lowest level in decades. After Trump lost the 2020 election, many believed the era of coal was effectively over.
But the political tides have turned again. President Joe Biden’s re-entry into the Paris Agreement and passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of (2022) brought billions in clean-energy funding. President Trump’s 2025 return to the White House rekindles the coal-versus-renewables standoff. His newly resurrected “National Energy Dominance Council” signals a willingness to override market forces, state policies, and environmental safeguards to prop up coal.
________________________________________
“Volatile Coal Prices Undermine “Stability ” Argument…
A common misconception is that coal prices are stable and cheap. In truth, coal markets have been wildly volatile for decades:
-
Mid-2008: Prices soared to nearly $200 per ton.
-
Early 2011: Topped $140 amid strong Asian demand.
-
Late 2022: Reached $450–$470 per ton due to pandemic recovery, supply disruptions, and the war in Ukraine
-
2025: Prices hover between $110 and $130, still above historical averages but well below the 2022 spike
Such swings highlight the financial risks of betting on coal. Industries reliant on consistent energy prices may find coal’s unpredictability less appealing than natural gas or oil.
________________________________________
“Technical and Environmental Pitfalls of Coal Power…
Beyond price volatility, coal power faces inherent technical hurdles:
-
Fuel Variability: Different ranks of coal (lignite, bituminous, anthracite) have varying moisture and carbon contents, complicating boiler designs and power plant efficiency.
-
Moisture and Efficiency: High-moisture coal, like lignite, leads to lower thermal efficiency and higher emissions. Some plants install fuel dryers, which increase capital and operational costs.
-
Ash Content and Slagging: Mineral impurities in coal can form ash that clogs or corrodes equipment. Storage of coal ash—laden with arsenic, mercury, and lead—carries severe environmental risks if containment fails.
“These operational problems aren’t trivial,” says a veteran coal plant engineer. “Slagging in the furnace or an ash spill can force prolonged shutdowns and require massive cleanup. That’s not what you want when AI data centers are demanding round-the-clock uptime. ”
________________________________________
“Can Subsidies Reverse Coal’s Decline?
Despite Trump’s sweeping executive order, market realities cast doubt on coal’s comeback. Coal jobs dwindled from hundreds of thousands in the 1970s to around 42,600 by late 2024, a fraction of the solar and other renewables workforce. Automation, cheap shale gas, and plummeting wind and solar costs have overshadowed coal. Many U.S. utilities plan to retire coal plants due to age, regulatory risk, and rising maintenance expenses.
The White House insists that failing to shore up coal could stall AI growth, leading to lost “technological supremacy.” Some officials warn of brownouts in AI-heavy corridors, like Northern Virginia’s data center hub. Yet analysts argue that subsidizing coal undermines private investment in newer solutions—advanced nuclear power, grid-scale batteries, and other zero-carbon technologies that could handle AI’s surging energy appetite without exacerbating climate change.
________________________________________
AI’s Voracious Appetite, or a Convenient Scapegoat?
Data centers already consume around 1% of global electricity, a figure the International Energy Agency projects could double by 2030. In the U.S., some studies suggest AI-driven cloud computing might account for up to 12% of national power use by 2028. This challenge, often cited in Trump’s order, is real. However, major tech firms—Google, Microsoft, and Amazon—have invested years in renewables to meet sustainability pledges. They may resist being corralled into coal dependency, especially with shareholders and consumers demanding greener operations.
Nevertheless, rising AI energy demand has slowed tech companies’ progress toward carbon neutrality. Microsoft, for example, saw a 30% jump in emissions in 2022 tied to AI expansion. Google aims to run on 24/7 carbon-free power by 2030 but acknowledges the difficulty as server loads surge. Coal advocates see an opening, claiming that if data centers need “always-on” power, coal plants could fill the gap—unless states or corporations push back using stricter climate mandates.
________________________________________
“Global Reverberations…
On the international stage, a U.S. coal revival could embolden other nations to prolong or expand their coal usage. Climate analysts worry this could disrupt fragile global cooperation at a pivotal moment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contends that unabated coal power must be nearly eliminated by 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. President Trump’s executive order suggests the opposite, threatening to sabotage American commitments and hamper diplomatic efforts to steer major emitters like China and India away from coal.
Others predict a backlash: the European Union’s carbon border tariffs, for instance, could penalize imports made with carbon-intensive electricity, potentially hurting American exporters. Meanwhile, states like California, New York, and Washington may fight the federal policy in court, defending their clean energy mandates. Litigation seems inevitable: environmental groups will challenge federal agencies for fast-tracking permits and bypassing thorough reviews.
________________________________________
“Conclusion: A Return to the “Darkness” of Coal?
Coal’s history is written in soot and, as many historians emphasize, in blood— from child labourers in 19th-century mines to exploited colonized workers who received few of the benefits of industrial progress. President Trump’s latest push revives the fuel in the name of AI dominance, casting a spotlight on a tension that has shaped the 21st century: the pursuit of technological and economic power versus the imperative to safeguard the planet and its people.
As coal once again takes center stage, the question remains: will the United States heed lessons from its past—and China’s hazy smog—to forge a sustainable path for AI and energy? Or will America double down on a relic that continues to haunt communities, upend climate goals, and disrupt markets? Ultimately, no executive order—no matter how forceful—can ignore the relentless march of technological change, shifting economics, and a warming world that demands cleaner energy sources. Coal’s shadow is long, but for now, it has found another chance in the corridors of power.
References and Sources
-
Executive Order Text (April 2025) – White House archive -
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Ongoing regulatory revisions, 2025 -
National Energy Dominance Council – Public statements and policy briefs, 2025 -
International Energy Agency (IEA), Data Center Electricity Consumption Report, 2024 -
Microsoft Sustainability Report, 2022 -
Energy Expert Panel (2018), “Grid Reliability & the Coal Plant Debate” – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hearing -
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Annual Coal Employment Data -
Solar Foundation’s National Solar Jobs Census -
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C -
CoalAction.org.uk – Historical data on mine closures and neo-colonial trade in coal
Note: This reflexions integrates historical, political, and technical analyses from publicly available sources, including government statements, environmental agency reports, energy market data, and expert interviews. The most important fact is that all data has been double-checked.