> but if we cherry pick one single metric, sure... First off, I'd say total emissions by electricity generation is a great single metric to look at. Second, t

> but if we cherry pick one single metric, sure... First off, I'd say total emissions by electricity generation is a great single metric to look at. Second, those studies you didn't even reference were most likely FUD. I've worked on companies who organized those through call centers to spread the misinformation about fracking. But instead of coming up with useless analogies about cocaine and falling back on studies you didn't even reference, please respond to each of my points instead of talking past me. Maybe start with the fact that there are no replacements ready for coal other than nat. gas. I'm all for building up nuclear energy and even battery banks. But currently nothing is available other than nat. gas to take the load that coal has produced. Soo... the best way to reduce emissions is to use nat. gas until a solution is built up and ready. (cough, nuclear, cough) Renewables will most likely never be able to handle the peak load, you need a baseline source, that's either fossil fuels or nuclear energy thanks to their densities. ---- edit ---- @lm28469: You're still not addressing any of my points. Dropping a study and calling it a day is not a conversation. At least pick out a point to defend from it... But here's the cool thing. We don't need to read through your biased studies! We know nat. gas is cleaner than coal and we can see it from reduction of emissions as we transition off of coal to nat. gas. If you want to displace nat. gas as well, support nuclear as the new baseline standard! Or come up with better battery tech! Until then, it's not ready and we need energy so we don't die... so nat. gas it is. Or coal worst case.