Coal's Dirty Comeback

This edition is available to all (except the paid exclusives). Support my work and upgrade to paid here for as little as $5 a month.

LISTENING: to lily allen's incredible new album
FEELING: so tired from an already busy week
SEEING: my sleepy cat on the couch

I just got home from talking to a group of journalism students about mental health and weaving your emotions into your journalism. I love talking to early-career folks about taking care of ourselves — and I also love learning from them.

One student, Sid, approached me at the end of class and shared that he recently read that coal use was on the rise. I hadn't seen this news, but I immediately looked it up when I came home.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that, for the first time in two years, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are up.

And coal is to blame.

Welcome to Possibilities, a creative climate newsletter on the possibilities that lie where crisis meets community. I’m Yessenia Funes, and we're getting newsy today.

Preliminary data from research firm Rhodium Group suggests planet-polluting emissions were up 2.4 percent in 2025. Fossil fuels played a big part, which is alarming because scientists have been clear that countries need to shift away from oil, gas, and coal to prevent further planetary warming.

Unfortunately, President Donald Trump isn't interested in science.

Coal is a particularly dirty source of energy. It's dirty to extract, mine, transport, and refine. It's dirty to burn for energy. It's real nasty stuff.

I've written lots about coal's toxic byproducts that can contaminate local water sources and air. I've written about the coal miners who die from black lung, a respiratory disease associated with breathing in the dust from coal sites. Despite these risks, coal electricity generation increased 13 percent in 2025.

This comes after a Trump White House executive order in April pushing for local coal production. There, the administration describes coal as "cost effective." The federal government is committing to its lies; it's now ignoring the cost of illnesses, health disparities, and death in air pollution regulations. And all to lower the costs for polluters.

As Emily Atkin wrote for her newsletter, HEATED:

Did you know? Air pollution regulations actually do more harm than good if you ignore all the lives they save.

That sentence sounds deranged because it is. But it’s also the honest-to-God logic behind the Trump administration’s new approach to regulating air pollution, which kills more Americans every year than car accidents.

Pollution affects so many parts of our bodies. Depending on what people are exposed to, they can suffer respiratory issues, heart problems, neurological impacts, and cancer. Regulations should consider these costs. These health burdens are ultimately passed onto taxpayers. Plus, keeping people healthy costs less than treating them after they're sick.

For a second, though, let's ignore the money. Fuck the economic benefits. Governments are supposed to protect their constituents from disease and exploitation. We pay the salaries of elected officials and vote them into office to keep us safe. That is their one job: to serve us.

Axios reports that some environmental groups are preparing a lawsuit against the Trump administration's latest move. I can't imagine the families who live next door to polluters will be silent, either. I'll have to find out soon. 🌀

MISSED MY POSSIBILITIES '25 PLAYLIST? HERE IT IS. SAVE IT :)

The newsletter ends here for free subscribers. Why not upgrade?