"when temperatures can hit minus 40 degrees in both Fahrenheit and Celsius" It's not as though it can reach -40 on one temperature scale without reaching -40 on the other one! (:-)

I feel for these people who are burning coal as a matter of survival. If there are other affordable energy alternatives for these people, I'd venture speculation that very few, if at all, of them would want to continue burning coal. When it comes to deciding whether you want to freeze (immediate concerns), or protect the environment or reduce air pollution (future worries), which one would you choose?

Coal has been around all of my life, more than seven decades, and I'm still OK. Oh, and coal runs the energy production in most of America and the world.

Is anyone noticing there are no trees in the area to use as an alternative fuel source? Spoiled Americans are so disconnected from the reality of other peoples existence that do not have an avenue to sign up for federal assistance. In defense of burning coal for residential heat, it has far more BTU's per pound than any other naturally gathered resource. When I lived on the Continental Divide in Northern Colorado I would put a chunk on the fire when we retired and in the morning under the ash was still an adequate bed of red-hot coals to stir and warm the room. This type of reporting is sensationalism that feeds the gullibility of American readers. In the mountains of Afghanistan, they burn animal dung. Why? Because it is the only fuel source easily and economically available. Our own native Americans, stuck in their archaic existence, do the same.