To be clear, climate change is real. We know humanity drives the bulk of it via emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gasses, e.g. methane. Electricity generation plays a significant role in the total output, though not all means of generating power are equal. Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, for example, produce no carbon emissions. Hence their green credentials. Natural gas is moderately bad, oil is bad, but coal is the worst.
So the White House decided to prioritise the rebirth of the coal industry. The New York Times published an article last week exploring the administration’s attempts to strong arm the electricity industry to reopen closed coal plants and delay the closure of aging plants despite the often unprofitable nature of running said plants.
The article included two graphics I wanted to highlight. First, a map showed the location and power output of coal plants slated to close in 2025.

It sites the plants’ locations on the map and scales the dot/circle by the election generation capacity of the plant. Colour encodes the plants’ fates, whether they ultimately shut down, stayed open of the companies’ volition, or were forced open by the government.
I remain leery of area charts, because of the long-established difficulty in comparing areas. Here, however, I think the trade-offs work because their geographic location is an important consideration. Forcing plants to remain open keeps at least some jobs around the local market. And where are the orange dots clustered? Michigan, Indiana, and Colorado to name a few. Where did government pressure force companies to keep their plants open? Florida, Wisconsin, and Colorado to again name a few. What do those states have in common? They all voted for Trump or are otherwise considered battleground states. Consequently, showing where the story happened I think is important in a story about White House economic actions.
Secondly, the article included a bar chart showing coal production.

Bar charts remain a staple of good information design when done correctly. These days I often find poorly designed bar charts in articles and content. The Times’ example here, however, remains the goal. The trend is visually clear. Coal capacity increasingly declined since 2012, but that decline slowed in later years and reached its slowest decline in 15 years in 2025. The annotation of the new coal orders makes the correlation clear. And nowhere in this chart was every bar labelled. Instead, clear axis labelling and axis lines allow the user to read the chart without the extra information of knowing the precise number of megawatt changes in coal capacity.
This piece does a great job of using a map and a bar chart to buttress the story about how the administration is forcing the energy industry to reinvest in coal, even if coal remains a means of generation not generally economically sustainable.
Credit for the pieces goes to Brad Plumer.












