The minister of energy has just announced that Jordan will build its “first ever coal-fuelled power plant” to generate electricity.

The plant, which is slated to be built in Qatraneh, in the south of the country, is part of the government’s plans to diversify energy resources to meet the rising demand for power, said the minister, who also mentioned that coal will help generate 5 per cent of the total energy needs of the country by 2025.

As the coal industry, actually all fossil fuels, has been witnessing a decline globally due to the emergence of economically competitive wind and solar power, one wonders why Jordan would want to resort to coal — that it does not have — to produce a negligible amount of energy at the high cost of pollution that accompanies coal.

The world is heading to environment-friendly sources of energy and coal is considered one of the most pollutant.

Even if responsible for producing only 5 per cent of the country’s needs, and even if the projected plant will minimally harm the environment, the fact that Jordan is opting for coal to produce energy is a regression from international norms on the protection of the environment.

The south of the country is blessed with both sun and wind for very long stretches of time, and both can be excellent sources of energy at no cost to the environment.

Diversifying energy sources is one thing, but including harming elements — knowing that worldwide countries are shying away from coal and closing coal mines in droves everywhere — is another.

Fossil fuel electricity has only been cheaper than the more economically viable environment-friendly options because the fossil fuel power station operators are allowed to dump their waste, carbon dioxide — the main cause of man-made climate change and ocean acidification, and the greatest environmental threat to the world today — into the atmosphere at no cost to themselves.

Environment apart, where would Jordan get the coal from? How will it be transported?

The country has petcoke, but is not known to have huge reserves of coal, so why opt for this source of energy?

In 2014, the International Energy Agency released a report concluding that wind and solar power are cost-effective compared to more conventional power generation methods.

That should be argument enough to reconsider the decision.