1. Coal is more readily replaced as an energy source than oil. If people would embrace nuclear power, all of the coal plants could be shut down in 20 years.
2. With the Keystone XL controversy and the image problem that the Alberta oil sands is having, the oil companies need to present a green face to the public. People will be more willing to accept Keystone XL and oil sands oil if the oil companies have an image of caring for the environment.
I believe it was first a coal executive who was the first to speak out in favor of CO2 in the 50s He said that not only was CO2 good for plants, it is good for people too. They still think this is the truth
Coal is worse than oil on a CO2 per BTU basis, so AGW favors oil on a relative basis to coal.
For my car, I can give up coal easier than oil, so the oil companies are in a safer postion than coal companies.
You can't put coal in your car gas tank.
You don't HAVE to burn coal to make electricity.
(Well, I suppose that the Stanley Steamer could burn coal. But I haven't seen one lately.)
As Alph said, in the best, most concise answer, "They have the most to lose."
They have the most to lose
