Missing, so far, from a debate which has broken out in the US, Europe and Australia, is a more widespread discussion about the overall energy mix – what is best, and who pays.

That final point, the cost of power, is one households are starting to understand as they watch their electricity bills soar under the weight of rising taxes and a determination to either force people to buy power from high-cost renewable projects, or to meet the cost through higher government subsidies of uneconomic renewable projects.

In Australia, the coal debate is coming to a head via a combination of the federal government’s carbon tax and threats of higher state government royalties.

There is no point in The Hog droning on about the carbon tax. We have heard all the arguments and will go to next year’s national election with the carbon tax as a prime topic.

State government royalties have also surfaced for a fresh airing, with the newly-elected Queensland conservative government mulling over an increase in coal royalties.

The coal industry, naturally, is very annoyed that higher royalties in Queensland are being considered as part of an overall budget repair job being overseen by former Treasurer Peter Costello.

Adding strength to the argument against higher state royalties is the falling world price for both thermal and metallurgical coal, which has already led to pit closures and job losses.

In Europe, the coal debate has been sharpened by a growing awareness that the region is verging on bankruptcy after years of excess borrowing, insufficient wealth creation, and a false belief that renewable wind and solar energy systems can provide sufficient power (at an affordable price) to run a modern industrial economy.

Germany, which is mothballing its nuclear fleet, is the centre of the European power debate because rising electricity costs caused by the attempt to force industry and consumers to buy high-priced power is being recognised as a prime cause of economic stagnation.

The US, however, is where coal has hit the mainstream political debate, with the race for the US presidency close to becoming a referendum on coal mining.

Both the President, Barak Obama, and his rival, Mitt Romney, are guilty of emitting mixed messages about coal – trying to both praise it and condemn it at the same time.

The danger for the US coal industry is that after the presidential election, whoever wins will distance himself from any discussion about coal because of the division it is causing.

Points scored so far in the US coal-and-politics debate include: Romney accusing Obama of “declaring war” on coal; Obama saying coal has a place in a total energy mix; Romney claiming the Obama energy plan has resulted in fewer jobs and higher power prices; and Obama authorising a pro-coal advertisement praising efforts to develop “clean coal”

The messages from both candidates about coal is confusing or, as one headline in the US recently said: “Obama and Romney stuck in a coal conundrum”. The point is neither candidate knows how to balance economic and environmental issues.

What the Australian, European and US debate about coal boils down to is a position of not quite knowing how to live with coal, and not quite knowing how to live without it.

For the coal industry what that deadlock means is uncertainty – until an issue emerges which provides a solution, and that issue is likely to be price.

Industry and households – not politicians, who always look for an easy way out of a heated discussion – will be the driving force in deciding the future of coal, because they ultimately pay the power bill.

The price mechanism is already emerging as a big factor in Europe because that region is struggling to survive in the face of global competition.

Price is yet to emerge as a major factor in Australia and the US, but will as consumers become more aware of what it really costs to rely on wind and solar power, either directly or in the form of taxpayer subsidies.

Until the price issue rises to the top of the political discussion, coal will spend some time being kicked around as a political football.