news updates
February 14, 2008
Climate change promises to be a big issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign. McCain, Obama, and Clinton are all raring to go on global warming (CSMonitor). Quotable:
All three candidates favor a “cap and trade” system that would issue oil companies, power plants, and other major big polluters permits to emit carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas thought to cause global warming.
The two Democrats have more detailed plans, including energy proposals aimed at big oil companies. But all three favor letting states set their own limits on CO2, which the Bush administration opposes.
What’s more, climate change is seen as a potential big draw for conservative and independent voters.
Economic conservatives see the technological solutions to climate change as a way to create more wealth and jobs, and many corporate leaders have pushed for a federal limit on carbon emissions to prevent a patchwork of state laws. Religious conservatives embrace cutting carbon emissions as an aspect of human stewardship of divine creation. National security conservatives argue that reducing dependence on foreign oil would cut off funding for anti-U.S. elements in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Some of our readers might recall that in the past I have linked to Climate Progress. Fellow Kansan Kari Manlove works on that blog, which is run by climate policy expert Joe Romm. I was sitting in the Kansas Senate chamber today when I read this entry that Kari wrote – Kansas One Sad Step Closer to New Coal.
Unfortunately, in her post she pretty much nailed it. Basically, the Kansas Senate voted to ignore the scientific findings regarding the risks of global warming.
There has been a lot of concern over how KDHE Secretary Bremby made Kansas the first state in the nation to deny an air permit for a coal-fired power plant due to concerns about climate change. However, the Kansas Senate made us the first state that has specifically voted to ignore the risks of climate change when developing energy policy.
The debate on the Senate floor on last night made it abundantly clear that in the senators’ minds, that was what their vote was all about – was climate change a real risk, or was it not. Those who spoke in favor of the bill sent a very clear message that they thought it was not. And even if it was, then Kansas didn’t have a lot to do with the problem, and should build the power plants regardless.
While not unexpected, that wasn’t an especially great debate to sit through. I believe in making the record accessible, but at times that belief comes into severe conflict with my pride as a Kansan.
However, what made it even harder was Kari. I want young Kansans to think of their state fondly. Sure they can leave and travel and adventure for a while if they want to (I did). But I also want this to be a place full of opportunity and growth, where our young people dream of returning and making a contribution.
Kari is a very sharp young woman interested in climate issues, energy policy, and renewables. She has an enormous amount to offer her home state.
As I read her entry, it was clear that in many respects, Kansas has yet to meet her halfway.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from the Senate – final vote on H.B. 2066
February 14, 2008
Happy Valentine’s Day.
The final vote on substituted House Bill 2066 (for original Senate bill 515) is today. You can also listen online at http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/listen.do.
As I listen to people talk, the issue today seems to be not really whether the bill will pass – it seems to be expected to – but whether it will be passed by a veto-proof margin, which is 27 Senators.
Coming up next week, the House will work its own very different version of the Holcomb/ energy bill on Monday or Tuesday.
2:37 p.m.
President calls the Senate to order. Roll is called. Chaplain prays. Pledge of Allegiance takes place.
Sen. Pine (Douglas County) introduces his pages, mentions one from Eudora. One of his pages, Hannah Cobb? Copt? was the model for the Eudora centennial statue that went up last year – the sculptor was Jim Brothers.
Sen Barnett from Lyons – welcomes his special guests, nursing students from Emporia
Introduction of bills and current resolutions takes place. (MH is going to leave these bill numbers out, okay… as well as a lot of the other miscellanea.)
Motions to concur or non-concur entertained.
Vote on 2066 -
roll call. Some speak out and explain their votes.
Barnett votes aye, explains. Recognizes trade off in energy policy. ststes there is need for cnservation and clean energy. Now is the time to drive debate for a comprehensive state energy policy that does not rely on foregin countries, a previous policy that has resulted in countries that hate our nation. To further debate and discussion of these issues, I vote aye.
Francisco – she votes no on 2066. A great deal of energy has been expended on this legislation without a compormise. This bill allows any number of new coal plants to be built. This bill did not encourage or require mitigations. The CO2 restrictions failed in face of economic development worries. The bill also limits KDhe Sec ability to protect citizens against global warming, but does not take steps to protect them thru legislature. It promotes electrical deregulation. It leaves us with signfiicant carbon footprint, but without way for reduction.
Another no – missed who it was.
Huelskamp votes aye, explains – this is the first step forward down path of energy innovation, energy security, regulatory certainty for entire state and nation
Johnson – voted ??? aye – this is a big issue, big bill, this is forward looking bill. Innovative bioenergy development, lots of economic development, lower energy costs. This helps us on first step forward toward cmprehensive energy policy for Kansas.
Journey – aye. Joins Johnson’s remarks.
Kelly – no, joins Francisco in her remarks.
Lee – aye and joins Johnson.
McGinn – pass
Morris – this bil is first step toward securing Kansas energy security. Holcomb will be one of cleanest burning coal plants in the world. Wind power also viable, so we need transmission lines. Holcomb will help with that. Future of energy industry also requires conservation and other renewables, plus coal. This will also bring back regulatory certainty in Kansas.
Oskemyer – aye – Kansas is sunflower state, and if this passes we will be a lot brighter tomorrow
(BTW, MH is not counting all votes – just the ones where senators explain their vote)
Scholdorf? – no – We have some of the cleanest air in the country, and we must keep it so. We have rushed this legislation thru the senate and we are doing things in the wrong sequence. Senate shoudl develop comprehensive plan for Kansas, and then develop policy accordingly. We are getting ahead of ourselves by prmitting coal plant.
Steineger – no – Humans need coal. But as environmntalist, I have to find cleaner coal methods. I support more efficient use of coal. This bill does not challenge or incent us to do that.
Wysong – no
Getz? from Sedgwick – no – Kansas energy policy neds to be balanced consistent and fair – fair to the people regarding health and environent, and fair to business. This bill does nto do that. I would be more comfortable with aletnerative energy – geothermal, solar, hydro – if we are to honor Kansas Health Foundation peldge to make Kansas best lace to raise child, we ust make Kansas a better place.
McGinn – also Sedgewick – in turmoil over vote – last fall Kansas had started discussion on energy future and independence, looked at renewableenergy. I hope this debate continues. I think there shodl be other ting sin this bill. Lots of education needs to happen – not just of this body or the other chamber – but in understanding energy afforability, efficiency, renewables,and that need to go to the populatio. But becuase of regulatory uncertainty I vote yes on the bill. Better for business. We want to do what is right for environment but we also want to play by the rules so we need regulatory certainty. I hope the energy discussion doesn’t end with this session.
Senator Kelly, from Goodwin – aye
Sen Bradley – aye on 2066 – o those concerned about environment, this bill is a commentary on how green Kansas is or is not. Some are worried about economic development. Some want reliable energy. I voted on economic development and growth. Holcomb provides the growth. We need to set aside the politics and move forward.
Sen… heck. missed it. but it is an aye
Vote tally – ayes – 33. Noes – 7. HB 2066 passes.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
news updates, highjacking, and the wisdom of Alan Jackson
February 14, 2008
From allamericanpatriots.com, hunters and fishermen move to the front line of the fight against global warming. (Yes, those crazy, radical hunters.) One of the policy options they are calling for is a cap-and-trade system. Quotable, from Larry Schweiger, President & CEO, National Wildlife Federation.
“It has been impossible to ignore the changes happening before our eyes – you don’t need to be a scientist to feel that something is seriously wrong. As a grandfather who looks forward to a time when I can fish with my grandson, I strongly believe we must work together to preserve America’s sporting traditions for our children’s future.”
“This is not a matter of liberal versus conservative,” said Simon Roosevelt, sportsman and great-great grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. “And it’s not about being red or blue—or even green. It’s a matter of common sense. It’s about the future.”
Also, from the Wall Street Journal Environmental Capital blog (I know. I get my information from such wacky, out there sources) – another large bank is reconsidering financing for coal plants. Bank of America has started considering “the cost of carbon-dioxide emissions into its decisions about whether to underwrite debt for new coal-fired plants. Specifically, the bank says it anticipates a federal cap that would require a utility to pay between $20 and $40 for every ton of CO2 its power plants emit. Today in Europe, which already has imposed caps, a permit to emit a ton of CO2 is trading at about $29.”
Highjacking. What do I mean by that – I mean how I feel when I sit down to write this blog every morning, and find myself facing yet another giant digital dogpile of articles on coal. Many of them on Kansas and coal. It’s a little bit of how I feel when I wander into yet another room at the Capitol complex in Topeka and listen to yet another blessed coal debate.
Eyewitness to global warming
February 14, 2008
“Ice shelves make for easy travel,” Will Steger, polar explorer, explained to audiences in Hutchinson and Overland Park, KS on Monday and Tuesday nights. I guess, if you’re a polar explorer, the “uncomfortable” wind chills of -80 degrees are outweighed by the flat, easy-to-travel terrain. Right…
In the mid-1980s, polar explorer Will Steger crossed the Larsen B ice shelf with a team of 5 explorers/researchers and their dogsled teams.
In 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated due to rising global temperatures.
This experience and other evidence of global warming convinced Steger to tour his home in the Midwest, speaking with audiences about the effects of global warming in the polar regions.
In two days, Steger and J. Drake Hamilton, Science Policy Director of Fresh Energy, met with over 1,000 Kansans. They presented to high school students, public audiences, and KS Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and also received coverage from the Hutch News and the Wichita Eagle.
Their main message: Global warming is affecting both the Arctic and Antarctica, which could have catastrophic effects on global sea levels. Global warming is already affecting the Midwest, which is experiencing more extreme weather events and rising temperatures. To combat the global warming trend, scientists say the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emission by at least 80 percent by 2050. A significant reduction needs to occur within the next 10 years to turn the trend around.
The good news? Many of the solutions to global warming can be found right here in our backyards. Along with personal actions to reduce our carbon footprints, state and federal policies can be crafted which reduce greenhouse gases such as CO2 AND contribute to economic development in the Midwest. With abundant wind energy, KS is uniquely poised to lead the charge in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while growing our state’s economy.
As J. commented about our energy future:
“We decide how clean it will be, whether it will benefit rural economies, whether it will keep more of our energy dollars in the United States. We need to start weighing in about what the future looks like.”
-Eileen Horn
