Multimedia: The Kansas coal controversy, MTV style
April 24, 2008
To my everlasting joy, someone just sent me a link to a video of an artist’s interpretation of the Kansas coal controversy.
To my everlasting aggravation, I can’t find it on YouTube so I can embed it into the blog!!
So instead please click this link to get there. Please don’t miss it. The drawing of the little sunflowers. the drawing of the governor… don’t miss this video.
For a lighter note :)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
The Kansas coal controversy took a new twist today. Senate President Steve Morris and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld have established an April 30 deadline for Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to respond to a compromise proposed by rural electric cooperatives Sunflower Electric and Midwest Energy (TCJournal).
The terms of the proposed compromise:
- The plant would reduce its size from 1,400 megawatts (MW) to 1,200 MW. By CEP’s calculations, that would only drop the carbon dioxide emissions from eleven million tons per year to around 9.5 million. From what we can ascertain, the plant complex would still be the largest currently proposed in the United States.
- The utilities would also accelerate their timeline for developing renewable energy. Provisions in the news story were not specific as to how, and to what penalties there would be for non-compliance, if any.
- Sunflower would join the Climate Registry, a third party that tracks greenhouse gas emissions. If federal carbon regulation is implemented under the next presidential administration, this reporting would have to happen anyway.
- The powers of the KDHE Secretary would still be severely curtailed.
The provisions of the compromise, however, aren’t the most interesting part. What’s interesting is the process – especially the Senate President and House Speaker’s roles in trying to force the Governor to agree to it. Basically, these are elected officials using the legislative process to negotiate business deals on behalf of special interests.
This precedent should disturb all Kansans, regardless of their position on the coal plants.
Remember – there are already two Holcomb bills in play during the wrap-up session (which uncoincidentally also begins on April 30), waiting on attempts at veto overrides. The legislature cut corners on the democratic process when it came to these bills, rushing them through committee and chamber votes, only to have to sit and wait for lobbyists and Sunflower supporters to work on getting enough votes for override attempts that never came (for more information, please see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy).
However, the manner of this compromise makes that process look more democratic. Not to sound politically naive, but however flawed, isn’t the legislative process supposed to ensure that bills stand or fall on their merits? Our elected representatives voted on the language of those bills. They won’t have a lot of opportunity – if any – for input on the compromise.
Which returns us full circle, to the basic issue in this chapter of the Kansas coal controversy. Why are legislators even involved in this mess? Especially when their involvement short-cuts the judicial process of administrative review of the denied air permit.
Process is important. There are plenty of utilities in Kansas, they all have their concerns, they all have to respect the process for addressing them. The same with voters – citizens who support any cause have to respect the democratic process as well.
To do otherwise is to change the rules of the game.
EDIT: For audio of Sebelius’s courteous response to the proposal – she’s going to take some time to look at it – check the LJWorld.
— Maril Hazlett and Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
Pope Benedict traveled to the U.S. last week for his first official visit. He spoke at the United Nations (New York Times) (the text of his address is available at that link).
His comments ranged widely. In essence he argued that human rights – guarantees of justice and equality – are essential to the common good, and that both politics and religion offer ways to secure these rights for all peoples.
His words also contained points of interest for conversations on climate and energy. For example, the Pope called attention to a general problem in international politics – that consensus “continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a small number, while the world’s problems require from the international community that it act on a common basis.” He continued:
Indeed, questions of security, the development goals, the reduction of inequalities, both locally and globally, the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require that all international leaders act together and show a readiness to work in good faith, in respect of the rule of law, to promote solidarity in the most fragile regions of the planet.
These remarks take place against the background of international conflict over a proposed treaty that would establish targets for greenhouse gas reductions. The United States has been one of a small yet powerful number of nations who have resisted such targets. One of the Bush’s administration’s concerns has been the economic costs of carbon regulation.
The Pope’s remarks offered another general perspective on how regulations impact the common good. Rather than economic costs, he is worried more about the human costs of not acting, on whatever the issue may be.
These regulations do not limit freedom. On the contrary, they promote it when they prohibit behavior and actions which work against the common good, curb its effective exercise and hence compromise the dignity of every human being.
In the name of liberty, there has to be a correlation between rights and responsibilities, on the basis of which every individual is called to shoulder responsibility for his or her choices, while taking into account relations with other people.
Previously, few of us have probably thought of our society’s development of science and technology as something for which we bear individual responsibility, let alone about how it impacts our relations with other people.
But as the Pope pointed out – if these developments compromise creation, then they definitely affect spiritual and community life as well:
Here our thoughts turn also to the way the results of scientific research and technological advances have sometimes been used. While recognizing the immense benefits that humanity can draw from them, some of the uses constitute a clear violation of the order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of their natural identity.
Likewise, international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation.
This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives.
The Pope’s words raise the question: When it comes to climate and energy issues, can the larger community of nations achieve this vision?
If so, then to some extent they will have to transcend the limited confines of the current debate. Protecting sovereignty is one thing. Acting nationalistically against the common good of the international community is another.
The Pope phrased this broader tension a bit differently.
The action of the international community and of its institutions… should never be interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty.
On the contrary, it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Whoops, climate change will be more expensive than previously thought – and climate and energy in Missouri
April 24, 2008
Influential economic forecast of climate change underestimated the financial risks. Former World Bank economist and climate change expert Nicholas Stern stated that his 2006 report on the financial risks of climate change didn’t capture the full depth of the problem (Reuters). He had based his calculations on the IPCC reports, which have proven to be too conservative in certain respects. Quotable:
“Emissions are growing much faster than we’d thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we’d thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates, and the speed of climate change seems to be faster,” he told Reuters at a conference in London…. Stern said that to minimise the risks of dangerous climate change global greenhouse gas emissions should halve by mid-century. He said the United States should cut its emissions by up to 90 percent by then.
Climate and energy in Missouri. Two big pieces of news today. First, the proposed coal-fired power plant for Carroll County, MO, has officially been canceled (LJWorld). The 780 megawatt (MW) plant had already been approved, but its construction was delayed a few months ago. The utility, Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. of Springfield, stated the reasons for cancellation as increased construction costs and regulatory uncertainty.
Note to KS legislators: This utility meant regulatory uncertainty over CO2 regulation on the federal level. There’s not much states can do to resolve that until the EPA comes up with its rules on CO2. That probably will not happen until the next presidential administration.
Second important climate and energy development in Missouri – KCPL has come out in support of Renew Missouri, the petition drive to place a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) on the ballot in November (Business Wire). Quotable:
The ballot initiative — which would require obtaining more than 90,000 voter signatures on a petition by May 4, 2008 — would require that investor-owned electric utilities generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower equaling at least two percent of retail sales by 2011. That requirement would increase incrementally to at least 15 percent by 2021, including at least two percent from solar energy. The initiative also protects utilities and consumers by ensuring that cost of compliance and associated rate impact is limited to 1%.
“Our endorsement of the renewable energy initiative proposal underscores our continuing commitment to achieving regional sustainability by supporting investments in clean energy sources,” said Michael Chesser, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Great Plains Energy. “A strong renewable energy policy benefits our customers by reducing costs and stimulating the growth of the renewable energy industry locally. Policies such as this, coupled with tax credits for construction of new renewable electricity generation, benefit consumers as the sources of electricity are diversified and renewable electricity generation costs are low.”
RPS legislation has previously been proposed in Missouri, but it crashed and burned in the legislature. Since then, they have leaned toward milder, voluntary proposals without meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Lessons from Earth Day
April 24, 2008
Cost of CEP’s Earth Fair display board: $64.99
Flyers and photocopies for events: $100
Hearing a fourth-grader school me on the benefits of CFLs: priceless
CEP recently participated in several Earth Day Celebrations- held in high schools, community colleges, parks, and churches in the state. At these events, CEP staff spoke to hundreds of Kansans about climate change in the Midwest, and our two most cost-effective and readily-available tools to reduce our GHG emissions: energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In addition to sharing our fact sheets and energy tips, we also fielded a ton of questions from attendees. Here are a few of the questions we heard most often:
Q: CFLs have mercury in them, right? Where can I take them if they break or burn out?
A: The Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment recently created a fact sheet addressing this very question. Here’s the basics: CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing, roughly enough to cover the tip of a ball point pen (5mg). This mercury is NOT released when the bulb is in use. CFLs for your home are not considered hazardous waste according to state and federal standards. Still, CFLs should not be tossed in the regular garbage if preferred options exist, such as recycling centers or Household Hazardous Waste facilities.
If you live in the KC metropolitan area, check out MARC’s recycling website, or for other locations in KS, check out this Kansas Recycling Centers search.
Both sites allow you to search by county and material you want to recycle.
NOTE: CFLs are fluorescent bulbs, listed under “Household Hazardous Waste.”
Q: Kansas has lots of wind. Why don’t we just use our wind to create electricity?
A: Good question. Very good question. In fact, just last week, we celebrated WIND WEEK on the CEP blog. Some of my favorite resources to share with people interested in wind energy in our state include:
Kansas Wind Energy Resource Map (pdf from the KCC)
CEP Fact Sheets: The Difference Wind Makes (pdf) or Harnessing the Wind (pdf)
Also, the American Wind Energy Association and Windustry have excellent and informative sites.
Q: What’s happening with the proposed coal plant?
A: CEP has been following this issue very closely, and Maril has compiled a great resource- FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
Also, check out some more photos on our Flickr account!
-Eileen Horn, Community Outreach Coordinator and Earth Fair Junkie
