by Eileen Horn
“I feel like I should send Sunflower one of those big ‘Thank You’ cookies,” said Rep. Nile Dillmore of Wichita KS. “This issue has generated more phone calls, letters and grassroots passion than any other in recent memory.” According to Dillmore, the numerous contacts he has received on the Holcomb power plant issue have really helped him stay in touch with his constituents.
Staying in touch with constituents was exactly the point of last night’s Community Energy Forum held at Wichita State University. The event, co-sponsored by the Climate and Energy Project, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club Southwind Chapter, and the WSU Elliot School of Communication, brought together legislators and constituents to have a balanced discussion on state energy policy. Panelists included Rep. Nile Dillmore, Rep. Dale Swensen, Rep. Jim Ward, and Rep. Josh Svaty.
Now, if you’ve been paying attention (or are as obsessed as we are at CEP), you’ll note that the four panelists all voted NO on SB 327 and SB 148, the bills to permit Sunflower to build 1400 MW in Holcomb.
As Pat Dooley, co- President of the League of Women Voters- Wichita Metro pointed out at the beginning of the forum, “The league of women voters wanted very much to have a balanced panel, and to have both pro and anti-Holcomb viewpoints represented. We invited many of the pro-Holcomb legislators, but they all denied the invitation.” The Wichita Eagle, which covered the event, noted this as well.
Despite the apparent lack of diversity on the panel, there was still plenty to discuss! In their introductory remarks, the legislators explained their reasons for voting against the proposed Holcomb plants:
For Rep. Svaty, the risks to ratepayers far outweigh the potential benefits of the plant, especially in light of the skyrocketing costs of new coal plant construction, and pending carbon legislation at the federal level. For Rep. Jim Ward, the CO2 emissions, water usage, and the fact that Colorado will get the energy while we get the pollution were central reasons for his NO vote. Nile Dillmore acknowledged that while KS will eventually need to build another coal plant for baseload, in his opinion this plant is not the one. Dillmore noted that we have time to consider a comprehensive energy plan for KS, one that includes renewables. And finally, Rep. Swensen cited several examples of China’s booming economy as evidence of a looming worldwide energy crisis that we should begin to prepare for. Swensen stated that government should “prime the pump” to allow consumers and industry to take advantage of new renewable energy technologies.
While they all had varying reasons for their opposition to the Holcomb legislation, the legislators all nodded approval when Rep. Ward noted that he was disappointed that this session didn’t provide the opportunity for a real energy debate about KS future. Instead, coal became the centerpiece of this session, and became politically polarizing and divisive. As Rep. Dillmore noted, the “900 lb. lump of coal was always in the room.”
The floor was then opened for a Q & A session. The questions from the 50 attendees ranged from the possibilities of net metering legislation, the impact of Holcomb on water supplies, mercury emissions from coal plants, the possibility of building another nuclear plant, and the potential “green jobs” that Wichita might be poised to deliver (with their expertise in building turbines of all sizes and shapes).
As I listened to the forum, I was immediately struck by a) how civil and respectful attendees were in asking their questions, and b) how candidly the legislators answered. This led to an open discussion, as legislators felt comfortable to express their opinions in this crowd, and the crowd seemed satisfied with their responses.
On my drive home from the forum though, I was struck by what may have been the most important outcome of the event: the attendees created a discussion about Kansas’ energy future that bypassed the 900 lb. lump of coal in the room! Through their questions about future policy on net metering, the possibility of nuclear plants, and the new “green” economy, Kansans clearly were ready to move past coal and onto a more diverse and exciting energy future.
In fact, it almost seemed like the forum attendees created just what Rep. Ward pointed out that the legislators had been unable to do: have an open debate about Kansas’ energy future.
- Eileen Horn
Here’s the press release from the Governor’s office (which should be available soon on the Governor’s website):
Governor vetoes bill with same elements of the last; remains committed to seeking common sense compromise
Veto message for House Substitute for Senate Bill 148 from Governor Kathleen Sebelius:
“Legislators who promote the expansion of coal-fired plants in Kansas made a strategic decision with SB 148. Rather than working toward a compromise solution or having any conversation about energy policy, this bill was drafted behind closed doors. It contains the same onerous elements of the previous bill that I vetoed; and again, these are elements I cannot accept and will not support.
“I am still hopeful we can have meaningful discussions about a true compromise; rather than being sent the same bill in disguise yet again.
“This maneuver has done nothing to address the issues at hand – developing comprehensive energy policy, providing base-load energy power for Western Kansas, implementing carbon mitigation strategies and capitalizing on our incredible assets for additional wind power. Furthermore, putting the regulatory permitting process into the hands of a Legislature whose membership changes every two years would set a dangerous precedent and result in real regulatory uncertainty.
“President Bush has announced a new goal for stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and recognized that the power sector must make significant efforts to achieve that goal. Since the most likely way to achieve this goal is through a cap and trade system, which would, in effect, tax carbon, it would be unfair to Kansans, for our utilities to build coal fired plants for other states until we can evaluate the costs of those plants for Kansas tax payers and rate payers.
“We must remember the decisions we make today have a huge impact on Kansans for generations to come. The challenges before us can and should be met through a common sense solution.
“Pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto House Substitute for Senate Bill 148.”
With this action, Sebelius has signed 91 bills this legislative session and vetoed two.
CEP: What does this all mean?
Now there are two major bills currently before the legislature, SB 327 and SB 148. Both have now been vetoed by Governor Sebelius. The veto on SB 327 has been overridden by the Senate, and now awaits an attempted override by the House. SB 148 will now go back to the legislature where override votes will be considered in both the Senate and the House.
The legislature is currently on break and returns on April 30th for the veto session.
Check back for more legislative updates as the situation unfolds! Also, if you need to know more, check out CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
— Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
Water, a shared and finite resource. Water is finally gaining more attention in energy debates. Right now we think a lot about carbon dioxide as a major driver in our energy decisions. However, in 10-20 years we could well be having the same discussion about water.
Some statistics and points that might get your attention.
- Water and power. Energy generation, both electrical and biofuels, has an enormous impact on our water resources, in terms of both quantity and quality. The electric power industry uses 136 billion gallons of freshwater each day. Power plants account for 39% of the total water withdrawn from lakes, rivers, and reservoirs each year. Most of this water is returned to source after use, so power plants only account for 3% of water consumed in the U.S. (DOE’s 2006 report on water and energy).
- Everyone needs it. When it comes to determining the value of a water resource, you have to keep in mind that there are lots of competing uses. Farmers, ranchers, municipal utilities, rural water districts, consumers, industries – they all use water.
- Climate change. Water – especially potable water - is also a resource of increasing scarcity, so it will become more valuable over time. Not only are we using water at record rates, but with climate change, water could become even more scarce. Warmer air temperatures could lead to extreme weather – long dry periods that alternate with intense precipitation, that will run off more quickly – as well as increased evapotranspiration (more water in the air). (IPCC 4th Asessment report for policymakers)
- Limited resource. According to the USGS, current measurements of the Ogallala Aquifer show that in some places it has drawn down 100-150 feet since the 1930s. Some of it recharges, but on a geological scale of miniscule amounts per year.
- Future energy needs for water could greatly intensify. For example, ethanol manufacture (corn and cellulosic both) has enormous water needs. Likewise, many carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies - which are currently under development for cleaner burning of coal - are extremely water-dependent. (NETL’s carbon sequestration section)
On the last point, ethanol supporters have been put a tad on the defensive lately. The Domestic Fuel blog reported the following:
- 3 to 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol is used in the ethanol production process, most of it in “non-contact” processes such as the cooling of equipment.
- Some say gasoline production takes 2-3 gallons. Others think the number is closer to 7-8 gallons.
- 12-14% of corn acreage is irrigated as a supplement to natural rainfall. (No note on where that irrigation is located - I would bet a good chunk of that number comes from the Ogallala, though.)
There’s also some interesting stats about water use in general - but quote them with care, I think they date back to 1995. I found this version on the USGS website, which I think they ganked from the EPA. However, I also doubt these numbers have decreased much:
How much water does it take to process a quarter pound of hamburger? Approximately one gallon.
How much water does it take to make four new tires? 2,072 gallons
What is the total amount of water used to manufacture a new car, including new tires? 39,090 gallons per car
How much water does an acre of corn give off per day in evaporation? 4,000 gallons
How much of an ear of corn is water? 80%
How much water does it take to process one chicken? 11.6 gallons
How much water does it take to process one can of fruit or vegetables? 9.3 gallons
How much water does it take to process one barrel of beer? 1,500 gallons
How much water does it take to make one board foot of lumber? 5.4 gallons
How much water does it take to make one pound of plastic ? 24 gallons
How much water does it take to make one pound of wool or cotton? 101 gallons
How much water does it take to refine one barrel of crude oil? 1,851 gallons
How much does it take to produce one ton of steel? 62,600 gallons
How much water does it take to process one ton of cane sugar to make processed sugar? 28,100 gallons
How much water does it take to process one ton of beet sugar to make processed sugar? 33,100 gallons
How much water is used to flush a toilet? 1.5-7 gallons
How much water is used in the average five-minute shower? 25-50 gallons
How much water is used to brush your teeth? 2 gallons
How much water does the average residence use during a year? 107,000 gallons
How much water does an individual use daily? 50 gallons
How much of the earth’s surface is water? 80%
Of all the earth’s water, how much is ocean or seas? 97%
How much of the world’s water is frozen and therefore unusable? 2%
How much of the earth’s water is suitable for drinking water? 1%
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee
March 10, 2008
Morning! More nuclear. This time from the House Energy Committee. Today we are listening to a briefing by Dr. Kenneth Shultis from K-State’s Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. Home-grown.
Members of the committee include: Representatives Johnson, Flora, Mast, Sloan, Long, Moxley, Faust-Goudeau, Swanson, Proehl, Keuther (Ranking Minority), Holmes (Chair), Olson (Vice Chair), Svaty, McLachlan, Fund, Knox, Hawk, Light, Neighbor, Morrison, and Myers.
Nuclear! This is all so interesting. I’m starting to seriously think about doing some interviews on the topic. Heck, obviously there is rising interest. CEP is supposed to take notice of that stuff.
We await the committee.
We still await the committee. Lots of idle chat. Most of it revolves around - WHEN will the Governor veto the energy bill? No shortage of theories. I have received a request to live blog that moment 
gotta say, I don’t see that happening. But it would be an interesting moment to record as CEP presses ever onward in our ceaseless quest for an open and accessible democratic process, in particular as regards climate and energy issues! (cue Eye of the Tiger music)
Getting a lot closer to a quorum.
Gavel. Meeting called to order. Holmes introduces Dr. Shultis.
Shultis testimony
Lots of electric demand, big challenge for society, and not a lot of baseload has been constructed lately. Insatiable demand of society will take a mix of solutions, including energy efficiency, wind, solar, and probably nuclear. All of these energies have advantages and disadvantages. Just going to present some facts.
In US - 104 nuclear power plants in 34 states that provide 20% of nation;s energy. For baseload power, your options are pretty much nuclear and fossil fuels. Wind and solar somewhat weather dependent. Nuclear a lot, lot safer than it used to be, less moving parts, and thus less expensive to build.
New nuke apps rising. lots of requests in pipeline. Many in planning stage. US nuclear power has 40 year record of safety. Nuke plants are very expensive to build, but cheap to operate, opposite of fossil fuel plants. Also has high capacity factor, 90%. Coal was 71%.
CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future
February 20, 2008
Hello all. Colder than the devil out there. My poor husband earlier texted me a very pithy comment about how much fun he was having (not) while running a ropes training course out in the elements for a bunch of recruits.
So I am sure we are all happy to be warm and snug inside here, about ready to kick off another meeting of the HSCEEF. Today Liz Brosius of the Kansas Energy Council (KEC) and Larry Holloway of KCC.
Vice-Chair Olsen calls meeting to order. Quorum: Reps. Light, Light, Proehl, Whitham, Olsen.
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.
check this out! Some new info on Atty. Bill Wehrum, who testified in favor of HB 2711
February 6, 2008
Very interesting stuff - the Climate Progress blog has followed up on one of the proponents of HB 2711, and has learned some details about his background.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to learn more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www. climateandenergy.org.
Not just legislators are talking about energy
February 1, 2008
The recently-introduced KS House bill 2711 and the KDHE Secretary’s denial of the Sunflower Expansion Project permit last October have called attention to an issue that many Kansans - legislators and citizens alike – had previously been able to ignore. Well, ignoring where our energy comes from is all but impossible now, as energy policy is becoming a focal point of this legislative session and our state’s future hangs in the balance.
What has struck me recently though, in my role as community outreach coordinator for CEP (surprise! not Maril today. She’s in Colorado. You know, that state with the enviable RPS legislation? Oh, and they have some pretty sweet mountains too…) But I digress.
What has struck me over the past few weeks of both participating in and facilitating community forums on climate and energy issues, is that Kansans are concerned and trying desperately to wrap their minds around the implications these issues have for their state, their jobs, their families and their futures.
Last week, CEP hosted 3 community energy forums in Salina, Overland Park, and Topeka (see photos below). If you added the temperatures of all three nights together, it still would not have broken the freezing mark. Yet, 400 motivated Kansans showed up to hear from wind developers, utility executives, transmission experts and climate researchers. The questions from audience members ranged from policy-level to personal action recommendations, from projected precipitation patterns in Western KS to the particulars of net metering legislation. It was extremely heartening to participate in a dialogue that connected citizens and decision-makers on these critical issues. Oh, and we ate pie. LOTS of pie.
On February 11th and 12th, we hope to contribute yet another piece to the conversation on climate change. Along with Sierra Club, Oxfam America, and the Kansas Rural Center, CEP is hosting polar explorer Will Steger to share his eyewitness account of the effects of global warming on the Arctic. Steger, a renowned polar explorer has led expeditions for 40 years, and has much to share about these precious and threatened regions. Kansans will have the opportunity to view Steger’s presentation, and interact with the explorer at two venues:
- Hutchinson, KS- Fox Theater- February 11th, 7:00 PM
- Overland Park, KS- Johnson County Community College Regnier Center- February 12th, 7:00 PM
This is all part of what we are trying to do at CEP- start conversations and provide Kansans with the information they need to make decisions about our state’s energy future. And eat pie.
Be sure to check back on Monday as we follow the news on House bill 2711!
-Eileen Horn
Happy Birthday, Kansas! and the State of the Union
January 29, 2008
Today is Kansas Day. All over this great land. (Well, probably just in Kansas.) And coincidence or not, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius got to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address last night - Bob Dole was also there. So was Steve Hewitt, the mayor of Greensburg. Kansas looked pretty darn good.
State of the Union. I’d expected to have more to say about this, but I don’t. Here’s the quotable from President George Bush that mattered most to me (full text available at NPR):
The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change.
And from Sebelius, giving the Democratic response (also available at NPR):
You and I stand ready - ready to protect our environment for future generations and stay economically competitive. Mayors have committed their cities to going green; governors have joined together, leading efforts for energy security and independence; and the majority in Congress is ready to tackle the challenge of reducing global warming and creating a new energy future for America.
Conclusion: Nationally, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much on the same page - climate change is happening, and we have to deal with it. None of them are denying that. This issue is bigger than partisanship. I even dare speculate that few in the national majority would seriously consider climate change denier Fred Singer’s book, if it crossed their desk.
Now, how the two parties will confront climate change is of course still up in the air. But none of them are debating that it is happening, and that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is because of many things, but in particular, such actions will strengthen our nation’s energy security and independence.
This next bit is just me worrying. I could be totally off base, but read through and give this reasoning a chance.
As you all know, the Kansas state legislature is facing lots of energy decisions this session. Holcomb is of course a big one, but there’s actually a lot more on the table. And it is my impression that many of the legislators are considering as a factor in these decisions - whether climate change science is reliable, and whether global warming is actually happening.
This is not a question that the rest of the nation is asking. If Kansas makes these important energy decisions on the basis of rejecting the science behind climate change - which is overwhelmingly accepted by political and religious leaders across the globe - well, I shudder to think. There’s all sorts of reasons for legislators to go either way on the energy policies before them, but please don’t let them choose that one.
Why? I guess, in large part, I am thinking about the evolution debate that pops up in Kansas every so often. Whatever their thinking on evolution or the teaching of it in schools, most Kansans have been universally appalled at the national spectacle that has resulted every time the issue has arisen.
On one level, I don’t particularly care too much what outsiders think of Kansas, to the extent that I like to keep my own opinions at least somewhat homegrown. But what I do care about is how our general attitude on science is portrayed as hostile and regressive.
This reputation compromises our economic development. It’s understandably often hard for investors to see Kansans as a scientifically engaged populace that is ready to develop and pursue good jobs in the important fields of the 21st century. It compromises our political capital and our credibility when we do get involved in debates over science and technology - and as renewable energy advances, Kansas is going to want to say a lot about this topic. And most of all, the negativity about science compromises our imaginations - and imagination is the heart of invention. We’re going to need a lot of both to get through the uncertain times ahead.
If Kansas legislators make their upcoming energy decisions on the basis of whether or not climate change is happening, they will marginalize this state in a way that could make the evolution debates look minor.
Generally, I don’t have a single problem with swimming against the flow. (Obviously, look at my job.) In this case, though, it goes against not just the accepted science, but basic common sense and prudent risk management. Even if you have questions remaining about the findings of climate science, surely the weight on the other side of the question is enough to make you pause and think. Is denying climate change a risk you really want to take?
George Bush thinks it isn’t. Kathleen Sebelius feels the same.
It’s really up to you.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
updated event information for Take Charge! CEP’s upcoming climate and energy panels
January 18, 2008
Updated event information is now available on CEP’s upcoming Take Charge! community forums in Salina, Overland Park, and Topeka (January 21, 22, and 23 respectively). Click thru to the press release on our home page for times, locations, and pdf fliers listing the names of panel members.
These panels are going to be so darn cool. The participating experts are listed below. CEP couldn’t be more delighted to have these folks participating:
Salina - Kansas Wesleyan University - Monday, January 21, 7-9 p.m.
Jim Ludwig, Westar Energy
Frank Costanza, Tradewind Energy
Carl Huslig, ITC Great Plains
David Schlissel, Synapse Energy
Wes Jackson, The Land Institute
Overland Park, JCCC - Tuesday, January 22, 7-9 p.m.
Bill Riggins, KCPL
Ezra Hausman, Synapse Energy
Mark Lawlor, Horizon
Kimberly Gencur, ITC Great Plains
Topeka, Washburn University - Wednesday, January 23, 7-9 p.m.
Jim Ludwig, Westar Energy
Johannes Feddema, IPCC Researcher
Mark Lawlor, Horizon Energy
Kimberly Gencur, ITC Great Plains
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
news update from the weekend.
January 14, 2008
News from this weekend was all about coal. Keep in mind, of course, that the energy issues facing Kansas are much broader than that… still, I know lots of people read this to find out more about coal - so, here you go! Enjoy. For now. I will broaden the scope later this week.
Editorial from the Wichita Eagle on how energy will/ could/ might play in the upcoming legislative session. A news report on same from the Salina Journal. More snippets on these issues woven into this story from the Hays Daily News. Kansas House Speaker Melvin Neufeld says he will not hold up the legislative session over coal plants (LJWorld). The Topeka Capita-Journal had a few words to say about the Kansas Energy Council’s role in all this.
The KC Star offered the following assessment of the coal drama:
FIRED UP OVER COAL
The issue: Republican fury over the Sebelius administration’s denial of two coal-fired plants in western Kansas could paralyze the legislative session.Our view: Granting the permit with very strict carbon dioxide emission standards would enable everyone to declare victory.
KCStar Primebuzz also noted that there is a new coalition backing the coal plant - lots of special interest money. Along those lines, here’s more on special interest dollars currently being spent on KS energy policy (Salina Journal/ Harris). And here’s another! (Hutch News). Quotable, from Kansas House Speaker Melvin Neufeld:
Most of his constituents, Neufeld said, “tell me I should come up here and put tire tracks over the governor.”
???
Hutch News also looked into the bioenergy center that Sunflower has been talking about as part of the proposed Holcomb plants (Hutch News). The center was not proposed as part of the original permit. The technology is under development by a private firm.
OK. Enough coal, huh? Coverage of the Governor’s State of the State Address begins at 7:00 tonight. KU plays Oklahoma soon thereafter. (Not that the two are remotely equivalent, of course.)
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
stepping carefully
January 11, 2008
here’s probably not a good thing - I occasionally get parts of Wizard of Oz and Pilgrim’s Progress confused. I also get the latter occasionally confused with Bible stories. (At any rate, at least I’ve read these books, right?) And why do I mention all this?
Because. Right now, some aspects of the current energy debate in Kansas reminds me of parts of those narratives. The story I’m thinking of appears in all sorts of places, actually - like Aesop’s Fables (Country Mouse and City Mouse), the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, etc. It’s the basic story of all of a sudden being surrounded by lots of bright shiny things, none of which you can trust, all of which want something from you in a pretty serious way, and you have to figure out how to step carefully and make it to the other side. Usually there’s a little bit of pain involved, too.
I say this because someone just forwarded me a website on Kansas energy issues that gave me exactly that feeling. I’m not able to verify who they are, exactly what they want, or who paid for it, or I would give the actual link.
It could be no big deal. But speaking as someone familiar with web design and writing web copy - that is one slick site. Very well done. Very, very well done. I highly doubt that it was cheap to put together.
And where there’s money (especially where there’s both money and brains, that’s as dangerous a combination as money and no brains) I really, really prefer there to be more transparency. I can read between the cagey, extremely well constructed lines and make some guesses, and that makes me even more wary. Reading the rhetoric of the site is much like listening to the national politicians who are vying in the presidential primaries right now - they say a lot without saying much. They claim to stand for us all, but in our experience, what does that really mean?
You can’t credibly claim to stand for certain people or ideas unless there’s full disclosure about who you are. We need to know where you come from and what grounds you, what motivates you. Really. Who’s paying your bills? It’s probably not appropriate to channel Toby Keith right now, but, who’s your daddy?
Before we get involved with these larger forces, we should know these things. Ideally. However, it doesn’t always work like that. Humans do like the bright and shiny, and sometimes they go hurtling down dangerous paths to get them. That’s how we ended up with the fables and the stories, the parables and the allegories. The sheer scale of special interest energy money operating in Kansas right now is just crazy. I bet we end up with a few stories of our own.
What’s that country western song… “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything”? (CowboyLyrics.com) Maybe we need another song, one that points out it goes the other way, too. Know what someone stands for, before you fall in with them. And if you don’t know for sure, step carefully.
Hold on, Country Mouse! Hang tight.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
