Go out and celebrate this weekend, fellow Kansans--our state just saved the planet!
You may not realize it but there was a major victory for the national environmental movement right here in Kansas yesterday.
The heroes of the day are Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, for rejecting the permits of two proposed coal-burning electric plants in western Kansas. The plants would have provided electric power for western Kansas and parts of Colorado. But--combined--they also would have been the largest new source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (releasing an estimated 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually).
The rejection is a big deal on the national level because Bremby cited hazardous emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as the reason for denying the permits.
In other words, it's the first time a state has used a global warming defense to turn down a power plant.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp., which proposed the plants, cried foul, arguing the greenhouse gases are not currently regulated by Congress so it's improper to judge their plants against that "non-standard." Of course, they promise to get this overturned either through the courts or in our legislature.
To reach those ends, the corporation has the backing of two key state Republicans: House Speaker Melvin Neufeld and Kris Kobach, head of the Kansas GOP. Neufeld is already rounding up Republican legislators for the upcoming battle. According to a story in the Washington Post:
The plants' powerful supporters included the speaker of the state House, Melvin Neufeld, who had earlier gathered the signatures of 46 GOP members, including key committee chairmen, for a letter to Bremby. The letter said, "Without your approval of the permit as proposed by Sunflower, our state and its citizens will lose access to the low-cost energy source and millions in economic development." Thirty-one Republican House members declined to sign the letter.
Meanwhile, as I've documented in my own films about immigration, Kobach has yet to find a high-profile case he doesn't like--fortunately, he's also yet to find one he's won.
He's taking his fight straight to Gov. Sebelius, as he told The Lawrence Journal-World:
"By forcing Secretary Bremby to deny the permit, she (Sebelius) has not only caved to liberal special-interest groups, but she has once again shown her lack of commitment to promoting Kansas economic interests," said Kris Kobach, state GOP chairman.
I'm not sure how Kobach gets away with claiming Sebelius forced Bremby to do anything. Then again, hyperbole and overreaction are Kobach's calling cards, so this should come as no surprise.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post article and a few Kansas newspapers have already framed this issue as a battle between the east and west portions of the state, since the plants would have been out west, and the opposition has come from mostly eastern cities like Topeka and Lawrence. While those divisions do exist on some level, this issue is not as simple as a geographic divide.
The plants might have brought some economic boost to the region, but supporters who touted increased jobs and added revenues conveniently failed to mention that waste from the plants would not be shared between Colorado and Kansas. Instead, all of that waste--namely mercury--would be dumped exclusively in our state. So, not only would we be tearing a huge hole in the ozone, we'd also be polluting our own water. On top of all of that, the water required by the plants would put tremendous pressure on the already strained Ogallala Aquiffer.
I can't believe folks out west are thrilled about those prospects. You don't have to be an anthropologist to know people out there are deeply tied to the land.
No, it's not a matter of east- versus west-Kansas. Instead, this is a debate between those who do and don't believe in global warming. A battle between those who care about the land, the state, the planet, and those who care foremost about the bottom line. Some call it good versus bad, I prefer responsibility versus greed.
This, of course, was just one battle in an ongoing war. As debates heat up in the legislature over these plants, Kansans who support environmental protections need to contact their lawmakers and tell them to stand by this decision (state legislators in particular...the governor, of course, is busy right now dealing with pretty little ponies).
In the meantime, I hope this sets a precedent for other states. I also hope we seize this opportunity to explore alternative energy sources, especially wind energy. We've sent the message that we care about the environment, now we need to take action toward breaking our dependence on these inefficient energy sources.
At the very least, those of us who love the wide open spaces of Kansas should take time to really appreciate this recent victory--and be thankful Sebelius and Bremby were willing to put the protection of the environment we all share above corporate interests of a select few.
Comments (3)
Great article Ranjit!
The mini calls have actually started to slow, but thanks for the link. The little farmer has started to sell some of the poor things so the hyped up Canadians have calmed down...
Anyhow, I love that this decision had been made and I think it was definitely the right one. While creating a database of more than 1,000 people against the plant got a little annoying, their points were real. Allowing these power plants to be build would have put our health in danger. I don't care how many temporary jobs the construction would have created, I like to breath without a hacking cough.
You wouldn't believe how many ticked off constituents called in the Gov's office the day after this decision. You are completely right when you state it's not an East vs. West Kansas situation, it's views on global warming that are influncing this debate the most. Some Kansans are mad as hell, but those are also the same Kansans that believe in "clean coal" and hate Al Gore.
Posted by Jenny | October 20, 2007 11:07 AM
Posted on October 20, 2007 11:07
Great reporting, Ranjit.
I have followed this story since last year when Sunflower presented their case at the Kansas Union. I knew that this decision had obvious global environment ramifications but I hadn't thought about how important it was to our national energy agenda. Your article really put that into perspective for me.
I really appreciate that someone as articulate as yourself is bringing some clarification to these complex issues.
Here's just some food for thought:
When I was interviewing some of the guys from Sunflower, they made a good point against wind energy. The infrastructure required for wind power plants is not a practical solution when placed against the unreliability and low production of such power plants. It's a logistical problem because instead of having high production power sources in a close quatered, dense plant like with coal, wind sources have to be spread out and it takes a lot more of them to produce the same amount of energy. This amounts to more transmission wire, which in itself means more maintenance, but also all the smaller plants are more spread out which means less consolidation of maintenance and there is also the fact that wind power is more prone to the effects of the environment. This means more maintenance being done in less than desirable conditions.
The only reason I mention this is because you said, "now we need to take action toward breaking our dependence on these inefficient energy sources."
And I completely agree.
The next action that I think is necessary is to push the Kansan legislature to push for a mandated minimum of renewable energy production (as what is done in California). What this would do is to force the power companies to pay more for energy that individuals sell back from their own renewable power plants. If they were required to produce a certain number of kilowatts from renewable energy then they would pay individuals more to produce renewable energy because it is ineffecient (economically speaking) for them to produce it themselves. If the power companies paid more then individuals would be more encouraged to produce their own renewable energy. It would basically be individuals overcoming the logistical problems of wind energy because instead of a power company fronting the costs of installation and maintenance of renewable energy, individuals would take care of this as they used their already existing electrical infrastructure.
I hope this all made sense and that you're not completely like, "Yeah, no duh."
I was just inspired by your piece and I know that with your intelligence and writing skill that you can turn these sort of ideas into a message that consciousness people can get behind.
Posted by Matthew Foster | October 20, 2007 11:41 PM
Posted on October 20, 2007 23:41
Thanks Jenny and Matthew.
Jenny, I'm glad to hear about the database. People often think that it's a waste of time to call your lawmakers, but I've seen firsthand that it can make an impact, especially before a big vote.
I actually spent some time in western Kansas (Great Bend) over the weekend, and heard a few people praise the governor for her stance. I think it's really easy to play up on this east/west divide, but ultimately it's not good for the state and it doesn't respect the depth of people in either region--not everyone in western Kansan is a strict conservative and certainly not every eastern Kansan is a raging liberal (just the cool ones). But, of course, stereotyping is always more convenient.
Matthew, thanks for sharing your insights. I should say, though, that I wouldn't take a defense brought up by a Sunflower representative as necessarily a reliable argument. Of course he's going to point to the "maintenance" issues, but what about waste issues? How much more waste is generated by this power plant than by a set of wind turbines? How much mercury is added to the water? How much coal has to be dug up and transported, and processed?
As for the reliability for wind energy, I realize that at the moment it may only be at a point where it supplements our major energy sources, but even that is a step in the right direction.
In fact, it dawned on me later that I previously had written about this subject while covering science research for KU. Back in 2001, I interviewed a researcher here on campus who was developing wind energy technologies. He told me then:
I completely agree with your plan about energy credits, but I think that--just like wind energy--is just one variable in a huge equation that includes tax credits for fuel-efficient cars, solar panels, recycling, etc. Every little gesture counts.
Posted by Ranjit | October 22, 2007 10:46 AM
Posted on October 22, 2007 10:46