Guv candidates don’t earn green colors

The Kansas Sierra Club isn’t endorsing either Gov. Kathleen Sebelius or Republican challenger Jim Barnett in the upcoming election, our editorial today reported. Neither has exhibited “environmental leadership,” according to the group’s latest Planet Kansas newsletter.
The group is especially disappointed in Sebelius’ lack of action in developing Kansas’ wind power potential, which is rated among the highest in the nation. Among other things, it would like to see her push for a renewable energy portfolio, which would require utility companies to develop a percentage of their energy from renewables such as wind and solar by a target date.
The governor recently told The Eagle editorial board that she is a big supporter of renewable energy, including wind, but what has she actually done during her term? Nothing bold. Her efforts to moderate the controversy over siting wind power in the Flint Hills by setting up a regional buffer zone is a modest accomplishment at best.
“She needs to lead the way,” said Sierra Club spokesman Craig Wolfe.
Barnett met with the group and expressed support for renewables as an economic development opportunity for Kansas, but his record wasn’t impressive enough to warrant support.
Would the club — often associated with liberals and Democrats — be comfortable endorsing a Republican? Absolutely, said Wolfe. It would and has in other state races.
Posted by Randy Scholfield

10 Comments

  1. Ben Huie
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    I have to agree with Craig. While I will vote for Sebelius for other reasons she really has not shown leadership in the envoronmental area.

    I loved Crowson’s cartoon this morning. Think of the revenues we could be generating with wind energy being exported from landowners properties all across western Kansas.

  2. Ed Smiley
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Is there any liberal knee-jerk issue that Scholfield doesn’t comment about ?

  3. Alden Wilner
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    The biggest problem with developing wind power in Kansas is transmission. I’m not exactly sure how a Governor is going to lead on that one.

    Unless… There are alternatives to high-tension lines. It is possible to use wind power to spin up massive flywheels and physically _transport_ the power out.

    Leadership on that front would be simple: “Trails back to Rails.” Trains are the 2nd most efficient form of transportation in the world; “bottling” wind energy in flywheels may very well allow trains to surpass (today’s) ships in efficiency.

    At the very least, Wind Powered Trains would be a powerful demonstration of wind’s capability. At best, they could prove a successful alternative to high-tension lines and create a new paradigm in power transmission.

  4. ddub
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    “Is there any liberal knee-jerk issue that Scholfield doesn’t comment about ? ”

    You know what, I ALSO love breathing polluted air! Here in Lawrence, the coal fired power plant spews pollution 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year in plain sight of everyone in the city. I just don’t get why, when we live in KANSAS, for god’s sake, we don’t tap the constantly blowing wind?

    Having said that, I do agree we should leave the Flint Hills alone; we should put wind farms all over Western Kansas, though, because A – hardly anyone lives there and B – it is just flat, desolate wasteland. Putting turbines up might actually attract tourists to that armpit.

  5. Doug
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    ddub, why would you possibly want wind energy? It’s cheaper to produce (coal gets more corporate welfare), produced on the spot, provides money to farmers, and doesn’t pollute the air. It’s things like that which hurt America. When I say America I mean huge multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidized corporations that give us lung disease.

    Personally I think it’s great that we have more coal companies. The smokestacks spew more mercury in the air which helps develop birth defects for fetuses. The fetuses with defects tend to be aborted. With the increase in abortions the Republicans can run on an anti-abortion platform so they can get votes from the “pro-life” crowd which would give them more time in government to promote more coal burning plants.

    You see, you liberals just don’t understand how the system works. I poison your air, you pay me to do it, I kill your children, and you keep me in office. What, you’d think we Republicans would be more concerned about your health instead of my Swiss bank account? Silly liberals.

  6. Bill Clinton
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    Doug – you are lucky, if I were not blind in both eyes from all that pollution, I would get my sniper rifle and shoot you with it.

  7. ID
    Posted September 28, 2006 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    What? Sebelius shows no leadership? I’m shocked! Didn’t she show leadership by NOT providing a school budget? Didn’t she show leadership by being AGAINST the National Guard protecting the boarders before she was FOR the National Guard protecting our boarders? Didn’t she show leadership by pretending to care for our troops protecting her rights to lobby for a Washington job before she lost her gov job? Oh, wait! That was good ol’ true blue liberalism and not leadership. Guess it’s true that her only real job before the gov job was as a lobbyist. No leadership required. Just the gift of spin, lies, and taking credit for successes she didn’t earn and blaming others for problems she caused. Hmmmmm….Sounds like the female version of John Kerry. You go girl!

  8. Todd
    Posted September 29, 2006 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Most Kansans don’t give a rip about ecological issues, so why should the governor? This state has much bigger problems, obviously.

  9. scooter_lover
    Posted October 10, 2006 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    I love to ride on motorcycle then read this, and you? :)[url=

    Richard Heckler
    Posted November 22, 2006 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    Kansas certainly does not need more polluting Coal Fired plants. That is taking a REPUBLICAN step backwards.

    SPITZER TO SUE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR GUTTING CLEAN AIR ACT

    EPA Plans to Exempt Half of Air Pollution Sources from Key Clean Air Rules

    Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced today that he will file a federal lawsuit against the Bush Administration for endangering air quality by gutting a critical component of the federal Clean Air Act.

    Changes in the Clean Air Act announced today by the Bush Administration would exempt thousands of industrial air pollution sources, including some coal-fired power plants, from the New Source Review provision of the Clean Air Act. New Source Review requires that industrial plants add modern air pollution controls when they are upgraded or modified and substantially increase air pollution.

    Spitzer said that this major weakening of the Clean Air Act will further degrade air quality in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, areas of the country already struggling with dirty air caused in significant part by industrial pollution carried into the region by prevailing winds. New York and the northeastern states are particularly concerned about sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, which cause acid rain, smog and an increase in respiratory disease.

    “The Bush Administration is attacking the Clean Air Act, which has been a cornerstone of our national commitment to environmental cleanup for two generations,” said Attorney General Spitzer. “The Bush Administration is again putting the financial interests of the oil, gas and coal companies above the public’s right to breathe clean air. It is incumbent on the states to take action to ensure that the public health and environment are protected.”

    The New Source Review lawsuit will allege that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is exceeding its authority by enacting rules that weaken the Clean Air Act. When Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970, its intention was to improve the environment and protect public health by lowering levels of air pollution. The Bush Administration’s new rules and regulations would have the opposite effect of allowing higher levels of air pollution.

    In 1999, eight states, including New York, joined the federal government in suing numerous coal-burning power plants for violations of the existing New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act. Attorney General Spitzer has also sued coal burning power plants in New York State for similar violations.

    http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/nov/nov22b_02.html

    http://www.b-e-f.org/GreenTags/