Kansas Senate President Steve Morris and other western Kansas leaders cried foul upon learning that a statewide anti-coal ad campaign was sponsored by Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company based in Oklahoma.
Morris called it “self-serving.” Many others thought the lurking profit factor undercut the objectivity of the “knowyourpower.net” ads.
A Chesapeake spokesman argued that there’s nothing wrong with his company pointing out the drawbacks of a competitor. “I don’t think there’s anything impure about that,” he said.
But Chesapeake’s failure to reveal its sponsorship up front inevitably raises credibility issues in people’s minds.
Still, it’s interesting that the critics have yet to challenge the ad campaign’s science-based evidence about the respiratory and other health impacts of coal-fired plants.
Thanks to the high-profile ads, many more Kansans are informed about the health and environmental downsides of coal-fired energy.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
25 Comments
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing.
For once, corporate greed has an upside . . .
The ad raises a question of whether the whole greenhouse gas hoax is a an attempt by some businesses to compete unfairly against others. The U.N. has a history of corruption and the IPCC is a U.N. organization. Coal has been considered the fuel of the future for decades and the natural gas and nuclear industries could benefit from discouraging coal. Greenhouse gas believer John Lovelock for example supports nuclear power.
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm
the claim that CO2 can affect air temperature is inconsistent with the laws of physics which apply to climate even if climatologists don’t know it.
Water vapor,which is produced by the combustion of natural gas, can affect air temperatures because of its thermal properties rather than its interaction with Infrared RAdiation.
Welcome to the Blog reasonmclucus.
I’m pretty much on the side of man made co2 is not the most significant cause of climate change, as there have been arguments here about it. :)
With that said, there were other reasons in my mind why the coal plants should not be built in Kansas.
1. Who gains from the power provided, Kansas? (probably not)2. Usage of Kansas water sources from a depleting aquifer.3. Mercury release with no environmental impact study on range and intensity.4. The real economic benefit to Kansas.5. Unclear messages about the type and source of coal used.6. Stack emission studies on the environment.7. Wind and water flow study for the area where the plant would be built.8. Amount of Kansas government support required to access infrastructure of said coal plant (roads, by ways, rail, drainage)9. Unanswered questions on why other states do not want to build the plant in their state, especially since they are the one receiving the “power.”
Those were my main concerns, not necessarily co2.
Reminds me of Enron.
Another company that fought for dominance of natural gas in the energy market.
“The U.N. has a history of corruption…”
As has big business.
“Coal has been considered the fuel of the future for decades…”
That was then, this is now. Coal is a non-renewable energy source.
I think the comments by Kansas are on the mark, particularly the last one. If the other states in question want more electricity, let them build the desired plants on THEIR turf.
Kansas: Your summary above at 5:53 AM this morning listing reasons NOT to build the new coal fired power plants out near Garden City look good to me. They should be added to our Kansas constitution!
I hope Rod Bremby’s decision continues to stand. Shame on Kansas politicians who are frantic to overturn Bremby’s decision.
So let Sunflower run ads dsiputing the advertisments, or quit the crying about it.
Sounds like the Senator and the others complaining weren’t able to keep promises to the special interest groups funding their elections — can almost see the train coming, a lawsuit funded by special interests will overturn Bremby and forc Ks to do what others won’t — it’s all about the money, not your health or well being …
“the claim that CO2 can affect air temperature is inconsistent with the laws of physics which apply to climate even if climatologists don’t know it.”
NOT TRUE. As an infrared absorber increased CO2 and CH4 will reabsorb that energy before it can escape into space. As a result, in order to re-establish a steady state, the Boltzman curve must shift to the right. That will be at a higher temperature.
How much science have you taken reasonmclucus? Any graduate work in a scientific field?
I wondered about those ads. They seemed to be running an AWFUL long time to have been financed by an sort of environmental group. Seemed like the buyer had some pretty deep pockets.
I agree CF2K. The funny thing is it reminds me of all those ads funded by Koch (”Citizens for the Education of the Republic”) attacking Democrats and all those ‘climate skeptic’ ads and websites funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Ben,
Indeed. You can always tell the Right-Wing astroturf ads; a bit too slick, a bit too hazy and soft-focused.
Never saw the Koch ads. I bet they had some high-dollar production value.
The other point to be made here is that business sees ‘Green Energy’ as good business, although in this instance, only in a ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ sense. Business will find a way to capitalize on whatever happens to emerge; that’s what it does. Reactive and parasitic.
And that ‘wink-wink’ URL: ‘know your power.’ Coming from Chesapeake, is that Orwellian or what?
However, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ works in reverse as well, so I’m glad Chesapeake is spending money that the TRUE environmentalists won’t have to.
The problem is only partially CO2. The other, and perhaps the most important, is mercury. USA today has an excellent cover article on the problem and coals contribution to it.
For instance, the holcomb plant injects around 600 lbs of mercury a year into the atmosphere. 1/25 of a teaspoon of mercury is enough to make the fish in the lake toxic enough to make them inedible. There are currently over 6000 lakes, streams and rivers in this country with mercury content enough to pollute the fish.
It is also expected that roughly 600,000 babies will be born in this country with mercury poisoning, ingested by mothers eating contaminated fish, high enough to do irreversible damage.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-29-mercury-cover_N.htm
That would be 1/25 teaspoon in a 60 acre lake.
…and let’s not forget the WATER issue about this plant. Funny how little that gets mentioned.
ksfg – I think there is some thought that grey water could be used. I disagree with that but it is there.
The KS Water Office is holding a series of conferences on ‘Bioenergy and Water in Kansas’ in December. Dec 5 in Emporia, Dec 7 in Garden City; Dec 11 in Hays.
Yep, kfg, the water issue isn’t mentioned much. I think that’s because the decision of the Secretary was on an air quality permit, and the water issue (while very real and very important, IMHO) is not really relevant to that discussion.
Ben,
Science??? They don’t need no stinkin science!
All they have to do is post their irrational, unsupported opinions.
“Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2. The albedo of poles are more susceptible to axis shift, thus more melting.”
Posted by: Kansas | September 13, 2007 at 07:19 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82636247
“Me? I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”
Posted by: Kansas | September 14, 2007 at 02:38 AM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82664655
And then make ad hominem attacks, etc when asked to provide data to support their false claims.
Ben,
Have you read the science(sic) paper that reasonmclucus believes? Link here at earlier post,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/sebelius-shows-.html#comment-87167298
The paper is a hoot, and worth a skim. Stuff about the atmosphere not being an actual “greenhouse”, etc.
Funny thing is that according to him Venus is not as hot as it is and Mercury’s dark side isn’t as cold as it is. Those too are greenhouse effects (or lack thereof in Mercury).
Maybe his next paper will prove that gravity is a fiction? :)
And it’s interesting how other physicists don’t support his CO2 claims.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich
“He ended his speech … (The physical fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and fictitious greenhouse effects) in November 1995 with the statement that the CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction of people who like to use big computers, without physical fundamentals. “
Kansas again FAILS to give any science to support his FALSE claims — and the crickets continue to chirp…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/blame-the-messe.html#comment-88130974
Hoo, brother . . .
Time to see if the “Bikini Police” are on CineMax.
I’ve never seen a guy argue with his shadow before, and it’s kinda creeping me out.
Happy halloween.
I’m so outta here . . .