Good for Congress for deciding to buy out residents of Treece. Lead, zinc and other chemical contamination from past mining operations made the southeast Kansas town unsafe and isolated. Kudos to the Kansas delegation, particularly Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Lynn Jenkins, for pushing for the buyout and for standing up for residents who needed help.
“The view of China in the U.S. Congress — that China is going to try to leapfrog us by out-polluting us — is out of date,” columnist Thomas Friedman wrote. “It’s going to try to out-green us. Right now, China is focused on low-cost manufacturing of solar, wind and batteries and building the world’s biggest market for these products.” Friedman warned that in addition to buying toys from China, “you will buy your next electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software from China.”
The New York Times had a lengthy article last week on the greening of Greensburg. Among the impressive signs of progress reported were the buildings that have earned or likely will receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum certification. For example, the town’s arts center was designed and built by graduate students of the University of Kansas School of Architecture and is powered by windmills and solar panels and heated and cooled by a geothermal system. It was the first LEED-platinum building in Kansas. The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, currently under construction, is seeking to become the first LEED platinum critical-access hospital in the country, the article reported. The town also is about to break ground on a wind farm capable of supplying electricity to 4,000 homes. The article noted that such achievements would be impressive anywhere but seem unexpected in Kansas, which “routinely elects to Congress skeptics on matters of energy conservation and environmental regulation.”
Despite President Obama’s assurances today at the United Nations that the United States understands “the gravity of the climate threat ” and is “determined to act,” world leaders are justified in being skeptical. The fact is that many Americans, including most GOP members of Congress, are unconvinced of this threat and are unsupportive of actions that would cost much money or require significant lifestyle changes. For example, the cap-and-trade bill in Congress faces strong opposition, and its Senate passage seems doubtful. Yet as Obama also argued: “Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it — boldly, swiftly and together — we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”
Even if you don’t believe global warming is real, here is what columnist Thomas Friedman says is indisputable: “The world is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050, and many will be aspiring to live American-like, high-energy lifestyles. In such a world, renewable energy — where the variable cost of your fuel, sun or wind, is zero — will be in huge demand.” Yet Friedman noted that America is allowing other countries to become leaders in developing alternative energy. “China has decided that clean-tech is going to be the next great global industry and is now creating a massive domestic market for solar and wind, which will give it a great export platform,” Friedman wrote, adding how “if you like importing oil from Saudi Arabia, you’re going to love importing solar panels from China.”
Good for the city of Wichita for planning a new campaign to clean up the Arkansas River. Though its water quality has improved in recent years, the river is still too polluted, particularly after heavy rains. The new campaign will focus on ways to reduce pollution runoff into the river, such as by using less lawn fertilizer and properly disposing of motor oil and other chemicals. The Ark River is a valuable asset and should be treated as such.
There is a double standard in how the energy industry is punished for killing birds, Robert Bryce, a green energy critic, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary. He noted how oil companies have been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for birds killed by oil spills or faulty power lines. Yet wind farms kill thousands more birds each year, many of which are endangered, and wind companies are never fined. For example, a 2008 study estimated that the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., kills about 10,000 birds each year — nearly all protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bryce wrote. However, the Wind Energy Association argues that bird kills by wind turbines are a “very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures — house cats kill an estimated 1 billion birds annually.”
The federal stimulus devoted $2.4 billion to pilot projects aimed at capturing carbon dioxide emissions and making coal-fired power plants “cleaner.” Such plants account for a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. “Yet carbon capture and storage remains the elusive holy grail of the coal industry, an idea that could contain the damage inflicted by coal-burning power plants but a technology that remains expensive, energy intensive and largely untested,” a Washington Post article noted. “Even optimists say it will not be commercially available for another six to 10 years. Pessimists say it might take much longer, and may never be ready for widespread use without attaching a punishingly high price to carbon.”
Good for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., for coaxing the Environmental Protection Agency to send three top officials to Treece, the southeast Kansas community hopelessly contaminated by waste from lead and zinc mining. Their plan to visit Thursday doesn’t guarantee a federal rescue for the 100 remaining residents. But it seems likely that seeing the devastation will lead the EPA officials to believe, as Roberts and others do, that a $3 million buyout would be stimulus money well-spent.
Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi notes that in a new Rasmussen Reports poll, nearly 1 in 2 U.S. voters say the nation’s best days are behind it. “How is it possible that so many people believe the next generation will be in worse shape when nearly every positive indicator of the human experience is on a positive trajectory — from our standard of living to our life expectancy to our technology to the health of the environment?” he asks.
Another poll finds that “1 in 3 children ages 6 to 11 fears that the Earth will be destroyed by the time they grow up,” he says — not surprising after a “steady diet of model-projection Armageddon their whole lives.”
He concludes: “This next generation almost certainly will live through a few glorious bubbles, followed by a few scary recessions. Yet just as certainly, they will live ‘better’ lives than we do.”
In the debate over climate change and energy security, nuclear power gets barely a mention. But it has its attractions, argues John Dendahl, a Rocky Mountain Foundation senior fellow, in the Denver Post: “Among those are a half-century safety record unequaled by any major industry in history, zero carbon emissions, low operating expenses, no dependence on bad guys for fuel — and continuous output 24/7.” He also called it a “myth” that nuclear plants’ radioactive waste defies safe disposal, pointing to the safety record over the past 10 years of New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
“President Obama had hoped to emerge from this week’s Group of 8 summit meeting in Italy with a tentative agreement uniting rich and developing nations in a common fight against global warming. Instead he got a lesson on how divided the world remains on the issue — and how hard he will have to work to pull off an agreement,” a New York Times editorial argued. The editorial noted that Obama and the other leaders of the developed world “have yet to come up with the right mixture of pressure and incentives to get the developing countries to commit.” It argued: “If there is any chance of pulling this off, the developed countries are going to have to take away all excuses from China, India and other developing nations. The Europeans have already committed to deep cuts in their emissions. The United States is doing a lot better under Mr. Obama, but it is still lagging.”
Columnist and best-selling author Thomas Friedman doesn’t support cap-and-trade legislation merely because of climate-change concerns. Friedman sees it as key to keeping us from being “laggards in the next great global industry.” Friedman wrote that China is already focusing on energy efficiency and clean power systems. “And when China starts to do that in a big way _ when it starts to develop solar, wind, batteries, nuclear and energy efficiency technologies on its low-cost platform _ watch out,” Friedman said. “You won’t just be buying your toys from China. You’ll be buying your energy future from China.”
Jim Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a lot of attention for his claim that the Bush administration was censoring his views supporting man-made global warming. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Republican officials are calling for an investigation into whether Alan Carlin, a senior analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, was censored for expressing doubts about global warming. Carlin was forbidden by his boss from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office regarding his criticisms of global warming claims.
At a campaign event in Newton, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, argued that carbon dioxide is getting more emphasis than it deserves in the climate change debate, likening the gases of the Earth to people in a 10,000-seat-stadium.
“There would be 4,200 people in the stadium wearing nitrogen jerseys, representing that portion of the atmosphere,” Tiahrt said. “Twenty-four percent would be wearing oxygen jerseys, and four people would have on carbon dioxide jerseys. We are arguing about how long the sleeves are going to be on one of those jerseys.”
“If you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing,” columnist Paul Krugman wrote about House members who voted against the cap-and-trade legislation (which included Kansas’ three GOP House members). “What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.” In addition to being wrong about science, opposing lawmakers also misrepresented the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low, Krugman wrote.
You’d like to think that when the U.S. House passes a bill described as “historic,” it would be with a sizable majority. Not so the energy bill that passed today 219-212. “This is a revolution,” said co-sponsoring Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. The action keeps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s promise to pass the bill by the Fourth of July, but so many questions remain as it moves to the Senate. Among them: Will it cost $175 per household (by 2020, according to CBO)? Or $3,100 per household (as the GOP contends, citing MIT data)? No surprise that Kansas Republican Reps. Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran and Lynn Jenkins voted “no” while Democrat Dennis Moore voted “yes.”
You know there is momentum for reducing auto emissions when Lamborghini, the Italian high-performance sports car manufacturer, is researching a possible hybrid engine. The move is the company’s effort to lower emissions by 35 percent by 2015, USA Today reported.
Even Kansans mad about the approval of a coal-fired plant in western Kansas should be pleased by the deal reached to build ultra high-voltage power lines from Wichita to Dodge City by 2013. Both Prairie Wind Transmission and ITC Great Plains, which had been competing for the $800 million project, have agreed to work on the 765 kilovolt transmission lines, which would be the first west of the Mississippi River. “We absolutely must have a way to move the great wind energy source that we have in western Kansas to eastern Kansas and beyond,” said Gov. Mark Parkinson, in announcing the deal. Regulatory and cost hurdles remain, but the deal further demonstrates that Kansas is ready to get on with its goal of becoming a wind energy powerhouse.
Meanwhile, a new government climate status report released Tuesday warned that global warming’s serious effects are already here and getting worse.
“Scientists agree that CO2 emissions around the world could lead to rising temperatures with serious long-term environmental consequences. But that is not a reason to enact a U.S. cap-and-trade system until there is a global agreement on CO2 reduction,” wrote Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein. “The proposed legislation would have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households.”
Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, noted during a visit to Wichita last week that a cap-and-trade emission system could be a boon to Kansas farmers if it allows them to sell emission credits. Farmers could reduce their emissions and earn credits by means such as no-till farming, precision fertilizing and burning methane gas created by manure, Johnson said.
Though one might not think so now, based on their strong opposition to cap-and-trade legislation, Kansas Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts have in the past been big backers of allowing farmers to earn and sell carbon credits. In 2001, Brownback sponsored a carbon-sequestration act in which farmers would earn credits for the amount of carbon their fields absorb. Roberts pushed for federal research on carbon sequestration and called on farmers to help combat global warming. “Let’s be part of the answer, not part of the problem,” he said in 2000.
New Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson offered a deal to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Kansas, the company that had been lobbying for two coal-fired power plants for well over a year. Parkinson is allowing Sunflower to build one of those coal plants. With this settlement Kansas has given up its place as a national leader on clean energy. Under former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas was well-positioned to make contributions to slow global warming. This agreement is a significant setback. The concessions made to the coal industry will greatly outweigh any so-called benefits for the state. The new coal plant actually increases Kansas’ contributions to global warming. While the country is moving away from polluting fossil fuels, Kansas has opened the door for outdated, dirty technology other states are rejecting. The agreement appears to invite Sunflower Electric to build another coal plant in two years. This is not a compromise, but a giveaway to the coal industry Kansans have stood up against. — Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club, for the Huffington Post
The number of planned coal plants across America has plummeted from 150 to 60 in the past five years. Last year 5,465 megawatts of new electricity were announced, but more than twice that capacity was subtracted because of cancellations or delays. Environmentalists, though thrilled, know they still have a long way to go. Renewable resources can’t yet begin to replace coal as providers of power. But a deal struck in Kansas on May 4, ending 19 months of impasse between Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and the state government, shows under what conditions coal may be able to survive. Two coal-fired plants had been planned by Sunflower. It will now build just one, which will use new clean technology, offset carbon dioxide emissions and develop wind energy on the side. In return, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment cannot impose any greenhouse-gas regulations that are tougher than those emerging from Washington. Suddenly, that seems a pretty high bar. — the Economist magazine
President Bush took heat from environmentalists for deciding not to take global warming into account when managing endangered species, but the Obama administration is keeping the rule in place. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said last week that global warming is a problem for polar bears but that “the Endangered Species Act is not the appropriate tool for us to deal with what is a global issue.” The act was intended to protect animals from close-by threats, such as hunting, but environmentalists have argued that the act also should be used to help protect endangered species from larger threats.
Gov. Mark Parkinson wasted no time making a mark on an area of public policy of special interest to him, hammering out a deal with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to allow a single 895-megawatt coal-fired plant near Holcomb if lawmakers pass a comprehensive package of renewable energy measures. Kansas will get the jobs and part of the power, and many fewer tons of carbon dioxide than under the two-plan proposal. Best of all, what had become an absurd political and lobbying fight appears to be over.
Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It’s time to lay that misapprehension to rest. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities, and most of the “observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and nonhuman communities, as predicted by climate models. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it. — Naomi Oreskes, the Washington Post
More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee’s press blog. I’ve found that you’ve really got to pay close attention to how people talk about global warming or climate change. Most scientists agree that climate change indeed is occurring — they just differ on the reason why it is occurring. As for myself, I’m no scientist (or a Nobel Prize-winning former vice president), but I think that if you’re trying to find out why things are heating up, the sun would be a good place to start, especially since there’s plenty of scientific data showing that the Earth has been running hot and cold for thousands of years. — Carleton Bryant, GlobalClimateScam.com
