Originally posted 2008-05-02:
Wow. I’m shocked. I’m ecstatic. The Governor’s veto of the “Holcomb bill” stands! For those who don’t know, Sunflower Electric and many in the Kansas Legislature have spent much of the last months attempting to ram through one of many different versions of a bill intended to “put in his place” the Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment, and to enact a law specifically to allow Sunflower to build two large coal-fired generators. To read a blow-by-blow account of the sordid story, read a couple months of history in CEP’s blog. The drama isn’t over yet, but does seem to have taken a very positive turn!
On the issue itself, I laud the legislators who chose to “do the right thing” and vote either against one of the “Holcomb bills” or against the override of the Governor’s veto of said bills. Coal, with proper management of its emissions, will likely need to be a part of our energy mix in the near term, although energy policy must soon turn towards sustainable sources and efficient uses for our long-term well being. An excellent summary of the issues is available from CEP.
For what it’s worth, for some time I’ve taken the position that, though it seems as though the weight of credible scientific opinion is that we’re dealing with substantial anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I don’t know enough about the subject to make any bold comments. I’m still not a climate scientist, but after reading The Hot Topic I do feel comfortable saying that some of the most credible arguments against AGW have been considered, and have been adequately refuted–it’s a very readable, practical book that gives an excellent survey of the science, looks at some of the costs and benefits of adaptation and prevention (and of doing nothing), and dispels myths of both the “there’s no problem” and the “there’s no hope, the sky is falling” varieties. But, the take-home message is: we do need to act wisely for the future. The pigheaded insistence that these plants must be built, essentially as planned, no matter what, does not strike me as an especially well-considered approach to planning.
Finally, I’d sort of forgotten the kind of pressure that people voting against forcing the coal plants through might face. I’m guessing that some of those advocating for the plants do so because it seems like “the least of evils”, and though I disagree strongly with them on the wisdom of that move (and plan to use that as a negative criterion for political support), I can generally respect them nonetheless. On the other hand, Speaker of the House, Melvin Neufeld is leading the charge for the coal plants–read the linked case for a window into the methods he’s used in the past. To those standing up to the pressure…thank you!
