Voice For Liberty

Category: Environment

  • Where’s the dirtiest coal plant in Kansas?

    Right north of Lawrence, home to many of our state’s global warming alarmists, stands a very dirty coal-fired power plant. James Meier explains and describes the irony in the video commentary Most Polluting Regions Among Greatest Objectors to Coal Plants.

    Which Kansas power plant was ranked the state’s dirtiest by the Environmental Integrity Project? The answer might surprise you.

    Since, the Sebelius administration blocked the Holcomb Plant Expansion, there has been a flood of special interest money attempting to influence the political process.

    Many of the activists from Lawrence don’t want the plant built because they insist there will be environmental problems that would affect the rest of the state, all coal power plants in Kansas, except Holcomb, are located in eastern Kansas .

    Pollution knows no boundaries, and yet common sense dictates those closest to a plant will experience the most adverse effects. which power plant is the state’s dirtiest?

    Westar’s Lawrence Energy Center produced over 4 million tons of carbon dioxide and 3 million megawatts of electricity in 2006 to be ranked the 12th dirtiest in the nation per kilowatt hour.

  • Global warming alarmism: coming to a faith-based organization near you

    Has global warming alarmism become a religious issue? Judging by a recent op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, it seems so. (Moti Rieber and Connie Pace-Adair: Make clean-energy generation a priority, February 22, 2009 Wichita Eagle. Link is to article at the Eagle, or see Eagle op-ed: Clean energy is a faith issue at Rieber’s blog.)

    As always, we must recognize that the science behind global warming alarmism is not a settled issue. What else is there in this op-ed to be concerned about?

    Mr. Rieber speaks of “free and abundant wind.” Readers of his op-ed may be excused for believing that wind power generation is free of cost, as that’s the message that comes through. But wind power, we are finding out, is quite expensive. My post A Reasoned Look at Wind Power reports on a study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation that examines the entire picture of wind power in Texas.

    Or, as a piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal stated: “Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful, reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government subsidizes them.”

    These expensive alternative energy programs make electricity more expensive, as evidenced by Westar’s recent rate increase request. It makes it more difficult for poor people — a group Rieber seems to care for — to pay their utility bills. This was the case last September when Westar asked for a rate increase that would amount to about $10 a month for the average homeowner. In Wichita Eagle reporting, Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, was quoted as saying “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.”

    This directly contradicts Rieber when he writes “A clean-energy future … alleviates the burdens that our energy policies place on the poor and vulnerable among us.” Unless, of course, someone else pays for this expensive energy.

    Rieber also advocates programs that give “Kansans access to programs such as programmable thermostats and weatherization rebates.” This gives us another clue as to Rieber’s political goals: expansive government programs that subsidize one group at the expense of another. These subsidies might be one-time, as in the case of helping someone buy a thermostat, or ongoing, helping them to pay for expensive power.

    In a few follow-up email conversations with Mr. Rieber, some of which are available for reading on his blog, it became clear to me that he is quite comfortable with using the coercive power and force of government to achieve his personal political goals.

    Both authors of this op-ed are members of the steering committee of Kansas Interfaith Power and Light, an organization that works with faith communities. Its steering committee is largely composed of religious leaders. It’s always puzzling to me how leaders like these are willing to use the force of government — and that’s what government is — to achieve their political goals. Always from the moral high horse, of course.

  • Counting on Green Jobs

    Those who advocate a wholesale rush into alternative energy often cite the benefit of “green jobs.” That is, by building all sorts of alternative energy projects, many people will be employed. It will be great for the economy, they say. President Barack Obama is one of these.

    But is it wise policy to invest in these jobs? The Wall Street Journal article Don’t Count on ‘Countless’ Green Jobs: The evidence shows alternative energy is expensive provides some evidence to the contrary:

    If the green-jobs claim sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

    There’s an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies: From an economic standpoint, they’re big losers. Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful, reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government subsidizes them.

    As if this isn’t enough, consider what happens when companies must pay more for energy: “The alternative technologies at the heart of Mr. Obama’s plan, relying on mandates and far greater handouts, will inevitably raise energy prices — and high power prices are job killers.”

    Doing this on the basis of what looks increasingly like shaky scientific grounds is foolish.

  • Kansas Wind Power Economic Benefit in Perspective

    An editorial in the Wichita Eagle that promotes wind power as an economic benefit for for Kansas contains some reasoning that deserves examination before we commit to the author’s cause. (Emil Ramirez: Entire state could benefit from wind, February 19, 2009 Wichita Eagle.)

    Unstated by Mr. Ramirez, but underlying this op-ed, is that the shift to wind power from coal is necessary to reduce carbon emissions for environmental reasons. The science behind this is far from settled. Besides, there’s very little that we in Kansas can do in light of the rapid increase in global carbon emissions. Doing something of this magnitude on shaky scientific evidence is unwise. (See KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual. Ramirez, by the way, is an appointee to the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group.)

    One of the arguments Ramirez makes is that investment in wind power is good because it creates jobs: “every wind turbine requires hundreds of yards of concrete, miles of steel rebar, copper wire and highly skilled laborers to install.”

    This is a trap that many supporters of alternative energy investment fall into: Simply because something will cost a lot and create many jobs, it’s a good policy. The best energy policy we could have, however, is one that supplies our energy needs at the lowest cost. Spending more for no good reason leads to a misapplication of capital. After all, if we view our energy policy as a jobs creation program, why not build wind turbines and haul them to western Kansas without the use of machinery? Think of the jobs that would create.

    Ramirez also argues that “concerted investment in energy efficiency” will create a “a bigger boom still.” He doesn’t say so, but I suspect that his goal is to get the government to pay for energy efficiency programs. But right now, every homeowner and business has the opportunity to invest in as many energy efficiency measures as they deem desirable. Each person or firm makes their own decision, based on their judgment of the future cost of energy versus the investment required to save energy, that suits their own needs.

    This voluntary conservation and investment in efficiency is much preferred to government mandate, that mandate usually backed up by taxing and spending.

    Finally, Ramirez also states that wind energy “uses no water,” alluding to one of the frequent criticisms of coal-fired power plants: their water use. This criticism is unfounded. As explained in my post Holcomb, Kansas Coal Plant Water Usage in Perspective, the water that a new Kansas coal plant would use is small compared to other uses of water in Kansas. There’s also the fact that the plant has purchased water rights for the water it will use. If the power plant didn’t use this water, it would very likely be used in agriculture, probably irrigating corn to be fed to cattle or turned into ethanol.

  • Kansas Climate Change Group Changes

    In his piece Separate But Still the Same, climate change alarmist watchdog Paul Chesser writes “A global warming alarmist group that masqueraded for the last few years as an objective consultant for many states announced this week that it has been disowned by its global warming alarmist parents.”

    This article describes changes made at the Center for Climate Strategies. This is of interest to us in Kansas for at least one reason. Here’s Chesser’s paraphrasing of CCS’ pitch made to states:

    There is a human-caused global warming crisis and the states must do something about it, because the federal government is not. We ask the governor to issue an executive order that confirms this crisis and creates a commission to study greenhouse gas emissions — but call it a “climate commission.” Appoint members who buy into the anthropogenic global warming crisis, and include some representatives from utilities and business, but not too many or they might screw things up. Once you hire CCS, we will take care of everything for you from then on: run the meetings, set the agendas, write the meeting minutes, provide technical analysis, maintain the website, and establish the voting rules. Oh, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and other global warming alarmist foundations have provided the funding for our work, so don’t you worry! Just let CCS do its thing.

    Kansas, by way of Governor Kathleen Sebelius‘s executive order establishing Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP), fell for this sales pitch — con job, really — and we’ll be paying for this mistake for years to come.

  • Kelly Wendeln on Global Warming

    Kelly Wendeln speaks to the members of the Wichita City Council about global warming on February 3, 2009.

  • Drinkwine editorial on Kansas carbon emissions overlooks evidence

    Frank Drinkwine of the Kansas Sierra Club has an editorial in today’s Wichita Eagle that ignores some important facts. (Frank Drinkwine: Bremby has and needs authority to protect air, February 5, 2009 Wichita Eagle.)

    Setting aside for the moment the climate change hysteria that Drinkwine relies on (and we really shouldn’t set that aside), he’s wrong when he ascribes pure motives to Red Bremby, Kansas Health and Environment Secretary. It’s apparent that when Bremby denied the permit for the expansion of the Holcomb station power plant his motivation was political.

    In February 2008, according to Associated Press reporting, Rod Bremby was apparently willing to approve a permit for a Hyperion oil refinery that would emit 17 million tons of carbon a year, when he denied the Holcomb Station power plan expansion solely because of its emissions of 11 million tons. (See Oil refiner wary of coming to Kansas, also Rod Bremby’s Action Drove Away the Refinery.)

    Drinkwine writes “No other projects have been presented to Bremby for permitting that even remotely rival the scale of the Holcomb project.” I believe this is true, but a story from last year in the Topeka Capital-Journal reports “Bremby wrote he couldn’t commit to issuing the permit but said if Hyperion submitted the same application as they did in South Dakota, there “should not be a problem with issuance.’” Remember that this is for a plant that would emit 17 million tons of carbon per year, as compared to Holcomb’s 11 million tons.

    Why would he be willing to approve 17 million tons of carbon emissions, but not 11 million tons? It’s a good question. Perhaps oil refineries don’t carry the stigma of coal. Perhaps Bremby was just doing the bidding of our governor as she prepared to build her green credentials as she entered the national stage.

  • Why Was Al Gore There?

    “The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.”

    That’s how Dana Milbank starts a report on a recent appearance by Al Gore before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    The story is With Al Due Respect, We’re Doomed. Read it, and ask yourselves a few questions, such as: Why is this matter being discussed before this particular committee? Why is Al Gore testifying on this matter? And why do these senators say the things they do: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself. … Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore? … The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis. … And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”

  • Mr. Obama, who hates the cold…

    had cranked up the thermostat. So reports the New York Times in White House Unbuttons Formal Dress Code.

    “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

    It’s good to know that some people are able to indulge their preferences in setting the thermostat, apparently without guilt.