Voice For Liberty

Tag: Environment

  • Jack Pelton, Leader of Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group

    Earlier this year, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius created the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) and appointed Cessna Aircraft Company chairman, president and chief executive officer Jack Pelton as its leader.

    This was a smart political move by Governor Sebelius. She appears to have put the planning for our state’s energy future in the hands of an independent, skeptical businessman, someone who will be concerned about the bottom line. Someone who won’t be overly influenced by the emotional appeals of environmentalists.

    Kansans need to understand, however, that Jack Pelton may not want to, or be able to, exhibit the independence necessary to formulate sound energy and environmental policy in Kansas.

    In a Wichita Eagle editorial on May 18, 2008, Pelton said he believes that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced: “We are tasked with helping develop a plan to ensure Kansas energy needs are met now and in the future through policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” To me, this sounds as though he’s already formed a conclusion — and one that happens to agree with our governor’s.

    That agreement with Governor Sebelius may not be a coincidence. Other motives may be a factor. That’s because earlier this year, the State of Kansas approved $33 million in incentives for Cessna, with Wichita and Sedgwick County adding another $10 million. The governor signed the legislation in a televised ceremony at Cessna’s facilities in Wichita. This award to Cessna is part of $150 million in aircraft incentives the state authorized.

    (As is often the case with economic development incentives, the state won’t directly give Cessna the money. Instead, it will issue bonds that Cessna will repay with its employee withholding taxes. Confusing maneuvers like this allow governments to say they aren’t actually giving money to companies. Instead, they’re merely issuing bonds which will be repaid, never mind what they’re being repaid with.)

    His company having received a gift like that, how could Pelton turn down the governor’s request to lead KEEP? Given Kathleen Sebelius’ national political ambitions based on her green environmentalist credentials, how can he be expected to do anything that would ruffle her feathers?

    When you combine these factors with the fact that KEEP is being facilitated by The Center for Climate Strategies, Kansans should be very skeptical of the conclusions and recommendations that will emerge from this process.

  • Kansas Climate Profile: Cause For Alarm?

    The Science and Public Policy Institute has released a series of state climate profiles. The Kansas Climate Profile is very interesting to read, especially in light of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and the creation of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or (KEEP).

    One of the things that I’ve not been able to understand is how people believe that what we do in Kansas — like denying a permit for a coal-fired power plant — can have any impact on the global climate. After all, we are just a small part of the planet, and some large countries show no inclination to slow down their production of increasing quantities of greenhouse gases.

    Just how small is the contribution of Kansas to global carbon dioxide emissions? Vanishingly small: “… even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in Kansas would be entirely subsumed by rising global emissions in about one month’s time.” So we in Kansas could stop all production of carbon dioxide from all sources, and in one month our sacrifice would be canceled.

    Another interesting item from the report is this: “Future projections indicate that Kansas will be less impacted by rising global temperatures — natural or otherwise — than any other state in the country.”

    As KEEP conducts its meetings that are directed by a group with a clear ideological bent, will it be exposed to information like this?

  • Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

    CBS News picks up on a National Review Online story about the idealogical bias of Wikipedia when it comes to the subject of global warming.

    On Wikipedia, regular folks like me who make changes to articles are known as “editors.” When we make these edits, they are subject to review and possible revision or deletion by other Wikipedia editors. There’s a certain give-and-take, based on Wikipedia culture and some rules, that governs these activities.

    But Wikipedia has some special people known as administrators, who have great power in controlling the content of Wikipedia articles. When these people have biases, there can be problems with Wikipedia articles. This is what the article Wikipropaganda On Global Warming reports on, and it is worthwhile to read.

  • Rasmussen Poll on Kansas Coal Plant

    What is the attitude of Kansans toward coal-fired power plants?

    Opponents of these plants have polls purportedly telling us that a majority of Kansans are opposed to them. See the press release Kansans Support Denial of Coal Plants, Want Wind Power for New Electricity from GPACE, a group headed by Scott Allegrucci, a former actor and son of Joyce Allegrucci, the former campaign director and chief of staff for Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. But also see Kansans’ Opposition to Coal Plant: Look at the Poll for a look at the type of questions used in this poll.

    Now a Rasmussen Reports poll from June 2008 covers some issues in Kansas. The poll can be viewed here. The last question in the poll is this:

    Should the State of Kansas allow a power company to build a new coal fired plant in southwest Kansas?

    48% Yes
    32% No
    19% Not sure

    This time the question is asked plainly, without the emotional imagery used to frame the questions in the poll mentioned above. The results, not surprisingly, are different.

  • Kansans’ Opposition to Coal Plant: Look at the Poll

    We’ve been told that Kansas public opinion is against the building of a coal-fired power plant in western Kansas. See the press release at Kansans Support Denial of Coal Plants, Want Wind Power for New Electricity.

    I would encourage you to view the questions that appeared on the poll cited in the press release. Here’s one, where people were asked which statement comes closer to their point of view:

    Statement A: Now more than ever we need to commit to alternative energy sources such as electric power generated by wind. We have the technology, if we only have the political will to invest sufficiently in it.

    Statement B: Wind energy is a nice idea, but it is ultimately insufficient to meet much of our energy needs. And placing huge wind turbines all over our beautiful rural landscapes is hardly the path to sound environmental stewardship. We need to focus our efforts on more practical sources of energy.

    Do you consider these two questions to be loaded, in that they use imagery designed to generate a certain response? Statement A refers to “political will,” something that most people are in favor of. Who doesn’t want more “political will?” Besides, what we need is private investment in electricity generation, not political investment.

    Statement B implies that “huge wind turbines” spoil our “beautiful rural landscapes” in Kansas and is poor “stewardship.” Powerful words, aren’t they?

    In my opinion, this question is designed to produce agreement biased towards statement A. It could not be more blatant.

  • Kansas environmental policy is full of uncertainty

    In a January 17, 2008 Wichita Eagle editorial, Nancy Jackson of the Climate and Energy Project of the Land Institute claims that Roderick L. Bremby, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, did not create regulatory uncertainty when he denied the permit for the expansion of a coal-fired power plant in Kansas.

    A dubious claim made in this editorial is how “Neither Bremby nor Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is ‘out front’ on this issue [carbon emissions].” Jackson claims that Bremby was just following an inevitable trend towards more regulation of carbon emissions. But this is in direct opposition to news reports at the time. The Washington Post, for example, reported “The Kansas Department of Health and Environment yesterday became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment.” (Power Plant Rejected Over Carbon Dioxide For First Time)

    Being the first to do something creates uncertainty, especially when the professional staff of KDHE approved the permit. The decision must have been made by just one person — or maybe two, as the level of involvement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius in the decision is not known.

    But what discredits Ms. Jackson most is something she couldn’t have known when she wrote this editorial. In February, according to Associated Press reporting, Rod Bremby was apparently willing to approve a permit for an oil refinery that would emit 17 million tons of carbon a year, when he denied the power plant 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.)

    If this isn’t regulatory uncertainty, I don’t know what is.

  • Who Owns and Runs the KEEP Website?

    The Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) has an impressive-looking website located at ksclimatechange.us. Just by looking at it, you’d think it was an official State of Kansas website, complete with a photograph of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and our state seal.

    But who actually owns this website? A check reveals that the domain name is registered to a Thomas D. Peterson of Fairfax, Virginia. He also owns a few other domain names, including mnclimatechange.us, scclimatechange.us, flclimatechange.us, and wiclimatechange.us. These, of course, are websites for the states of Minnesota, South Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin.

    What does this mean? For me, it raises a question as to who is really running KEEP. Will the process be something that will benefit the people of Kansas, giving full recognition to what makes Kansas different from other states? Or is Kansas just another cog in the extremist Center for Climate Strategies machine?

  • Earthjustice in Kansas: The Press Release

    I’ve recently learned that the radical environmentalist group Earthjustice played a role in the rejection of a coal-fired power plant in Kansas. I didn’t learn that from any Kansas news source, but only from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and only then long after the permit for the plant was denied. See Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius at Earthjustice.

    Now I see Earthjustice’s press release Kansas Rejects Massive Sunflower Coal-Fired Power Plant.

    What did Earthjustice do in Kansas, and how did they do it? These are things Kansans need to know. To that end, I’ve filed a request under the Kansas Open Records Act asking for records of the correspondence between the governor’s office and Earthjustice. Hopefully the governor’s office will respond to this request in a way that will let Kansans have access to information they have the right to know.

  • Earthjustice in Kansas: What is Their Agenda?

    Yesterday I posted Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius at Earthjustice, about Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius speaking at a event hosted by Earthjustice, a group that I believe has a radical environmentalist agenda.

    Just what is the agenda of the group? Do they have the interests of Kansas in mind, or something else?

    I asked a few blogger friends if they knew anything about Earthjustice and its agenda. Here’s what I received from one, which I believe correctly tells us what this group is really about:

    I find this organization to be rather scary. From their president’s vision:

    But, we are not like a law firm in the fundamental sense that we identify critical issues and strategies that need to be moved forward, rather than just wait for clients and cases to show up. We think about what kinds of clients are needed to best advance the particular cause.

    Translation: We don’t have clients — we have issues and then find clients to sue in court.

    Our bottom line is using the courts to protect wild places and wildlife, reduce pollution and protect people’s health from all kinds of environmental problems, and move us all forward on addressing global warming. We are here “because the Earth needs a good lawyer.”

    Translation: Since we can’t accomplish our goals through legislation, we’ll use the courts to bypass the will of the people.

    It’s very clear to me that voluntary actions by individuals and businesses, no matter how widespread and well-intentioned are important but are not sufficient to bring about the change we need. We will always need a powerful environmental movement that can affect policy, and to be effective that movement needs a powerful litigation organization like Earthjustice.

    Translation: And since we think we’re right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong, we’ll use the power of the courts to force our ideas upon you.