Thankfully, Democrats in this post-2004 presidential election world have not all become too scared to “flip-flop.” After the Republican Party bludgeoned John Kerry with the term a few years ago, Kathleen Sibelius (the Democratic governor of a Republican state) might have been justified in feeling some concern over changing her mind. Nevertheless, the governor retracted her initial support for two proposed coal-burning power plants near Holcomb and used her powers of persuasion to ensure that they will not grace the Western Kansas landscape.
Sibelius’ support was not the only obstacle standing in the way of environmentalists and concerned citizens who wished to block the plants’ construction. The decision to grant the Sunflower Electric Power Corporation an air-quality permit for the plants rested with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. In typical bureaucratic fashion, it took them a while to decide what to do. On Oct. 18 KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby stated that he had decided to deny the permit.
When I heard the news, I was overjoyed. Often, when environmental concerns conflict with economic interests, the flashing dollar signs blind people to the air, trees and squirrels around them. Or at least they used to. Hopefully, Bremby’s decision is a sign that the dollar signs’ lights are growing dim. The secretary’s move was somewhat daring; Not only did many state citizens object to it, but according to an article in last Friday’s Topeka Capital-Journal, KDHE employees had actually recommended granting Sunflower Electric the permit.
Some may see this as a mark against Bremby, claiming that he ignored the opinions of experts in order to advance his own personal agenda. In ignoring the opinions of some experts, however, he took heed of the opinions of others, specifically those who point out the negative effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Bremby did not have to deny the permit. The state of Kansas does not currently regulate carbon dioxide emissions, so in legal terms, the plant has a right to be here. Its ethical claim to existence, however, is rather more suspect. The environmental toll would be two-fold: The plants would both consume coal (a nonrenewable resource) and spew carbon dioxide into the air, contributing to the greenhouse effect, global warming and mass homelessness within the polar bear and penguin communities.
Penguin homelessness, some might be thinking, is unfortunate, but perhaps it’s an acceptable price to pay for being able to light our homes, cook our food and display inflatable snowmen on our front lawns in December. And they might have a point (though an egocentric one) if the building of another coal-burning power plant were actually required to provide us with more energy.
But the energy is already there. Western Kansas might not have much, but it does have wind. If we worked to harvest this, air could become the next cash crop. The construction of just a few wind turbines could provide the area with a large portion of its energy needs. Wind (as anyone from Western Kansas can tell you) is completely renewable, and the turbines do not release greenhouse gases into the air. In light of this, the construction of coal-burning power plants is unjustifiable.
Now that the governor and secretary of KDHE have established themselves on the “green” side of things, they will hopefully investigate wind power as a source of energy and economic development for Kansas. Flashing dollar signs are all right, as long as they’re lit up by wind power and not with coal.