Comments on: Tangled Up in Green: In Coal Blood — Finding an Alternative for Holcomb, Kansas http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/ Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet Wed, 23 May 2012 01:08:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: In Coal Blood — Finding an Alternative for Holcomb, Kansas « J500/ES624 Media & The Environment http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/comment-page-1/#comment-43 In Coal Blood — Finding an Alternative for Holcomb, Kansas « J500/ES624 Media & The Environment Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:45:05 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/#comment-43 [...] note: The following is part of the Tangle Up In Green series I’m co-authoring with [...] [...] note: The following is part of the Tangle Up In Green series I’m co-authoring with [...]

]]> By: ranjit http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/comment-page-1/#comment-10 ranjit Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:32:23 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/#comment-10 Timothy, thanks for joining the discussion. I, too, thought about that whole Federalist argument, but ultimately I figured this was too intricate an episode to categorize that way. That is, it was indeed a state asserting its power to protect its own interests, but it wasn't reached through the avenues of popular vote or legislative debate; it was basically a mandate by a KDHE official (and by proxy the governor). Nothing wrong with that, in my humble opinion. They're discussing the legitmacy of that power as we speak, but I think Bremby was acting in the state's and public's best interests, so I'm behind him 100 percent. Anyway, I originally intended to make an argument that the same people who feel it's a state's right to develop its own rules when it comes to preventing gay marriage or to supporting the death penalty suddenly didn't think a state should have the right to say no to the pollution that happens within its borders. In any case, it's a complex argument--but there's definitely some of that hypocrisy at play. Timothy, thanks for joining the discussion. I, too, thought about that whole Federalist argument, but ultimately I figured this was too intricate an episode to categorize that way. That is, it was indeed a state asserting its power to protect its own interests, but it wasn't reached through the avenues of popular vote or legislative debate; it was basically a mandate by a KDHE official (and by proxy the governor). Nothing wrong with that, in my humble opinion. They're discussing the legitmacy of that power as we speak, but I think Bremby was acting in the state's and public's best interests, so I'm behind him 100 percent.

Anyway, I originally intended to make an argument that the same people who feel it's a state's right to develop its own rules when it comes to preventing gay marriage or to supporting the death penalty suddenly didn't think a state should have the right to say no to the pollution that happens within its borders.

In any case, it's a complex argument–but there's definitely some of that hypocrisy at play.

]]> By: Timothy B. Hurst http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Timothy B. Hurst Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:08:59 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/#comment-9 Who'd a thunk that Holcomb,Kansas would be at the center of U.S. climate and energy policy? This issue is much more than a question of how Kansans get their power. This issue touches upon federal abdication of responsibility, and issues of federalism. Great political fodder! FYI: Maril Hazlett and others are doing excellent work following the Holcomb case and Kansas energy legislation at the <a href="http://blog.climateandenergy.org" rel="nofollow">Climate and Energy Project blog</a>. They've been doing live blogging from hearings, updates on roll-call votes, and all kinds of other goodies. Who'd a thunk that Holcomb,Kansas would be at the center of U.S. climate and energy policy? This issue is much more than a question of how Kansans get their power. This issue touches upon federal abdication of responsibility, and issues of federalism. Great political fodder!

FYI: Maril Hazlett and others are doing excellent work following the Holcomb case and Kansas energy legislation at the Climate and Energy Project blog. They've been doing live blogging from hearings, updates on roll-call votes, and all kinds of other goodies.

]]> By: ranjit http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/comment-page-1/#comment-3 ranjit Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:16:38 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/#comment-3 There's no doubt that the plants would generate jobs and money for a select few, but I challenge the notion that, at the end of the day, the profits will outweigh the costs. Polluted waters, polluted skies, thousands of train cars lugging coal from across the nation...there are several hidden costs that, for obvious reasons, Sunflower Electric and its supporters won't mention. We can both agree that our state's energy demand is only a fraction of the proposed output and that wind energy needs to be one of the variables in the equation, so why go ahead with any coal project (clean or otherwise) when clearly less harmful methods can be used? The bottom line, of course, is that the coal industry--and major energy companies in general--has a stronghold on many of our politicians. As a result, these politicians are willing to emphasize the few benefits (temporary and permanent jobs, additional revenues), but aren't willing to acknowledge the true impact. Energy supply is a necessity in this modern age, but clean air and water are basic human rights--if we sacrifice the latter in pursuit of the mighty dollar, what good are all of those jobs (unless they have very good health care policies...which, of course, is highly doubtful). --Ranjit There's no doubt that the plants would generate jobs and money for a select few, but I challenge the notion that, at the end of the day, the profits will outweigh the costs. Polluted waters, polluted skies, thousands of train cars lugging coal from across the nation…there are several hidden costs that, for obvious reasons, Sunflower Electric and its supporters won't mention.

We can both agree that our state's energy demand is only a fraction of the proposed output and that wind energy needs to be one of the variables in the equation, so why go ahead with any coal project (clean or otherwise) when clearly less harmful methods can be used?

The bottom line, of course, is that the coal industry–and major energy companies in general–has a stronghold on many of our politicians. As a result, these politicians are willing to emphasize the few benefits (temporary and permanent jobs, additional revenues), but aren't willing to acknowledge the true impact. Energy supply is a necessity in this modern age, but clean air and water are basic human rights–if we sacrifice the latter in pursuit of the mighty dollar, what good are all of those jobs (unless they have very good health care policies…which, of course, is highly doubtful).

–Ranjit

]]> By: Bowman Adam http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Bowman Adam Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:10:13 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/06/in-coal-blood-finding-an-alternative-for-holcomb-kan/#comment-2 Ranjit, I agree the new plants are more about making money than the desperate need for energy. But it's about making money for the community as much as it is for the company. I also agree that for Holcomb, wind should be on the table. But as of yet, I don't think the legislature is even discussing that as an alternative, but rather in conjunction with the coal plants. Another interesting morsel is that there are cleaner coal technologies out there than what the Holcomb plant extension is proposing. The coal gasification process is cleaner, and easier to separate the harmful CO2 from the mix. Then CO2 sequestration should be discussed as well if the state is bent on coal. Morning thoughts, -Adam Ranjit,

I agree the new plants are more about making money than the desperate need for energy. But it's about making money for the community as much as it is for the company.

I also agree that for Holcomb, wind should be on the table. But as of yet, I don't think the legislature is even discussing that as an alternative, but rather in conjunction with the coal plants.

Another interesting morsel is that there are cleaner coal technologies out there than what the Holcomb plant extension is proposing. The coal gasification process is cleaner, and easier to separate the harmful CO2 from the mix. Then CO2 sequestration should be discussed as well if the state is bent on coal.

Morning thoughts,

-Adam

]]>