letters
Two sides to coal issue
State Rep. Bob Grant
Issue date: 4/24/08 Section: Politics
I received a letter via e-mail from Jeremy Johnson of the PSU SGA. It was well-written and had a lot of statistics and data concerning the harmful aspects of coal-fired energy plants. I wondered how he had accumulated all this knowledge in a short period of time. I also wondered why I had received the letter at this point in the legislative process when I had asked for input from constituents through my newsletter and the Morning Sun several weeks ago.
Then I was directed to the story in the April 3 issue of the Collegio titled "Rec center director discusses student fees with SGA." Included in the article was a piece about R.J. Wilson speaking as a lobbyist working with the governor about the negative aspects of coal-fired plants. Did Mr. Wilson also inform the SGA that he is also a lobbyist for Chesapeake Energy Marketing Company out of Oklahoma? Did he tell the group that this company is in competition with the Sunflower organization? Did he let anyone know that he has been a proponent of ethanol plants? Is the CO2 that ethanol plants produce better for us than that of coal-fired plants? Did he mention that 37 of the 41 representatives who voted against SB148 are from larger, urban areas of Kansas, which are home to coal-fired plants whose operation would not come close to the standards of the plants proposed in Holcomb? Not to mention that urban areas have many more opportunities for economic development than rural areas. And did Mr. Wilson tell them that shortly before he left the office of county clerk he was promoting a coal-fired plant in Crawford County less than five miles from the PSU campus?
There are two sides to every issue. Certainly we are seeking more environmentally friendly ways to supply our power needs, but without other legitimate sources of power primed and ready to go, all sources still need to be considered, but all sources have some negative aspects.
So there is a need for compromise. No one wants a power source in their backyard - except the people of Finney County with the local employment and financial benefits that will go with it. The state will be impacted as well, with job opportunities for skilled workers from various parts of Kansas including Southeast Kansas.
Sunflower has worked with KDHE and met the criteria that agency had established. Then somehow the policy was changed. (Kind of like certain credit requirements to graduate that get changed just as a student is about to reach that goal.) Who are we to deny them if this is done along with development of other energy resources? This has become an issue that is much more than environmental; it is economic and political.
We are stewards of God's creation, but that stewardship is challenged by more than coal-fired plants. We will all have to examine our lifestyles. I am reminded of the story of the guy flying down I-35 at 80 miles an hour in his fuel burning Hummer with the bumper sticker that says, "Save the Environment."
Maybe we need to take a closer look at into whose pocket the money is going.
Then I was directed to the story in the April 3 issue of the Collegio titled "Rec center director discusses student fees with SGA." Included in the article was a piece about R.J. Wilson speaking as a lobbyist working with the governor about the negative aspects of coal-fired plants. Did Mr. Wilson also inform the SGA that he is also a lobbyist for Chesapeake Energy Marketing Company out of Oklahoma? Did he tell the group that this company is in competition with the Sunflower organization? Did he let anyone know that he has been a proponent of ethanol plants? Is the CO2 that ethanol plants produce better for us than that of coal-fired plants? Did he mention that 37 of the 41 representatives who voted against SB148 are from larger, urban areas of Kansas, which are home to coal-fired plants whose operation would not come close to the standards of the plants proposed in Holcomb? Not to mention that urban areas have many more opportunities for economic development than rural areas. And did Mr. Wilson tell them that shortly before he left the office of county clerk he was promoting a coal-fired plant in Crawford County less than five miles from the PSU campus?
There are two sides to every issue. Certainly we are seeking more environmentally friendly ways to supply our power needs, but without other legitimate sources of power primed and ready to go, all sources still need to be considered, but all sources have some negative aspects.
So there is a need for compromise. No one wants a power source in their backyard - except the people of Finney County with the local employment and financial benefits that will go with it. The state will be impacted as well, with job opportunities for skilled workers from various parts of Kansas including Southeast Kansas.
Sunflower has worked with KDHE and met the criteria that agency had established. Then somehow the policy was changed. (Kind of like certain credit requirements to graduate that get changed just as a student is about to reach that goal.) Who are we to deny them if this is done along with development of other energy resources? This has become an issue that is much more than environmental; it is economic and political.
We are stewards of God's creation, but that stewardship is challenged by more than coal-fired plants. We will all have to examine our lifestyles. I am reminded of the story of the guy flying down I-35 at 80 miles an hour in his fuel burning Hummer with the bumper sticker that says, "Save the Environment."
Maybe we need to take a closer look at into whose pocket the money is going.
Be the first to comment on this story