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.
The decision marks a victory for environmental groups that are fighting proposals for new coal-fired plants around the country. It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Read the rest of the Washington Post article ‘Power Plant Rejected Over Carbon Dioxide For First Time.’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Fine, let Kansas build its wind turbines in lieu of coal plants to save the planet. However, in the meantime, the state can remove itself from the nation’s power grid, since they oppose energy from coal sources, and see what it’s like to lose power or have brown outs. Then, we’ll find out if saving the Earth is a bigger priority to the citizens and to the politicians wanting to be re-elected. That would be a good micro test to see what could happen on a larger scale if expanded to an entire country.
The innocents in Kansas have probably never before been exposed to the clever liars which California exports. They probably extended lots of hospitality and figured they were dealing with folks as honest as they are.
Some lessons are learned the hard way, and Kansan voters will pay for the lesson.
Yanks musn’t have democracy.
Probably coz no young people are at home to object – as usual for farm states they’re all off in Iraq being cannon fodder for neo-con denialists.
How much CO2 can a newborn baby be expected to exhale over its lifetime? What is Kansas going to do about it?
Interesting to note they also propose an ethanol plant,given the demands upon dwindling water by their ethanol grain growers.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0905-wsj.html
Luke,have you had your Metamucil today?
Woody, the classic misrepresentation.
Do you know its cheaper to install more expensive, efficient apliances (in the vast majority of cases) than it is to build new power stations to supply the rubbish inefficient ones?
Maybe the greenies are economoic rationalists?
Anthony, I can’t think of anything further from the truth than saying that greenies are economic rationalists.
If so, they would let the private market find the most optimum level of economic investment in applicances–and, few people are going to toss major investments in equipment that have life left on them just to buy better ones. I’m keeping my home air conditioners until they break, and that will probably happen after I move.
Also, no rational economist would be demanding that we spend $10 trillion or so and destroy jobs and our ecomony on something for which the science is uncertain and the potential to make a change is seriously in doubt, especially when the major polluting countries are given a pass on paying.
BTW, one of our most liberal (U.S. style) senators, Ted Kennedy, led a successful fight to stop the construction of a wind farm off shore from his family compound in Massachusetts. It would interfere with his sailing. Maybe Kansas will sell him some of their excess power from their windmills.
It’s time to stop all of this “feel good” nonsense and get realistic.
“Yanks musn’t have democracy.
Probably coz no young people are at home to object – as usual for farm states they’re all off in Iraq being cannon fodder for neo-con denialists.”
Now that’s the kind of comment that really advances the debate on Climate Change.
Says much more about the biases of the author who obviously knows – fears – he has lost it.
Not really Woody – when you demonstrate some useful comment on AGW you might some creds. It’s the sort of reminder that neo-cons like Woody need.
Do the good burgers of Kansas elect their government or is it a police state? Woody fears true democracy.
err Lawrie.
Woody, what does market failure mean to you?
When you buy your appliance you don’t realise or feel the cost of supplying that appliance – the price signal is wrong. I might save $5000 buying a cheap 5kW air-con, but if I bought the more expensive 2kW one that does the same job, I’d save about $9,000 on supply infrastructure. of course, because of market failure, I can’t recoup that saving so I don’t buy the more efficient appliance.
This is not about saving the planet and CO2, this is about making the most efficient investment.
Time to get beyond the economic ideology, you’ve been studying at the school of Mott for too long
Market failure means that the entrepreneur miscalulated the demand for his/her product and as a consequence had to suffer losses. Market failure has no other meaning.
Unless one is a postmodernist but we won’t go down that looney route.
Sounds like Louis needs to have a few on his externalities internalised.
Luke, by the time the people of Kansas see the damage done by the current politicians, it will be years down the road. On the current elections, they depend upon accurate information about global warming, which is as lacking in the press as in your comments. I fear lies…not freedom.
If you don’t find my information useful, then skip my comments. However, you just get into one of your little snits and try to discredit people who disagree with your claims, which will eventually be proven phony. Years from now, we’re going to wonder what the uproar was over global warming and why we we wasted so much over it.
Anthony, you don’t get it. Because new technology or new regulations come out doesn’t justify scrapping what you already own and that still works. Do you buy a new computer every year just because the new ones offer more power? No, you keep what you have until its usefulness and economic return is lower than the replacement.
Let me use a real situation. I wanted to replace the evaporator in my upstairs home air conditioner. However, the installer, who put in a new compressor for it about three years ago, said that he would have to replace the entire system, since new requirements for efficiency made today’s equipment incapatible with that of three years ago. The cost would be four times as much. I told him to just fix the evaporator and we would replace the system one day when I’m ready. My economic decision was the optimum one.
If there is a breakdown in market forces, it’s by government interference that makes people do stupid things that they wouldn’t otherwise choose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
Louis, I’m sitting here shaking my head. I find it hard to believe someone can have so many ill-considered opinions on so many issues.
Well done woody, good decision. Do you know what capacity your air-con uses? Do you know what the alternative would have been? Do you know what the cost reflective market price would be for a more efficient system (HINT: $3,000 per kw to suply your air-con)
With your logic, we should all be using leaded fuel shouldn’t we, because it doesn’t matter about new technology or regulations – we just keep using what we have until it breaks right?
I’m not suggesting we throw out useful goods and products and neither are the greenies. They are talking about no NEW coal plants and probably most of them will be keen for a phase out of existing coal plants. If done well, this can be more cost effective than the alternative – entirely rational
Anthony, do these happen to be the same rational greenies who stopped all nuclear plant production in the U.S. back to the 1970’s?
And, yes, my decision was the right one. I didn’t say to never change, but I can do a cost/benefit analysis better than anyone here. The increased efficiency between the new and existing units was marginal, making no justification for a completely new system. Anyway, I may move in a year or two, so why spend the money that I’ll never get back, even in the sales price?
You guys are good at rationalizing, but bad on reality.
i know, you said new technology or regulation doesn’t justify scrapping something that still works. Well, you could still run a car on leaded fuel couldn’t you? What about ozone depleting substance? just because of regulation, why bother stop using them? Lead? mercury? asbestos – I mean, new technology and regulation shouldn’t get us to scrap things that work should they? Who cares about the environmental and social health outcomes right? Let the market decide hey?
Do you know the capacity of your new air-con or not? cost benefit analysis is particularly easy when you don’t have to account for all the costs and benefits of your decisions.