Voice For Liberty

Tag: Environment

  • Rhonda Holman’s Kansas Energy Policy: Not Good for Kansas

    Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman writes “[Kansas Governor Kathleen] Sebelius gets it. Too bad the Kansas Chamber does not.”

    This is the end of her lead editorial from today titled Kansas Chamber protecting past. In it, she claims that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is out of touch with the reality of global warming, and by extension, that our governor isn’t.

    Ms. Holman cites a study showing that green investment in Kansas could add many jobs to our economy. That’s no doubt true. But these jobs have all the characteristics of public works jobs, meaning that for each job created, one is lost somewhere else. That’s because these jobs don’t add to the wealth of Kansas, as we already are producing electricity. These new jobs simply shift Kansas to using a different form of power generation, one that Ms. Holman prefers.

    Now if this shift was necessary to save our planet, that might be one thing. But the consensus behind man-made global warming is not as strong as Ms. Holman claims. And even if true, it might be best to learn to deal with the changing climate rather than try to stop the change.

    Even if global warming is due to man’s activity, there’s very little we in Kansas can do to stop it. As illustrated in the article KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, Kansas is just a tiny speck on the Earth. Other countries overwhelm anything we can do in Kansas:

    So even if Kansas stopped producing all carbon emissions, the effect would be overcome in about 16 months of just the growth in China’s emissions. This doesn’t take into account the huge emissions China already produces, or the rapid growth in other countries.

    That’s right. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions in Kansas, the growth of emissions in China would very quickly negate our extreme sacrifice.

    That’s the reality of the arithmetic of carbon emissions. But Ms. Holman thinks this is okay.

    One of the comments left in response to Ms. Holman’s editorial argued in favor of solar and wind power and stated “Zero energy cost forever and zero drawdown of the Ogallala [sic] aquifer — what’s not to like?” This comment writer might want to take notice of impending expiration of the wind production tax credit, which gives money to subsidize the production of these two types of power. Without this subsidy, supporters of wind and solar power concede that investment in these forms of energy will likely cease. Furthermore, our local electric utility is asking for a rate increase, in part due to the expensive cost of wind power. See Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire and Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.

  • Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire

    Kansas Liberty posts Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire.

    This post explains that without subsidy, wind power generation facilities will likely not be built. Supporters of these tax credits, which are payments from the federal government through the tax system. These payments, termed “incentives” by their supporters, make wind power economically feasible. Without it, wind power wouldn’t be built.

    These incentives come with a cost. Calling them tax credits makes it seem, to many people, that there is no cost in granting them. But there is. See Wind Production Tax Credits Aren’t Free of Cost.

    Further, even with the production tax credits, wind power costs. Westar, our local electric utility, is requesting a rate increase partly because of the costs of wind power generation. See Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.

  • Cap-and-trade harmful to Kansas

    An op-ed in the Wichita Eagle (Amy J. Blankenbiller: Cap-and-trade would be harmful to Kansans) makes the case that some cures for global warming may cause more harm than good.

    The author warns that “we could be heading toward ‘solutions’ that are much more harmful to Kansas consumers and businesses than the environmental benefits they aim to provide.”

    Specifically, prices for the forms of energy that most Americans use — electricity, natural gas, and gasoline — would rise rapidly. If we need any evidence that increases in energy prices are harmful, consider the reaction to a proposal to increase electricity rates in Wichita by a relatively modest amount. (See Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.)

    The important questions: “With Kansas accountable for only 0.25 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions, the real questions become: What impact did we have on global climate change? And at what cost?”

  • Kansas electric rates increase because of wind power generation

    Electric rates may be increasing for many Kansas consumers. Why? To pay for a new coal-fired plant?

    According to Notice of Public Hearings & Comment Period available at the Kansas Corporation Commission, the reasons Westar Energy cites as creating the need for a rate increase are repair costs from a recent ice storm, investments in new natural gas plants, and investments in wind energy.

    It turns out that electricity generated by wind is expensive, even though the federal government pays producers $.015 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by wind. (This payment, made through a tax credit, is set to expire at the end of this year unless the United States Congress extends it.)

    In the Wichita Eagle article Residents bash Westar rate plan, we learn that people are angry over the proposed rate increase. Some are suffering a hardship with present rates. According to Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, presently running for the Kansas Senate, “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.” A rate increase won’t help these people.

    As our state, under the leadership of Governor Kathleen Sebelius, moves towards using even more wind power plus other expensive forms of energy, rates will have to increase further. At that time I would not be surprised to see programs put in place where taxpayers subsidize expensive energy costs for low-income households.

  • Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet: Not an Example of Sarah Palin’s Transparent Government

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work seeking to understand the role of The Center for Climate Strategies in Alaska.

    (The Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet plays the same role there that the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) plays here.)

    In his excellent and informative post Palin, Alaska’s Climate Commission, and (Lack of) Transparency, Paul traces the formation of the climate change panel in Alaska by Governor Sarah Palin and CCS’s involvement in that. At the same time, he illustrates the frustration that those making records requests of government agencies often experience.

    You can also read about CCS’s appointment recommendations. Did CCS also make these recommendations in Kansas? I’d like to know. But as Paul’s article shows, sometimes finding the answer to these questions is difficult and time-consuming.

  • Wind Power: Why Special Tax Treatment?

    A recent article in USA Today (Renewable energy firms clamor for tax breaks) reports on the uncertainty of whether the U.S. Congress will extend the tax credits that subsidize solar and wind power investment. From the article:

    Some $500 million in investment and production tax credits will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them. Without that help, solar and wind power companies say they will reverse planned expansions and, in many cases, cut payrolls and capital investment.

    Commenting on this article, The Foundation for Economic Education wondered “If they need special tax treatment to survive, what does that tell you?”

    It tells me that wind and solar power are not economically viable at the moment. The only way to induce people to invest in these forms of power generation is to give them money.

    To learn more about the economics of wind and other forms of power generation, I suggest these articles: Wind Production Tax Credits Aren’t Free of Cost, Mandating Renewable Energy: It’s Not Easy Being Green, Hot Air and Wind, and Energy Independence Isn’t Very Green.

  • The Problem of Environmental Calculation

    One of the things about radical environmentalists is that they seem to learn a lesson, only to fail to learn from it. What do I mean?

    Recently, New York Times writer David Pogue rehashed in a column titled The Bottom Line of the Eco Balance Sheet the “calculus of green” as it relates to the age-old eco-awareness question, “Paper or plastic?”

    He runs through the pros and cons of each type of bag, finally concluding: “The real answer to that question, of course, is ‘neither—bring your own reusable bags.’”

    Having complained of the complexity of the “calculus of green” and having run through both sides of the paper-plastic argument, he suddenly proclaims the answer. Without any supporting evidence.

    Reading this column, I realized the source of the problem: Mr. Pogue has no respect for private property rights, and for their power to regulate behavior and stewardship of the environment.

    For example, one side of the paper-plastic argument is that plastic bags “choke the oceans and sea life.” Well, who owns the seas? If someone owned a portion of a sea, would he allow others to harm it with discarded plastic bags?

    “Creating paper bags creates 70 percent more air pollution.” The courts have decided that people don’t own the air on their property, and that others are allowed to pollute it.

    There are other examples.

    Lack of private property rights leads to the very calculation problems that Mr. Pogue describes. Instead of relying on markets — free people trading freely, taking into account all the costs their actions create — we rely on government, which has a very poor record with regard to the environment.

    You can learn more about free markets and their ability to promote environmental stewardship in Richard Stroup’s article Environmentalism, Free-Market, a good place to start. At YouTube, you can watch a lecture-interview by Walter Block about Free market environmentalism.

  • Analysis of Kansas Wind Power Prospects

    In the post Is Sebelius’ call for more wind-power all hot air? Kansas Liberty reporter Holly Smith provides excellent analysis of the current situation regarding additional wind power generation in Kansas.

    Some important findings:

    With more wind power, electricity bills will be higher. Wind power generation is costly, and costs are rising rapidly.

    There aren’t enough transmission lines from where the wind farms are located.

    There is no scientific basis for associating emissions with public health risks.

    T. Boone Pickens says “I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly.”

    The Wall Street Journal editorial Wind Jammers sums up part of the problem: “In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.”

  • Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group: Its Heritage

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work looking into the background and affiliations of the Center for Climate Strategies. This is important because CCS is the radical environmentalist group that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is using to run the activities of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.

    The blog post announcing this work is Center for Climate Strategies in Black & White. The work is ongoing.