Since Thomas Frank released the book in 2004, ”What’s the matter with Kansas?” has become synonymous with what many consider a misguided approch to politics and government. A couple of headlines from recent weeks, however, question whether we here in Michigan may in fact want to adopt some of the actions of the Sunflower State.
First, Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Rob Benbry rejected a request from a utility company to build two new 700 mw coal-fired power plants in the state. In addition, the Kansas University football team is undefeated and is currently ranked 8th in the country according to the latest BCS standings. Both of these would be welcome here in the Great Lakes State. An undefeated, top-ten football team and a principled and economically sound stand on rejecting dirty coal? Sign me up!
In rejecting the new coal plants, Secretary Brenby said “I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.” The new coal plants would have generated 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, each year.
For a state that pledges leadership on renewable energy, it’s shameful that we’re still considering a number of new coal plants while dragging our feet on energy efficiency and renewable portfolio standards. Taking a much more active role in the response to global climate change is not only the right thing to do from an environmental standpoint, it also carries the exciting promise of economic growth in an emerging sector that captured 10% of U.S. venture capital in 2006.
On a related note, the Traverse City Record-Eagle is reporting today that the TES Filer City Co-generation plant is looking at new IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) technologies that promise to double energy output while reducing the plant’s carbon footprint by half. It’s a proposal that deserves consideration. Let’s be clear, however: our long-term strategy must include much more ambitious goals to reduce energy consumption and a strategy to meet a greater percentage of our energy needs from renewable sources. Coal plants – even less dirty plants that use IGCC technology – do not meet this standard. However, the idea of replacing an “old coal” plant with a newer IGCC plant may very well be significantly better than the currently available alternative. At this point, without more information, it’s just too soon to tell.
In sum, while Thomas Frank may still be asking “What’s the matter with Kansas,” their recent leadership on global warming provides an example of where Michigan should be headed. Indeed, in protecting Michigan’s “pleasant peninsulas,” we might also keep in mind the state motto of Kansas: Ad astra per aspera (“to the stars through difficulties”). In other words, it’s time for all of us here in Michigan to keep our eye on the prize – it’s worth it.
