HF2399: Iowa's Stifling of Innovation by Paul Deaton
"These
assertions and arguments are bought and sold by MidAmerican Energy and
the electric utilities, reflecting their power to persuade." The nuclear power study bill, HF2399, sped through the Iowa legislature at breakneck speed, passing the Iowa House on March 2 with a vote of 91-7 and passing the Iowa Senate on March 9 with a vote of 37-13. It is “an act requiring (among other things) certain rate regulated public utilities to undertake analyses of and preparation for the possible construction of low carbon emitting nuclear generating facilities in this state.” There were no amendments to the house bill in the senate, so the measure will be heading to the Governor Culver’s desk soon. While Culver has an option to veto the bill, MidAmerican Energy wrote the bill language and was a financial supporter of the Culver-Judge campaign, so he is expected to sign HF2399 into law. The majority rules and powerful interests persuade in politics. I am okay with that because in the end, what choice do we have?
What is disappointing is not that the bill passed or that the legislature sees nuclear power as a viable part of Iowa’s energy future. Where the legislators fell short is in their vision about Iowa’s future. This bill is not only about electricity generation.
Senator Behn of Boone County typified the vapidity of the bill’s supporters. Behn said, “Iowa needs coal. Iowa needs nuclear. HF2399 is one of the best bills we will run this session.” Senator Hartsuch of Scott County asserted that the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada site would be a "workable solution" for nuclear waste disposal. Senator Feenstra of Sioux County said that “we shouldn’t bury our head in the sand, we need baseload energy,” asserting that Iowa should work with President Obama, increasing the baseload of electricity generated from nuclear power. These assertions and arguments are bought and sold by MidAmerican Energy and the electric utilities, reflecting their power to persuade. Proponents of the bill had the votes, and were not listening to the arguments of progressives like Senators Bolkcom and Hogg when they argued for a different and better view of Iowa’s future. The majority damned Senator Hogg’s amendments with faint praise.
It is easy to understand why young Iowans are leaving the state in droves. We can see the lack of innovation when our elected officials support a de facto tax to fund a study that offers no long term solutions to Iowa’s problems. We can see the lack of creativity when a majority of legislators fund a study that will create few jobs in Iowa and walk away from the potential of creating new jobs related to meeting the demand for electricity. The majority that supported HF2399 is divided along ideological lines, not party lines.
Why would young people stake their future on a state where the prevailing attitude is one of stifling what is best about being young? The failure of this legislature to foster innovation and creativity in addressing Iowa’s challenges is one more reason for people to seek better opportunities elsewhere. It is one more example of the harshness of living in the post-Reagan era.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul Deaton
**BFIA ACTION ALERT**
Call and ask Governor Culver to stop the legislature from stifling creativity and innovation in Iowa by vetoing HF 2399. His phone # is 515-281-5211.
HF 2399: A Gift From Iowans to Warren Buffet by Paul Deaton
"There
is a real need to reduce Iowa's carbon footprint and nuclear energy may play a role. Rather than ask MidAmerican Energy to repeat the
past, the legislature should look north to Canada and invest in
the future." Should Iowa rate payers provide Warrant Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway and MidAmerican Energy Holdings $15 million to check out nuclear power for Iowa? The Iowa House said we should, approving HF 2399 in a 91-7 vote on March 2. In fact, HF 2399 would require “certain rate regulated public utilities to undertake analyses of and preparation for the possible construction of low carbon emitting nuclear generating facilities in this state…” I can imagine MidAmerican President William Fehrman saying something like, “sure, we could do that, but it will cost you.”
Why would Iowans want to spend money to do this study, when MidAmerican recently did a similar study and found that nuclear energy was not financially viable?
In December 2007, Berkshire Hathaway, turned its back on nuclear power. According to the Institute of Science in Society, “MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company scrapped plans to build a plant in Payette, Idaho, because no matter how many times the managers ran the numbers, and they have already spent $13 million doing so, they found they could not balance the books.” So if MidAmerican Energy Holdings, in which Berkshire Hathaway holds an 89.5% interest, found nuclear energy to be untenable in Idaho then, why would it be tenable in Iowa today? If the sage of Omaha found nuclear power to be a bad investment, then why does the Iowa legislature persist in advancing this bill? I don’t agree with a lot of things Warren Buffet says and does, but on this one, he seems smarter than many Iowa legislators.
The Iowa legislature may be reacting to the need to decrease carbon emissions in Iowa. This is a real need, and nuclear energy may play a role in reducing Iowa’s carbon footprint. Rather than ask MidAmerican Energy to repeat the untenable past, the legislature should look north to Canada and invest in the future.
The province of Ontario, Canada understands what needs to be done to protect the environment and protect human health from the deleterious effects of burning coal. The government of Ontario had the political will to recognize the negative effects of coal on humans and to legislate the elimination of coal-fired power generating plants by the year 2014. Ontario is on track to be one of the first jurisdictions in the world to eliminate coal-fired electricity generation. They will be accomplishing this by using a mix of energy sources, including renewables. Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act also addresses the transmission grid that delivers electricity from the generation points to customers.
If a person hangs out with electricians, what we learn is that Iowa’s initial investment in wind energy took place in what T. Boone Pickens called the “wind corridor” in central and western Iowa. What we are seeing now is that wind turbines are being built in locations where the wind is not optimal for power generation. Why? To avoid additional transmission expense by locating the turbines closer to the grid. More important than nuclear power is updating the electrical grid.
What the Iowa legislature has done in HF 2399 is concoct a way for rate payers to spend $15 million on a study, the end result of which might be to replace what electricians call the “baseload” of coal power with a “baseload” of nuclear power. Even though we already know that nuclear power is very expensive, too expensive, according to Warren Buffet. HF 2399 ignores one of the most important aspects of making Iowa energy independent, investing in expanding our electricity grid to make it “smart.” The "smart grid" is another post for another time.
As the bill rushes through the shortened legislative session and hits the Senate next week, we should urge our Senators to vote no on HF 2399. Instead, the legislature should take real steps to move Iowa towards energy independence and reduce our carbon footprint. A dalliance with nuclear power studies and a company that has been around the block before may sound like romance, but when we think about it, one wonders about the relationship.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul Deaton
**BFIA ACTION ALERT**
To Locate your Iowa State Senator Click Here. Ask him/her to vote no on HF 2399.
Friday Morning with an Iowa Legislator by Paul Deaton
When the state legislature is not in session on Fridays, most legislators head back to their districts and meet with constituents to listen and to explain what’s going on in Des Moines. Events like the gathering at the Savvy Coffee and Wine Bar in Solon yesterday morning are typical. They are small enough that a person could get time with their legislator and be an active participant in the democracy we hear so much about. Here are some things that were on the minds of Iowans on Friday.
The feel good legislation of the year has to be HF 2456 which is a ban on text messaging while driving. This one is so obvious that one wonders about the motivation behind Kirsten Running-Marquardt (HD-33) and Bruce Hunter (HD-62) siding with Kraig Paulsen (HD-35) and Jodi Tymeson (HD-73) in voting against it. Distractions while driving, such as tuning the radio, talking on the phone, doing crossword puzzles and watching television all cause accidents according to the group in Solon. That text messaging was singled out by the legislature was curious, but welcome. The bill passed the house and senate last week and is back in the house waiting for reconciliation with the senate’s version.
The nuclear power discussion is back with HF2100 being replaced with HF2399 and its fresh from MidAmerican Energy language on how the state should move forward with nuclear power. I heard the words “zero sum gain” applied to MidAmerican’s process towards change for the first time. It seems to fit. According to Wikipedia, a zero sum gain is a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the state wants to move forward with nuclear power, it’s okay with MidAmerican Energy, but they are a business, so the customers will have to pay.
The new language also covers some things that are already going on in the ever changing world of energy, conversion of coal power to natural gas and adding biomass fuel to an existing coal combustion power plant. The utility wants customers to pay for these improvements as well. As always with MidAmerican, they seem unable to do much to help Iowa achieve energy independence or reduce our reliance on carbon based electricity unless it is mandated and the customers pay. Tell me again, why did we de-regulate the electrical utilities? HF 2399 is to be considered by the Commerce Committee next week.
After an hour and a half with friends and neighbors, I had to get to work. We discussed the puppy mill legislation, increases in health care insurance for individuals, retaining part of the tax credit structure for films relevant to Iowa culture, tort reform, unfortunate remarks by Danny Homan about someone his union represented and the apparent death, at least for this session, of “reasonable reimbursement” or “fair share-lite,” as a union member called it.
Those at the meeting are getting to be friends and that is one of the best benefits of our democracy. My advice to readers is get involved and take advantage of the benefits of democracy. Contact your legislator by clicking here.
"Residents
understood the influence of prevailing wind, geography and the impact
of the many industrial plants in the area... People seemed resigned to the fact that a life with
middle class problems will go on."
Within the plume of emissions from Grain Processing Corporation and thirteen other Muscatine County point source emitters permitted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, a group of us met with more than eighty residents yesterday at the Garfield Elementary School Gymnasium to discuss air quality.
HD-80 Representative Nathan Reichert organized the meeting and sent invitations to area residents. The panel consisted of Representative Reichert, Dr. Maureen McCue and myself from Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility, Patrick O’Shaughnessy from the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health of the University of Iowa, Leland Searles from the Iowa Environmental Council and Jim McGraw of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Bureau. The meeting went from 1:00 PM until 4:30 PM and the audience remained engaged throughout. The corporate media was less engaged, with one local television station covering the meeting. He left after 45 minutes and was apparently not there to cover most of the information presented by the panelists.
My participation was brief, framing the discussion after Representative Reichert made introductions and answering a couple of questions at the end. The residents seemed to understand that the air quality in Muscatine is and has been bad for a number of years. There were no real answers to the question “what can we do about it?”
There were other issues on people’s minds. Residents were concerned that the Garfield Elementary School, where the air quality monitor is situated, would be closed and consolidated by the school board. I was asked whether specific community health problems had been caused by emissions from the GPC plant that locked workers out back in 2008 in a contract dispute. Some residents left during the course of the meeting, and at the end about 35 remained to socialize with the panelists and each other before returning home. Residents understood the influence of prevailing wind, geography and the impact of the many industrial plants in the area. They understood that continuing to live in Muscatine may present health problems because of the air quality. People seemed resigned to the fact that a life with middle class problems will go on.
The area surrounding the school includes industry, railroad tracks servicing industry and small houses with about 1,000 square feet of living space. It is a working class neighborhood that seems to be drifting into poverty, where residents have few options to get out. Representative Reichert encouraged them to organize as a community and hopefully they will. Banding together to deal with poor air quality may be their best hope in a world that easily could forget them after the panelists and the PowerPoint presentations are gone.
An Iowa Interview with Appalachian Voices by Julia Wasson
"Iowa City resident
Julia Wasson, publisher of Blue Planet Green Living (BPGL), recently spoke with Dr. Matt Wasson, Director of
Programming for Appalachian Voices about the fallacy that is 'clean coal.' Matt Wasson and Julia Wasson are first
cousins."
In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama mentioned that the United States needs “continued investment in…clean coal technologies.” According to Matt Wasson and other experts, when you look at the entire process, from mountaintop removal through burning and coal ash disposal,there is no such thing as clean coal. Here is the interview:
BPGL: What sparked your interest in the environment?
WASSON: I am someone who loves being outside. When I was living in the Pacific Northwest in the late ’80s and early ’90s, the old growth forests were being cut at a phenomenal rate. I just loved forests, and that was a huge motivating factor to go down that path. Then I fell in love with the mountains in the east, when I came out here for grad school.
BPGL: You were involved in the cleanup of Prince William Sound after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. How did you get involved in that?
WASSON: I didn’t actually work to clean up the spill, but worked on a team studying its aftermath — specifically, the spill’s impacts on sea bird populations. I got the job through one of my professors at the University of Washington. After the first summer working on a remote island out in the Gulf of Alaska, I was pretty much hooked on biology.
BPGL: After you earned your Ph.D. in ecology from Cornell University, what did you do then?
WASSON: I actually started at Appalachian Voices several weeks before handing in my dissertation, and I’ve been working here ever since. I knew I wanted to do environmental work, and I really fell in love with the eastern mountains when I was doing my dissertation work out in the middle of the Adirondacks in New York. As it turned out, my research on air pollution’s impacts on birds and other wildlife provided an excellent background for working at Appalachian Voices — at that time, fighting air pollution in the mountains was our signature issue.
BPGL: What is the nature of your work at Appalachian Voices?
WASSON: I have been at Appalachian Voices for the last eight years. Currently, I am the director of programs. I oversee our campaigns to reduce air pollution, protect water quality, end mountaintop removal coal mining, and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy development in the mountains. I am blessed to have my dream job here. I can focus on the things I really love doing and that I am really good at.
BPGL: There is no mountaintop mining in North Carolina. Why did Appalachian Voices choose that location for your main office, with all the mountaintop removal going on elsewhere?
WASSON: Mountaintop removal is a very small part of what Appalachian Voices worked on back in 1998, when the organization first formed. We’ve been building this national campaign over the years and really found our niche because nobody else was focused on passing federal legislation. We started doing it because we knew it was the right thing to do; over time, it has become our signature issue.
...to continue reading the entire article, click here.
HF 2100: The Risks of Nuclear Power Belong to Iowansby Paul Deaton
"Who pays for the real possibility of failure or cost overruns? The answer is you, me and every utility customer."
The last electrical utility bill we received at our house was unexpectedly high. No doubt this is due to my recent retirement, more computer time, more cooking on our electric range and keeping more lights on in the early hours of morning. Even though the bill was double what we expected, we could afford it. The cost of electricity on the power bill is cheap.
We are customers of a Rural Electric Cooperative and it is hard to say where the electricity comes from. When a substation in Ohio went out last year, our lights went out. I suspect that the fuels that generate our electricity are a mix of mostly coal with some natural gas, nuclear fission and wind. The electric utilities are reasonably reliable in providing the service, so we don’t think much about electricity or where it comes from. Maybe we should.
The Iowa legislature is considering HF 2100 which in its current version contains language that would provide incentives to electric utilities (Section 1, Paragraph 5) to build nuclear power plants in Iowa. The incentives would enable them to recover their costs in the event a nuclear power plant was designed, partially built, was litigated against and/or the plant did not go on line.
There
is significant risk in building the first nuclear power generating
plant approved since the 1970s and the Iowa legislature is, in the
language of HF2100, removing the financial risks from the
electric utility who might build a nuclear reactor in Iowa. Who pays
for the real possibility of failure or cost overruns? The answer is
you, me and every utility customer. In any business venture, the business owner takes risks in going to market and the customer pays for the product or service and everything involved with developing it. According to the U. S. Energy Information Agency, “there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996. A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.” The trouble with nuclear reactors is that the risk of failure or of cost overruns for a new plant is too high. That's why electric utilities in Iowa want the incentives in HF2100. That's also why Iowans should be concerned with the legislation.
The Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives has registered for the bill on the lobbyist web site. If I was an electric utility and could avoid the financial risk of my nuclear power generating plant not getting finished, running over on costs, or facing litigation from any source, I would favor the bill too. It would be a sweetheart deal.
While the powerful interests in Des Moines influence the legislation that is considered, the role of the legislature should be to consider a bigger picture of achieving energy independence for Iowa with an electrical utility system structured to meet the needs of Iowans in terms of risk, costs and the environment. I
am a citizen who buys the electricity for my home and have to rely on
the Iowa Utilities Board and the legislature to protect my interests. This may be too much to ask.
As an alternative, let’s hope HF2100 does not make it out of the Commerce Committee through the funnel until all of the risks and costs are better understood. I urge you to contact your elected officials and tell them as much.
Here is a link
to find your legislator. Please let them know how you feel about HF2100.
"If we care about sustainability and energy
independence, we should urge our elected officials in Des Moines to vote no on
SF464."
Once a year I try to get to Des Moines to visit my elected
officials in the legislature. As a citizen, my interests are many, and I lack
confidence that third parties can represent my interests as well as I can do it
myself. This is a native American impulse and the scourge of organized
religion, labor unions, trade associations and community organizing groups. If
everyone felt this way, and participated in our democracy directly, we would
have less need for third parties and our government would be much more
representative of the people. If you want to read more about my experience in
Des Moines, check out my blog, Big
Grove Garden.
Iowa lawmakers will be considering SF464 this session, a
bill that would require, among other things, a five percent blend of B5
biodiesel to be sold at all diesel fuel outlets in Iowa. The preamble to the bill
seems simple enough, “An Act relating to motor fuel, by providing for a
biodiesel quality standard for energy security andsustainability,ethanol blended gasoline and biodiesel blended fueldesignations
and tax credits, penalties, and effective dates.” Already the powerful
interests are lining up on this one.
One thing about the Iowa legislature is that they provide
a list of all of the lobbyists and where they stand on specific bills. I
met Steve Falck who represents Renewable Energy Group, a registered biodiesel
industry lobbyist, and supporter of SF464. He seemed well versed on many of the
issues pro and con on this bill and was enthusiastic about its prospects. According
to Falck, the largest buyers of biodiesel in the state are truckstop operators and
they are against the bill. They don’t like mandates.
Falck gave me a copy of a letter dated December 10, 2009
from the American Lung Association supporting the bill, which asserted, “the
average diesel school bus emits nearly twice as much pollution per mile than a
big rig truck, and the type of pollution they emit is particularly harmful to
children, who have a higher respiration rate than adults, and immune systems
that are not fully developed.” He also indicated that Iowa becoming energy
independent was a national security issue and this bill would help keep dollars
in Iowa that are currently going to oil producing nations. He had a couple of
cogent talking points, which he had obviously rehearsed. If I didn’t know
better, I would have thought he was trying to scare me into supporting the
bill, talking about children and national security that way.
The American Lung Association letter was somewhat deceptive
with its focus on school buses. Their facts seem accurate, and using
pollution-reducing fuels in school buses is a no-brainer from a health of
children standpoint. As far as school buses are concerned, why not compressed
natural gas as an alternative to both diesel and bio-diesel? This is what other
communities are doing to control emissions, especially in urban centers. For
that matter, why a 5% blend in school buses instead of 100% bio-fuels if we want
a bio-fuels mandate? Another question is if school buses are to be a focus, then
why implement a legislative mandate when the same result could be achieved
through other administrative channels without it? The answer is it’s about the
biofuels industry and their lobbyists in Des Moines like Mr. Falck.
SF464 is a corruption of what it means to seek energy
independence for Iowa and to be sustainable. The most significant thing the
Iowa legislature could do to help move towards energy independence would be to
find ways to produce electricity with non-food fuel stocks. To a large extent,
this means stopping the flow of dollars out of the state to buy coal from the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming. It also means supporting development of enzymes
that can metabolize non-food plant products like corn stover to produce
cellulosic ethanol. What appears to be
foremost in the biofuels industry is locking in their sales through legislative
mandate by passing SF464. If we care about sustainability and energy
independence, we should urge our elected officials in Des Moines to vote no on
SF464.
Here is a link
to find your legislator. Please let them know how you feel about SF464.
An Iowa Perspective on Coal's Assault on Human Health by Paul Deaton
When we consider the use of coal in Iowa, there are many of us who remember the coal trucks plying the streets and alleys of our childhood, dropping loads of the black stuff down chutes leading to a basement coal bin and then to our gravity furnaces. Through the winter, people shoveled coal into the burning embers to heat their homes. Coal ash was shoveled out and in the spring, it was tilled it into gardens and spread on fields. Coal ash was also sent to dumps. On the farm, coal was purchased with seeds, feed and grain. It was part of a background to life that did not consider the potential harm to human health we now know it represents. On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, Physicians for Social Responsibility released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. If we are interested in the environment, social justice and global survival, it is worth reading “Coal’s Assault on Human Health” and you can view the executive summary here or download the entire report here.
The report covers the health risks of the entire lifecycle of coal from mining, washing and transportation to combustion and disposal of the coal ash. The effects of coal on human health are well known. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. These pollutants cause cumulative harm on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.
In Iowa, the most significant issue regarding coal is its combustion for electricity and energy. A lot of states use coal for energy. The difference with Iowa is that we get 70% of our electricity from burning coal compared to a national average of 50%. Iowa companies have been slow to react to the recently gained awareness of the urgency of controlling emissions to protect human health.
During a public meeting in Iowa City, William Fehrmann, President of MidAmerican Energy, stated that 97% of the electricity its company generates comes from coal fired power plants. Energy executives like Mr. Fehrmann would not be addressing their ratio of coal to natural gas and renewable in their energy mix unless the United States government were intervening with the proposed CAP and Trade legislation currently in the congress or unless there is a cost savings. The cost of coal electricity to MidAmerican is low. As you may know, MidAmerican Energy is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which recently bought the BNSF railroad. The BNSF is a major transporter of coal and the acquisition represents, at some level, a step towards a vertically integrated coal operation for Warren Buffet’s company. Companies like MidAmerican Energy appear to be going the wrong way, and resist government initiatives to regulate CO2 emissions.
Another issue is that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources is being subject to the same budgetary pressures as the rest of state government. The practice of director Leopold has been to reduce the staff in the compliance area to adjust to budget cuts. At a recent public meeting at Lake MacBride State Park, he indicated that he significantly cut back on inspectors, and this was before the Governor announced a ten percent across the board cut. One hopes that the state remains in compliance with federal regulations. We can expect that the Iowa DNR will do the minimum it can to comply and stay within a shrinking budget.
These budget cuts affect air and water quality monitoring, and mercury is an example of what the Iowa DNR monitors. In a July 21, 2009 post to the Iowa DNR web site, “The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has confirmed the presence of mercury above consumption advisory levels in tissue samples from large mouth bass collected from Red Haw Lake in Lucas County, Upper Centerville Reservoir in Appanoose County, and Grade Lake in Clarke County.” In addition, there have been advisories for fish caught in the Cedar and Iowa rivers. The majority of non-naturally occurring mercury in the environment comes from coal combustion.
From the Physicians for Social Responsibility report and from living in Iowa, it is clear that there are issues with coal that need to be addressed. The trouble is that there are no easy solutions, and while members of PSR understand the health consequences of using coal, the majority of Iowans do not. PSR makes these public policy recommendations, which I quote at length.
“The first of those recommendations is that emissions of CO2 be cut as deeply and as swiftly as possible, with the objective of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. The reduction of CO2 emissions, an urgent necessity for achieving satisfactory health outcomes, should be pursued through two simultaneous strategies: 1) strong climate and energy legislation that establishes hard caps on global warming pollution coming from coal plants; and 2) the Clean Air Act. Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as implemented by the EPA has been effective in reducing a wide variety of air pollutants, from nitrous oxides to volatile organic compounds. CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted by coal plants have been designated pollutants under the CAA. The EPA should be fully empowered to regulate these gases under the CAA so that coal’s contribution to global warming can be brought to an end.”
“PSR recommends that there be no new construction of coal-fired power plants, so as to avoid increasing health-endangering emissions of CO2 as well as criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.”
“The U.S. should dramatically reduce fossil fuel power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides so that all localities are in attainment for national ambient air quality standards.”
“We should establish a standard, enforceable by the EPA and based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology, for mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from electrical generation.”
“Finally, the nation must develop its capacity to generate electricity from clean, safe, renewable sources so that existing coal-fired power plants may be phased out without eliminating jobs or compromising the nation’s ability to meet its energy needs. In place of investment in coal (including subsidies for the extraction and combustion of coal and for capture of carbon and other pollutants), the U.S. should fund the improvement of energy efficiency, the expansion of conservation measures, and the research, development, and implementation of clean, safe, renewable energy sources such as wind energy, solar, and wave power.”
“These steps comprise a medically defensible energy policy: one that takes into account the public health impacts of coal while meeting our need for energy.”
As Iowans, implementation of these policies may seem beyond our control. Our best defense is to become more informed of the full costs of burning coal for electricity, including the cost to our health. The cost of electricity produced by coal is more than the price of a kilowatt hour of electricity on our utility bill. As we become informed of coal’s true costs and impacts, we should also engage with our friends, family and elected officials on the issue. The new report gives us a valuable piece of information. Without our reading it and taking action it may be nothing more than more bytes on the internet. Our future depends on each of us making it more than that.
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
