Dividing the state into east and west, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, urban and rural will not help Kansas conquer either its economic or environmental challenges.

The political rhetoric sure to follow Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby’s decision is perhaps the most harmful fallout from last week’s denial of permits for two new job- and tax-creating coal-fired plants near Holcomb.

Reaction came thick and fast to Bremby’s decision that “it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change.” The move was lauded by environmental groups but angrily derided by proponents of the plant who called the decision “pure politics” and an affront to western Kansas. Most of the wrath was directed at Democratic and politically motivated Gov. Kathleen Sebelius who was blamed for dictating Bremby’s decision.

One supporter of the plants, House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, an Ingalls Republican, said the action “sends a clear message that economic development is not welcomed in rural Kansas.” Accurate or not, this is the growing feeling in western Kansas, and much of it is directed at Kansas University’s liberal and elitist image.

What would state officials or residents of the eastern part of the state gain by choking development in western Kansas just for the sake of hurting that region’s economy? A less vibrant economy in western Kansas only puts more pressure on other regions to provide the tax revenue that funds state services.

The permits denied were for a plant located in the economically challenged southwest part of Kansas, but there’s no indication that the decision would have been different if the proposal had come from elsewhere in the state. Barring evidence to the contrary, we should assume that any similar proposal now or in the future would elicit the same result.

Thursday’s decision is being viewed by some as a bold move but also as a bit unexpected for Kansas. The Washington Post thought the action was significant enough to make it a front-page story in Friday’s editions but it also noted that Kansas “is not generally considered to be on the leading edge of environmental causes.”

Maybe it’s time to change that thinking. There is no doubt that this issue is heading to the courts and the Kansas Legislature. That isn’t all bad. It could well be the start to a statewide and national conversation about whether standards are needed to control carbon dioxide emissions.

Perhaps it will be determined that the Holcomb plants could meet or exceed any safety standard for carbon dioxide emissions, but it makes sense to discuss those standards and set whatever parameters are needed before, rather than after, any plant is built.

While that determination is being made, it also might make sense for the state to consider the feasibility of expanding nuclear and wind power facilities to boost the economic health of rural Kansas.

Despite last week’s divisive, partisan rhetoric, we all should remember that building the state’s economic base and protecting its environment both are statewide concerns and statewide responsibilities. We also should hope that elected officials will act on the merits of a case rather than what is the most politically rewarding action.