Letters to the Editor

Still not clean

March 13, 2008


To the editor:

We all use rationalization to justify our decisions to others and to ourselves. Politicians are called on to justify their decisions more often than most of us, and some become quite adept at stringing together irrelevant facts and joining half-truths to create the illusion that these somehow equal a real truth. This process, human as it is, becomes especially frustrating when the results may have disastrous effects for generations to come. I am thinking of the vote to override Secretary Roderick Bremby's denial of the permit for the Holcomb power plants.

Sen. Roger Pine and the coal operators and the state Chamber of Commerce note that these would be clean, state-of-the-art plants. This is a great example of the half-truth method of rationalization. Yes, they would be cleaner than existing plants, but two plants that pollute half as much still equal one plant with standard pollution (sulfur, mercury, etc).

More important, that pollution, as bad as it is, is not the issue here. The issue is CO2 and its effect on global warming. The "state-of-the-art" plants would do nothing - nothing - to reduce CO2 emissions. Authorizing the plants would be good for the big corporations but not so great for the rest of us. Our Legislature needs to promote conservation and renewable energy and wait on coal until the CO2 emission problem is solved.

Joe Douglas,


lounger 7 years, 3 months ago

This whole issue has proven to me how badly our reps want that kickback! NO NEW COAL PLANTS!!

hipper_than_hip 7 years, 3 months ago

If you're serious about reducing co2, the first (and easist) step is to start conserving electricity.

kansas778 7 years, 3 months ago

Now I thought we had driven off all these big corporations with their industries and energy plants. If we all just make a few small sacrifices--things like electricity, cars, chemotherapy--we can get carbon dioxide levels back down to pre-industrial revolution levels.

deskboy04 7 years, 3 months ago

I am going to join other members of the Lawrence community and turn off my air conditioner this summer.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago


"Switching to a healthy base of alternative power sources,...is good"

Don't bury the lead!

camper 7 years, 3 months ago

camper (Anonymous) says:

I heard that the world market price for sugar is low. Dirt cheap compared to corn. So why doesn't the US explore ethanol processed from sugar (cheaper and more efficient than corn). I heard from a reliable source, who deals in purchasing commodities and ingredients, that the US government allows only a certain quota of sugar imports.

As it stands, more farmers will switch from growing wheat to growing corn because of increased demand, thus causing a rise in the price of wheat and therefore higher grocery costs.

If cheaper (possibly cleaner) fuel can be made from sugar, why should the government hold this back? Sure this might not be in the best interests of some, but there are millions of consumers who have an interest in the prices we pay:as well.

Brent Garner 7 years, 3 months ago

I found an interesting article published in the online version of the Washington Times. The article appeared March 14, 2008 and is too lengthy to include here. I am inserting the final paragraph and then the annotation showing who wrote the article.

"The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming - which economists point out would have severe economic consequences."

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

It would appear, from the analysis of a NONPARTISAN, NONPROFIT, research organization that the IPCC fudged the math. I recommend you read the article before jumping in here and calling me all kinds of names.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.