The effects of climate change are a far greater problem than the state’s self-made fiscal crisis. That’s a temporary problem to be resolved by the voters. No election is likely to have a positive, immediate effect on climate change.
In early April, Washburn University hosted Dr. Dale Jamieson, a New York University climate change ethicist. His book, “Reason in a Dark Time,” addresses climate change’s current and future effects on our planet. He’s definite. There is no need to quarrel about climate change or its cause. The measurable reality is all around us and scientifically incontrovertible.
Here in mid-continent many seem unconcerned with the impacts of climate change. The biggest problems will be rising ocean levels, more severe tropical storms, deteriorating air quality and health in places like China and India, famine in the hot crowded regions of the globe – generally affecting people and places different and distant from the Sunflower state.
Here the air is comparatively clean. Highway signs about farmers feeding themselves, 128 other people and you are still true, while the water holds out. It’s warmer in the spring and hotter in the summer, but the AC works great, and its energy efficiency keeps improving. Fracking means more gasoline and natural gas. We can see part of Kansas’s 3,000 megawatts of wind powered energy being generated by those big turbines spinning on the prairie along I-70.
Wind energy has brought elements of turbine manufacturing and structural fabrication to Ottawa and Hutchinson. There’s substantial direct and indirect employment. Dorothy Barnett, of the Hutchinson-based Clean + Energy Project, noted at a panel discussion prior to Jamieson’s visit that when her group started talking about wind energy jobs and innovation, argument over climate change causation quieted. Kansans might care about philosophical debate, but wallet-oriented economics? That’s an attention-getter! But is prairie pragmatism really enough? Jamieson’s answer is, “No, it’s not.”
Federal climate policies will call for national CO2 emissions reductions of 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Kansas is part of EPA Region 7 where production of CO2 from power generation is less than other parts of the country. In a region-wide plan we’d get half of a roughly 20% reduction adding some more wind and natural gas power along with maintaining existing nuclear power capabilities. The other half has to come from improved efficiency through economics. As Ms. Barnett suggested, get Kansans by their wallets and their hearts and minds will follow.
In the April 19th Topeka Capital Journal, Megan Hart reported a study done by the Southwest Power Pool that analyzed the EPA goals using a proposed ‘coal tax’ of $45 per ton of CO2 emitted to incentivize improved efficiencies. A megawatt hour of energy, with the current generating methods, produces 1,577 pounds of CO2. Imposition of the tax will provoke an initial rage response from the typical utility ratepayer. With time and honest discussion, collectively enabling the elimination of 2,200 coal-fired megawatts and many tons CO2 might prompt a more thoughtful result.
Even with such a plan, Jamieson’s central point remains unaltered. CO2 reductions of 30% will flatten the rate of increase, but the remainder plus CO2 emissions before and since the first Earth Day means continuing climate change. By the end of this century, Saskatchewan will be the breadbasket that Kansas is today; our climate will be the new south Texas; and coastal cities in the U.S. will have to be rebuilt, with millions of Americans relocated in planned or chaotic ways. These effects, while big enough, pale in comparison to those that will result from other planetary activities in Asia, South America, Africa and elsewhere. Kansas will be affected by global climate change. Rising utility bills will be just the tip of our melting iceberg.
Dr. Mark Peterson teaches political science at the college level in Topeka.
