KEN MIDKIFF December 7, 2007

Coal-fired Power Plant = Global Warming

When “King Coal” was first burned to produce electricity, not much was known about global warming. In fact, 50 to 70 years ago, there was much more concern about a new ice age and gradual cooling.

But, now, everyone and their dog is aware that the earth is getting warmer and it is primarily due to all those greenhouse gases that we humans are responsible for emitting. The most credible body, composed of thousands of worldwide scientists who deal with such matters – the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has found that not only is the temperature of the planet going up, but that this phenomenon is caused by humans. Everyday in the media, new information and new data is reported – and none of it is positive.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Latching on to the uncertainties about how specific areas will be affected, skeptics in the thrall of or funded by the fossil fuel industry have stated that “global warming” is a gigantic hoax. Fortunately, the number of these skeptics is small and growing smaller as the ice melts in the polar zones, sea level rises, tropical diseases (and the tropics) increase, species become endangered or extinct, and droughts wreak havoc on the US Southeast.

We now know about global warming, some of the predicted dire consequences, and the causes of the temperature rise. Shouldn’t we be setting aside old, ignorant ways of doing things and looking for something better?

That is what the arguments are all about. Those who want to keep on keeping on, doing things the way we have always done them want to use energy produced by coal-burning power plants. Those who think we should change our ways, that the same ‘ol, same ‘ol is not very good, advocate switching energy sources to pollution-neutral sources. Wind and solar.

This is the “supply side” and the assumption is that the demand for this supply will be ever-increasing as there are more of us and individual usage keeps going up.

That’s reasonable. More people mean more consumption. Bigger houses, more appliances mean more consumption.

But taking a look at the “demand side” means that reasonable assumptions are not necessarily correct assumptions. We don’t need to keep using more and more.

The City of Columbia has a modest educational program about how to cut down on energy consumption. Ultimately, reducing consumption means a smaller electric bill.

Recently, we passed a rather whopping bond issue – based on the assumption that our energy demands would necessitate taking some dramatic steps. Expanding the power plant upon Business Loop 70 was one possibility. Buying into Peabody’s Prairie State was another option. As was getting electricity from Iatan II, just north of Kansas City. These are all coal-fired power plants. These plants will send tons of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere.

Global warming is serious. It is real. It will quite literally end Life As We Know It. Times change, knowledge grows. We need to change with the times and we need to apply what we know.

Doesn’t it make sense to use money generated by the bond issue to ramp up the education program? Doesn’t it make sense to use that money to encourage consumers to reduce their demand?

Rather than spending millions to expand our power plant, why not use that money to provide grants, rebates, subsidies and other incentives to folks to install energy-efficient appliances, to install insulation, to plant trees? Why not hire a few more energy auditors? Why not encourage businesses to use fluorescent lighting and to turn the durn things off at night?

It doesn’t take much on the part of each person to reduce overall demand. Lower the thermostat in winter; put on a sweater. Raise the thermostat in summer; the AC will still do away with all that uncomfortable humidity. No need to live in a cave; but there is a need to change the way we do things.

Who knows? With an aggressive campaign to lower consumption, we may reduce demand so much that we won’t even need to look for new sources of electricity.

We have a “Power Supply Task Force”. Maybe we need a “Power Demand Task Force”.

[NOTE: This first appeared in the Columbia Daily Tribune.]