President Bush on Thursday said there was “no more reliable source of electricity than coal,” adding that its use will be a key component in reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

That puts the commander in chief squarely at odds with environmental groups, including Earthjustice, the group that assisted Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in her battle against an expansion of a coal-fired power plant in Holcomb.

It also puts Holcomb at the starting line of a global campaign not only against coal, but for a series of international agreements to mandate alternative sources of energy and redistribute wealth.

The campaign in Kansas was so successful for Sebelius that it boosted her appeal to the national environmentalist lobby, aiding her in her effort to be named a vice-presidential candidate.

And it put Earthjustice, who feted Sebelius at a June reception recorded on video, on track for a campaign that has now gone global.

In the video, an official of Earthjustice - formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund - says the Kansas plant was the first in the nation to be blocked based solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions. But, if the Sierra Club has its way, it won’t be the last.

In fact, the Sierra Club is now at the forefront of Coal Moratorium Now, and has used Holcomb as its opening shot in a war against the coal industry.

The website says the Sierra Club “is working with hundreds of local groups to mount legal challenges in state after state.”

Their campaign is already paying dividends.

Engineering News-Record, a respected trade journal, in February summed up the state of siege that is bedeviling the coal industry:

“Prospects for a continuing boom in coal-plant construction in the U.S., considered bright as recently as 2006, are suffocating in a cloud of carbon-dioxide emissions," the journal said. "With public, regulatory and lender concern growing, many proposed plants have been canceled. Permits issued for others require offsets for their carbon emissions, while the ones that remain in permitting are being intensely challenged.”

The U.S. Department of Energy said during 2007 alone, 59 coal-fired plants in the U.S. were refused licenses by state regulators or simply abandoned because of hurdles being thrown up by the environmental movement. Approximately 50 other planned coal plants are being contested in the courts.

The "greenhouse gas" strategy used in Kansas is based on an assumption that carbon dioxide is a pollutant contributing to climate change, although there is no scientific consensus to support that argument.

Besides opposing coal-fired power plants, the Sierra Club also opposes coal mining, extraction of oil from shale, off-shore oil drilling, oil drilling in ANWR, nuclear power plants and construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

The Sierra Club and its allies say the U.S. should stress conservation and develop alternative sources of energy, including wind and solar power.

Not only would that be good for the environment, they contend, it also would be good for the economy, since utilities would have to make significant investments to build the infrastructure to support those energy sources. The Sierra Club also contends that solar and wind power would provide more bang for the buck.

Critics contend that the Sierra Club's strategy will raise the price of energy at a time when most Americans are already feeling the pinch caused by rising fuel costs.

New studies seem to support that criticism. In one recent report, for example, the Heritage Foundation said the costs of wind and solar power are considerably higher than power derived from either nuclear or coal-fired plants.

“Wind and solar power do have a role in America's energy mix, but those technologies alone are not ready or able to power the United States,” the study said.

It pointed out that solar and wind projects “are expensive, intermittent, and inappropriate for broad swaths of the United States.”

The study also reported that there isn’t universal acceptance among players in the environmental movement toward wind power. Some environmental groups oppose wind projects because turbines kill birds, despoil landscapes, and ruin scenic views.

The Heritage Foundation study concludes that nuclear power would be far more cost efficient than either wind or solar power:

“First, wind is intermittent, producing electricity only about a third of the time. This means that power plants are needed to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing. If one is going to rely on wind and the additional power-generating capacity that is needed when the wind is not blowing, those additional costs should be assigned to wind power as well.

“Second, the life expectancy of windmills is projected to be 20 years. Nuclear power plants produce power for up to 80 years. This must be taken into account when considering costs.”

The Heritage study also pointed to a survey of the general economic problems faced by solar power advocates conducted by the Hass School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.

The survey "looked at the costs of 26,522 photo voltaic solar panel installations, equal to 103 megawatts of capacity, that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86,000–$91,000) far outweighed their value ($19,000–$51,000)."

Besides its war on the coal industry in the U.S., the Sierra Club also wants the world to turn to alternative sources of energy as part of a much broader political agenda.

The group is a signatory to the so-called Earth Charter, a manifesto that, if adapted by the United Nations, would impact Americans and their lifestyles.

Among the charter’s objectives:

• Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations
• Universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction
• Social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves
• Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration
• Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction
• Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood
• Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt
• Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them
• Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities
• Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

The Earth Charter concludes with a passage reminiscent of Barack Obama's speeches on government.

“Life often involves tensions between important values," the charter reads. "This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance."

The Charter suggests the United Nations is best-placed to lead the plan. "In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development."

"Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.”

-Phil LaCerte

for KansasLiberty.com

Updated: 1 August 2008 0409

The Week in Review