Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Friday vetoed for the third time a bill allowing two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas. With Gov. Sebelius and Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby so concerned with the carbon dioxide emissions from these coal power plants, how soon will they also try to eliminate the carbon dioxide emissions represented in the Great Seal of the State of Kansas?
A close inspection of the Great Seal reveals two point sources of pollution. Will Sebelius call for the elimination of these pollution sources that have been part of the Great Seal since 1861?
Point Sources of Pollution in
Great Seal of the State of Kansas
The Great Seal of the State of Kansas was established May 25, 1861 through a joint resolution of the Kansas legislature. The resolution explains:
“The east is represented by a rising sun, in the right-hand corner of the seal; to the left of it, commerce is represented by a river and a steamboat; in the foreground, agriculture is represented as the basis of the future prosperity of the state, by a settler’s cabin and a man plowing with a pair of horses; …”
Apparently, Sebelius’ energy policy is to throttle Kansas commerce and to jeopardize reliable future heating and cooling of Kansan’s homes. If Sebelius gets her way, we need to give up the luxury of reliable energy sources, and we may only be able to have power when the wind blows. Sebelius seems to be looking for an energy solution using politicians instead of engineers and economists.
How soon will Sebelius call for the removal of pollution sources on the Great Seal of the State of Kansas?
The state motto at the top of the Great Seal still applies: “Ad astra per aspera” (”to the stars through difficulties”). Sadly, Kansas government is becoming one of the “difficulties.”
Most people agree that we should all be good stewards of our enviornment and our natural resources. We should approach The Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide responsibly, and without a “Chicken Little” scare used by Sebelius.
See this report by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
Related:
- Rod Bremby’s Action Drove Away the Refinery, Voice For Liberty in Wichita, May 20.
- Hyperion refinery: possibility or politics?, Topeka Capital-Journal, May 18, 2008.
- GPACE Action 527 PAC Identifying Global Warming Voters in Kansas, Kansas Meadowlark, May 18, 2008.
Tags: carbon dioxide, CO2, Great Seal of the State of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, power plant, Rod Bremby
May 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Under a court order and four years late, the White House Thursday produced what it called a science-based “one-stop shop” of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming.
While the report has no new science in it, it pulls together different U.S. studies and localizes international reports into one comprehensive document required by law. The 271-page report is notable because it is something the Bush administration has fought in the past.
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort, called it “a litany of bad news in store for the U.S.”
And biologist Thomas Lovejoy, one of the scientists who reviewed the report for the federal government, said: “It basically says the America we’ve known we can no longer count on. It’s a pretty dramatic picture of all kinds of change rippling through natural systems across the country. And all of that has implications for people.”
White House associate science director Sharon Hays, in a teleconference with reporters, declined to characterize the findings as bad, but said it is an issue the administration takes seriously. She said the report was comprehensive and “communicates what the scientists are telling us.”
That includes:
- Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog. In Los Angeles alone yearly heat fatalities could increase by more than 1,000 by 2080, and the Midwest and Northeast are most vulnerable to increased heat deaths.
- Worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users. From California to New York, lack of water will be an issue.
- A need for billions of dollars in more power plants (one major cause of global warming gases) to cool a hotter country. The report says summer cooling will mean Seattle’s energy consumption would increase by 146 percent with the warming that could come by the end of the century.
- More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.
- Increased insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes and diseases. Insect and pathogen outbreaks to the forests are causing $1.5 billion in annual losses.
“Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system,” the report said. “Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured.”
The report was required by a 1990 law which says that every four years the government must produce a comprehensive science assessment of global warming. It had not been done since 2000.
Environmental groups got a court order last summer to force the Bush administration to produce the document by the end of this month. Hays said the White House has preferred issuing studies on individual global warming issues, such as an agricultural effects report that was released on Tuesday.
“It’s totally begrudging,” said Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch at the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, a whistleblowers’ organization. “It’s important the government go on record honestly acknowledging this stuff.”
June 1st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
sasnak: Thank you for your comments, but why are you using a tax-payer funded .edu E-mail account from a state institution for such political postings?
I support conservation and wise use of natural resources, and the sensible, economi, use of alternative energy sources.
I may be in the minority, but I don’t understand the “chicken little” approach to global warming. There are scientific reports of “global warming” on other planets, yet the only global warming on earth is man made? The most abundant green house gas on earth is water vapor — have you seen the graph of infrared absorption of light energy by water vapor in a chemistry class? — but we want to control lesser gases?
And what should we do about Yellowstone National Park? The “yellow” in Yellowstone is sulfur and the park emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Where is the call to ban all tourists from Yellowstone? Where is the call for the EPA to cleanup all the greenhouse gaseous emissions from Yellowstone?
Where is the call to cancel all 4th of July fireworks because they result in huge greenhouse gas emissions?
The left is using “greenhouse gases” for all sorts of political purposes. Corrupting science for political purposes will not result in any solutions.