This article by Joseph Romm for Salon explains “Why we never need to build another polluting power plant.”

That’s right, conservation and efficiency measures can help us save money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet our energy needs without building any new coal-fired power plants or nuclear reactors.

The whole article is worth reading, but here’s a small excerpt:

America is the Saudi Arabia of energy waste. A 2007 report from the international consulting firm McKinsey and Co. found that improving energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and factories could offset almost all of the projected demand for electricity in 2030 and largely negate the need for new coal-fired power plants. McKinsey estimates that one-third of the U.S. greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 could come from electricity efficiency and be achieved at negative marginal costs. In short, the cost of the efficient equipment would quickly pay for itself in energy savings.

While a few states have energy-efficiency strategies, none matches what California has done. In the past three decades, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in high-tech, fast-growing California. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians currently do, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. If the entire nation had California’s much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total U.S. global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. And if all of America adopted the same energy-efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another polluting power plant.

How did California do it? In part, a smart California Energy Commission has promoted strong building standards and the aggressive deployment of energy-efficient technologies and strategies — and has done so with support of both Democratic and Republican leadership over three decades.

There’s no good reason why the Iowa legislature and Governor Chet Culver could not cooperate to implement some of the successful regulations from California. Then we could convince the members of the Iowa Utilities Board that conservation would go a long way toward meeting our baseload needs.

Too many people believe in the false choice of “clean coal” or nuclear power.  

There’s big news today for those who have been working toward “blue-green alliances” between organized labor and environmental groups.

Thanks to this Daily Kos diary by TomP, I learned that Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa has pulled the union out of an alliance supporting more oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas:

“We are not going to drill our way out of the energy problems we are facing-not here and not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Hoffa told labor and environmental activists at an Oakland, Calif., summit on good jobs and clean air. “We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Hoffa then announced the union’s withdrawal from the ANWR coalition, citing the need to build a green economy that fosters the development of alternative energy sources and creates good union jobs-instead of lining the pockets of big oil tycoons.

Hoffa also said that by investing in green energy solutions, the nation will reap the benefits of curbing its dependence on oil through a revitalized economy with the creation of millions of new jobs in a rapidly growing industry.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers forged a “Blue-Green Alliance” in 2006 and jointly endorsed Barack Obama for president at an event in Ohio last month.

But the Teamsters have been strong supporters of expanding oil drilling in the past. I never thought I’d see the day when Jim Hoffa pulled out of the ANWR coalition.

The battle over proposed coal-fired power plants has strained relations between labor unions and environmental advocates in Iowa this year. Today’s news gives me hope that in the future we will see more cooperation between those groups in promoting a forward-looking energy policy.

It doesn’t get much more visionary and ambitious than Al Gore’s speech last week on energy and climate change, and this sentence in particular:

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

If you missed it, you can find the full text here or read a helpfully annotated version here.

My only quibble with this fantastic speech was that Gore said little about the transportation sector, which is the second largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

But that’s a minor point. Go read what he said, if you haven’t already. We can meet demand for electricity using clean, renewable sources. We do not need new nuclear reactors or coal-fired power plants.

Gore turned up at the Netroots Nation conference over the weekend, and Mooncat at Left in Alabama posted some videos from his speech.

Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute liveblogged Gore’s speech in Austin here for those who don’t have time to watch the video.

The leaders of the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers appeared in Cleveland on Friday with Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown to endorse Barack Obama for president.

The joint endorsement and accompanying press release emphasized Obama’s support for “a clean energy economy,” which would create jobs while protecting the environment.

It’s a welcome contrast to John McCain’s energy policy, which calls for investing $2 billion in so-called “clean coal” and constructing 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers created the Blue Green Alliance in June 2006. The alliance has sought to draw attention to “economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy.”

This work is very important for the progressive movement. Too often the labor and environmental communities have found themselves on opposite sides of controversial issues. We saw that in Iowa earlier this year, when key labor groups backed plans to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

The full text of the Sierra Club’s press release on the Obama endorsement is after the jump. In addition to Obama’s energy policy, Sierra Club drew attention to:

-his opposition to further oil drilling in the Arctic Naitonal Wildlife Refuge;

-his opposition to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada;

-his promise to undo many of George Bush’s bad executive orders on the environment;

-his support for more regulation of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); and

-his efforts to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

The Des Moines Register published a long interview with the three members of the Iowa Utilities Board on Monday.

As you may recall, Democrats John Norris and Krista Tanner recently voted to approve an application to build a new coal-fired power plan near Marshalltown. Republican Darrell Hanson opposed the coal plant.

The whole piece is worth your time, but this was the key passage for me:

Q: For base-load power, it seems as if there aren’t many other options for Iowa than coal right now. Longer term, what’s on the horizon for base-load power?

Tanner: That is why I ultimately ended up voting for [the plant]. Even if all these things end up happening, the most aggressive standards we’re talking about are 30 by 30 [30 percent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2030], and I’m really concerned about what does that other 70 percent look like. In my opinion, it’s coal or nuclear. [Nuclear is] not without its problems, because it is expensive. I am on the [Iowa] Climate Change Advisory Council, and we put that as an option to study. There’s a lot of resistance to it in the public, more so than coal, even though it’s a lower carbon-generating source.

They are pursuing ways to store the carbon to make coal more viable. I don’t think that will happen in the next five to 10 years. I saw this plant as almost a bridge technology, because it is more efficient. My thought is that if we’re going to have coal, it better be the most efficient plant we can have and have a potential for biomass. While it may be an incremental step in carbon reduction, it’s a step that we can take today.

Norris: At least for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be nuclear or coal. My preference certainly is to reduce greenhouse gases. For the long term, that’s nuclear, but it’s extremely expensive to build right now and an extremely lengthy process to build.

Q: Is there anything the state can do to encourage construction of nuclear plants or is that solely a federal responsibility?

Norris: We’re certainly open to a nuclear application, but still don’t expect it tomorrow. I know Mid-American looked closely at it, but decided costs, the time and the building issues are just prohibitive. Mid-American is a very progressive company in looking at new alternatives. It makes me a little concerned about how the country as a whole is going to solve our base-load problems. Nuclear certainly will help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Some people have suggested to me that John Norris would prefer for the coal plant not to be built, but his comments to the Des Moines Register do not support that speculation. It sounds as if he is resigned to expanding our use of coal because the utilities are not currently pursuing the alternative he prefers, nuclear power.

I believe that renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power can meet more of our electricity needs than IUB members expect.

But we also need to aggressively pursue conservation through government regulations, incentives and public-education campaigns. Conservation measures can dramatically reduce the demand for electricity, and do it quickly.

Residents of Juneau, Alaska cut their electricity use by about 30 percent in a week this spring. Click the link to read about how Brazilians reduced their use of electricity by 20 percent in two months in 2001.

The IUB is not in charge of our state’s energy policy, but maybe its members would not be inclined to approve new coal-fired power plants if they believed that future demand for electricity would be lower than currently projected.

State legislators and officials should take more steps to promote energy efficiency and conservation, as well as increasing our use of wind and solar power.

Here are some easy ways for individuals to reduce their own use of electricity. Simple things like unplugging appliances you are not using can save a lot.

P.S.–I cannot agree with Norris’s implication that expanding nuclear power would be the best way to meet demand for electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is a link to a 74-page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on nuclear power. But if you’re too busy to read it, here is the key finding in less than 30 words:

The life cycle of nuclear power results in relatively little global warming pollution, but building a new fleet of plants could increase threats to public safety and national security.

A position paper on nuclear power and global warming notes that

Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

Friends of the Earth makes even stronger arguments against expanding nuclear power as a response to global warming:

It Would Set Back the Fight Against Global Warming: Experts suggest that we must triple the number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. in order to make a dent in global warming.  With a price tag of $5 billion per reactor and a historic construction timeline around 10 years, we’re not likely to see the 200-300 needed new reactors anytime soon.  (We currently have just over 100 reactors and many of those would have to be replaced as they reach retirement age.)  Alternatives, like wind, solar and conservation programs can produce results more quickly and affordably.

That was a long post-script, but we need to get out of the mindset that nuclear power is a solution to global warming, especially since both John McCain and Barack Obama are open to expanding nuclear power in this country.

Sobering news about the long-term effects of fine particulate matter in the air:

As many as 24,000 deaths annually in California are linked to chronic exposure to fine particulate pollution, triple the previous official estimate of 8,200, according to state researchers. The revised figures are based on a review of new research across the nation about the hazards posed by microscopic particles, which sink deep into the lungs.

“Our report concludes these particles are 70% more dangerous than previously thought, based on several major studies that have occurred in the last five years,” said Bart Croes, chief researcher for the California Air Resources Board. Croes will present his findings at a board meeting in Fresno this morning.

The studies, including one by USC tracking 23,000 people in greater Los Angeles, and another by the American Cancer Society monitoring 300,000 people across the United States, have found rates of heart attacks, strokes and other serious disease increase exponentially after exposure to even slightly higher amounts of metal or dust. It is difficult to attribute individual deaths to particulate pollution, Croes conceded, but he said long-term studies that account for smoking, obesity and other risks have increasingly zeroed in on fine particulate pollution as a killer.

What are the primary sources of fine particulate pollution? According to the World Health Organization:

“Short-term epidemiological studies suggest that a number of source types are associated with health effects, especially motor vehicle emissions, and also coal combustion. These sources produce primary as well as secondary particles, both of which have been associated with adverse health effects. One European cohort study focused on traffic-related air pollution specifically, and suggested the importance of this source of PM. Toxicological studies have shown that particles originating from internal combustion engines, coal burning, residual oil combustion and wood burning have strong inflammatory potential.

Translation: we now have even more compelling health reasons to reduce vehicle-miles traveled by car and not build any new coal-fired power plants in Iowa.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has more information about fine particulate levels in our state.

As I have said before, I think Hillary Clinton was wrong to make a summer gas tax holiday the centerpiece of her campaign for several weeks. I am glad that didn’t pan out for her in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

However, as bad an idea as a gas tax holiday would be (delivering more profits to oil companies, not really helping consumers, not helping to reduce our demand for oil), it would only be bad for a few months.

Take a look at the ad Obama is now running in Kentucky:

Also view the direct-mail piece the Obama campaign has sent out in Kentucky.

Now, maybe Obama is only pandering to Kentucky Democrats to avoid a blowout in the May 20 primary, but my fear is that if elected he would actually follow through and invest more national resources in so-called “clean coal.”

Every new coal-fired power plant built is a 50-year investment in the wrong direction, with much worse long-term consequences for our climate and environment than any summer holiday from the federal gas tax.

Right now, I think Barack Obama can make a stronger case with the superdelegates for why they should hand him the nomination instead of giving it to Hillary Clinton. (As is clear, neither candidate can get a majority of delegates without the superdelegates.)

However, every time I inch toward hoping that Obama will win the nomination, he says or does something that alienates me. As I’ve written, Hillary’s advocacy of a gas tax holiday this summer is a major red flag for me. But I learned today that Obama has sent out a direct-mail piece in Kentucky that proclaims, “Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal.” (click the link to see the design)

People, there is no such thing as clean coal. Even if they develop carbon-capture technology in the next decade, there will still be environmental problems related to coal mining and other pollution caused by burning coal. The carbon-capture itself could be problematic, if the carbon is sequestered by turning large quantities of underground water into carbonic acid.

I also have to wonder if Obama really does believe in Kentucky coal. His own energy policy calls for not expanding coal-generated power until sequestration technology is available. For a guy who usually campaigns on being able to tell Americans the truth, even if it isn’t what they want to hear, Obama sure seems to be pandering to Kentucky Democrats. One recent poll in the state shows him more than 30 points behind Clinton. He’s not going to win the May 20 primary in any case, but I’m sure he would prefer not to lose by a 2-1 margin.

If Obama is just pretending to be for “clean Kentucky coal,” that undercuts his claim to be a different kind of politician. And if he really does believe in “clean Kentucky coal,” that’s worse from my perspective.

I didn’t watch Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina tonight, but Populista put up the transcript in this diary.

Populista particularly liked this passage:

So don’t ever forget that this election is not about me, or any candidate. Don’t ever forget that this campaign is about you– about your hopes, about your dreams, about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.

But I have to say that what is wonderful to many Obama supporters couldn’t be more of a turnoff to me.

That excerpt takes me back to one of the things I disliked about Ronald Reagan in the 80s–the way he used this self-actualizing, empowering rhetoric to get people to project their hopes and dreams onto his candidacy.

I want my candidate to be standing up for the core values of the Democratic Party, which can be defined–not for every American’s hopes and dreams, which could mean anything.

What politician can really claim to stand for everyone’s hopes and dreams? Anyway, some Americans are hoping for policies that are abhorrent to me.

Sometimes Obama seems to be telling me to just believe in myself, but if I need to hear that message I can buy a self-help book or go see a psychotherapist. We need concrete actions from the president, and not just a belief that we can do anything we put our minds to.

I should add that other parts of Obama’s speech tonight, where he got specific about the policies he favors, are much more to my liking.

And this was pure John Edwards:

This is the country that allowed my father-in-law– a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant– to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis– who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation.  It was a job that didn’t just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn’t just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it.

The idea of treating work and wealth fairly, and rewarding both, is exactly the frame we need to use when we talk about changing the tax code.

I also liked the way Obama said, “we can’t afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush’s third term.”

More like that, please.

Asthma has been on my mind lately, because a child in my extended family was recently diagnosed with it after going to the hospital for respiratory problems. The chronic disease is one of the leading causes of hospitalization in children.

In addition, at least 20 million American adults are estimated to have asthma.

Today is World Asthma Day, in connection with Asthma Awareness Month.

Join me after the jump to read about five policies our society should implement, as well as five steps individuals can take, to reduce the incidence and severity of asthma in our households and across the country.

I held back this diary for several days so as not to publish something written hastily in anger.

But five days after the fact, I remain disgusted that the only member of the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to vote against the construction of a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown was Darrell Hanson, the lone Republican on the panel.

Putting Democrats in positions of power is supposed to be good for the environment. Unfortunately, John Norris and Krista Tanner failed to deliver “the change we need” when they voted to approve the application of the Interstate Power and Light Company (a subsidiary of Alliant Energy).

Here are few things you should know:

1. The IUB punted instead of seizing an opportunity to kill this proposal, and thousands of Iowans may suffer the consequences.

2. The conditions the IUB put on the plant’s construction may have been well-intended, but they do not eliminate the harm that would be done by burning more coal near Marshalltown.

3. It is still possible that the plant will never be built. However, that in no way excuses the IUB’s action, which prolonged this process and harmed environmental and public-health advocates, as I will explain below.

Join me after the jump for more on why IUB chairman Norris will never get my support in any Democratic primary for any office he may seek in the future.

Please put up a comment if you know of an important event I’ve left out.

Keep me posted about upcoming events by e-mailing desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.



Monday, May 5:

Free screening of the documentary film “For the Bible Tells Me So,” which explores questions such as, “Does God really condemn loving homosexual relationships?  Is the Bible an excuse to hate?” The film will be shown at 6:30 pm at Drake University in the Parents Hall in the Olmstead Center. The documentary’s director, Daniel Karslake, will be there for a discussion after the screening. More on the movie:

Through the experiences of five very normal, Christian, American families, including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child or family member.  Includes the respected voices of Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard’s Reverend Peter Gomes, & Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg.

Tuesday, May 6:

It’s World Asthma Day in connection with Asthma Awareness Month. I mention this because thousands of Iowans will become more aware of asthma if the coal-fired power plant approved last week by the Iowa Utilities Board ever gets built in Marshalltown.

The Iowa Global Warming Campaign, Sierra Club and I-Renew are hosting a special “green” event on Tuesday, May 6, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Public Library, 140 West Adams in Fairfield. The event offers free admission and refreshments and will feature a film screening of “Global Warming: the Signs and the Science,” a film that uses expert dialogues on global warming to talk about how we can reverse its course. After the film, attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions and participate in a discussion about the film and related issues.

Wallace House Foundation dialogue dinner, “The Greening of Des Moines” beginning at 6 pm. Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie, Lynnae Hentzen of the Center for Sustainable Communities, Marian Gelb from the Iowa Environmental Council, and Bob Riley from the Waterworks Board are confirmed for the event. Former Des Moines Mayor Preston Daniels will be one of the facilitators. Dialogue dinners invite community experts and residents to gather around the dinner table for a shared meal and facilitated conversation about a current issue. Reservations are required and can be made by emailing anntaylor@wallace.org or calling 515-243-7063. Cost is $20 per person for the program and catered meal. Dialogue dinners are recorded so participants must sign an authorization and release. The Wallace House Foundation is located at 756 Sixteenth Street in Des Moines.



Wednesday, May 7:

Come meet Nate Willems, candidate for Iowa House District 29, at a house party hosted by David Adelman, 2841 Gilmore Avenue in Des Moines, 5 pm to 7 pm. Suggested guest donation: $25. To RSVP, call (515) 491-1015 or e-mail willemsforhouse@hotmail.com. Willems is running for the seat being vacated by Democrat Ro Foege, who is retiring. This is an important hold. You can donate to the campaign through this page at Act Blue.

Join Ed Fallon at the Young Professionals Club gathering, starting at 5:30 pm at the Raccoon River Brew Pub, 200 10th St. Des Moines.

Thursday, May 8:

Celebrate Nurses Week with Womankind Author Nancy Harless, who will be at the Des Moines Public Library’s Central Library in downtown Des Moines at 6:30 pm. “Womankind: Connection and Wisdom Around the World” is a collection of women’s stories gained from Harless’s international nursing experiences and travels.  The Iowa nurse and author invites readers along on her real-life journey through inspiring, sometimes heart-wrenching stories. Harless will visit the library to discuss the writing of Womankind and to answer questions from the audience. Her books will be for sale by The Book Store and she will be signing them following the program.

House party for Ed Fallon at the home of Cory Ernst in Altoona. Space is limited so RSVP to Jamie at (515) 822-4284.

Reservations due for The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Annual Award Dinner, which costs $50 and will be held on Tuesday, May 13 at the Hotel Fort Des Moines, 1000 Walnut Street in Des Moines (Reception at 6 pm, Dinner at 7 pm). The Keynote Speaker will be The Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, retired Episcopal Bishop of Washington, second woman in the United States to be elevated to the office of Bishop. The Interfaith Award will be presented to Rekha Basu. The Des Moines Gay Men’s Chorus will perform. For more information or to RSVP, email tiaiowa@dwx.com or call (515) 279-8715.

Women volunteers are needed to create “wellness bags” for women cancer patients, which will be distributed through John Stoddard Cancer Center and Mercy Medical Center. To volunteer for this event, which will be at Southridge Mall on May 8 from 7 pm to 9 pm, contact Kelly Thevenot at 287-3881 or Kelly.thevenot AT macerich.com.



Friday, May 9:

The Iowa Renewable Energy Association will be sponsoring a free screening of the film “Revolution Green” at the Solon Public Library (event starts at 6:30 pm, film starts at 7 pm). “Revolution Green” shows how truly sustainable biofuels are not only possible but are being made in America at this time. After the film, we will discuss the real-world experience in our own, local community of making and using sustainable biofuel. This is biofuel that consumes no food crops and cuts carbon emissions hugely. Please come and join the discussion of sustainable transportation options for our area. Popcorn and tasty tap water provided! (please bring your own bowl & cup, containers available if you forget) Save gas! Please car pool and share rides by checking www.carpoolworld.com or calling I-Renew at (319) 643-3160.

Saturday, May 10:

It’s the beginning of the sixth annual Bike to Work Week, which runs from May 10-16. Lots of information about the week’s special events, plus discounts for commuters who participate, can be found at BikeIowa’s Bike to Work website.

It’s the first day of the farmers’ market in downtown Des Moines, which runs from 7 am to 12 pm on Court Avenue and a couple of side streets. I think there will be a Bike to Work week event at the market too.

Greater Des Moines Hike To Help Refugees, starting at 11 am at Gray’s Lake in Des Moines. The event will raise money for the UN Refugee Agency and for Lutheran Services of Iowa Refugee Resettlement Program. You can participate even if you are unable to do the 4.5 mile hike. For more information, go to www.hiketohelrefugees.org.

May 10 is also World Fair Trade Day. I am not aware of any local events marking this, but click the link if you want more information or ideas about how to get involved with the fair trade movement.

On Saturday and Sunday, Greenpeace is organizing “Mommy Meetups” related to global warming all over the country. More information on that is after the jump.

I’ll have more to say on this later tonight, but for now I’m posting the press release I just got from the Iowa Environmental Council.

For Immediate Release: April 30, 2008

IUB Approves Dirty Coal Plant for Marshalltown

The Iowa Utilities Board said “yes,” with conditions, Wednesday to a proposal by Alliant Energy to build a 630 to 660 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown, Iowa.

“We are disappointed that the Iowa Utilities Board and Alliant Energy are moving Iowa’s energy policy backwards with a dirty coal plant. This coal plant is simply the wrong choice for Iowa’s economy and our environment. When other states are saying no to coal plants, Iowa is risking its future as a renewable energy leader by betting on this imported and outdated energy source,” said Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

Clean air advocates say mercury, carbon and other air pollutants still don’t have to be Iowa’s legacy as today’s IUB decision is only a first step in a decision-making process over this proposal, which includes additional decisions by the Board and by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

The Iowa Environmental Council, Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Iowa Farmers Union and Iowa Renewable Energy Association were represented by the public interest law firm Plains Justice in a proceeding at the Iowa Utilities Board regarding approval of the proposal. In briefs and in testimony before the IUB, Plains Justice maintained that clean energy sources like wind and energy efficiency could meet the energy needs of Iowa consumers at a lower cost, and with considerably less environmental impact, than the proposed coal plant.

The IUB approval was conditional: Three conditions must be met as follows…

1.      The coal plant must co-fire five percent biomass within the first two years of the plant’s operation, and 10 percent biomass must be co-fired by the fifth year of operation.

2.      Alliant’s energy mix must include 10 percent renewable energy by 2013 and increase one percent each year for the following 15 years, to reach a total renewable energy portfolio of  25 percent by 2028.

3.      The Iowa Utilities Board will have authority to require Alliant to install carbon capture and sequestration technology at the plant when it becomes feasible.

“Despite the final decision, we appreciate the Board’s thorough consideration of the many risks that this proposal brings. The Board’s three conditions for use of biomass, renewable energy, and future carbon capture technology may help to offset some of these significant risks, but we’ll need to look at these conditions in more detail. We look forward to being engaged in the coming steps of this process,” said Baer.

n  End

For interviews, call Nathaniel Baer, 515-244-1194, extension 206.

The Iowa Utilities Board meets this morning to decide whether to approve a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

I’ve written before about how our state should focus on energy efficiency, conservation and new electricity generation through renewable sources, rather than expanding the use of coal, which has to be imported into Iowa and carries with it huge environmental and public-health costs.

The websites of the Iowa Environmental Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists explain why we should not increase our dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal.

The Iowa Medical Society and other public-health advocates have also made a strong case against the proposed coal-fired plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo. This op-ed piece by Maureen McCue explains why:

Each proposed coal plant would likely emit around 100 pounds of mercury a year, much of which would end up in our lakes and streams, and eventually, our bodies. The Environmental Protection Agency states that “on balance, mercury from coal-fired utilities is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest potential public-health concern.”

In expressing their concern about coal-fired power plants, Texas’ Catholic bishops noted that mercury poses a particular risk to “unborn life.” Thousands of women of child-bearing age have elevated levels of toxic mercury in their blood, which could lead to reduced IQ and neurologic impairment in their children.

Many of Iowa’s waterways, including parts of the Cedar, Upper Iowa and Mississippi rivers have fish-consumption advisories warning Iowans not to eat more than one meal a week because of elevated mercury levels. The Idaho governor, a Republican, banned coal plants in his state because “the health implications of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants far outweigh any economic benefits.”

[…]

The EPA’s own scientific advisory board, the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association and other health organizations have challenged current air-quality standards, such as those for fine-particulate matter, as insufficient to protect public health. Coal plants, which contribute to ozone and smog, are responsible for hundreds of premature deaths a year, increasing asthma hospitalizations, other respiratory ailments and cardiac disease.

The American Academy of Pediatrics noted that young children are particularly susceptible because their lungs aren’t fully formed and they spend a greater percentage of time outdoors.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board came out against the coal-fired plant in Marshalltown but has been printing guest opinion pieces and letters to the editor on both sides.

Links to many of the Des Moines Register’s editorials and op-ed pieces for or against the Marshalltown plant can be found by clicking here (there’s a “related stories” bar on the right-hand side of the screen).

I’ve noticed that supporters of this project are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, local supporters and representatives of organized labor talk about how many jobs will be created by the construction and operation of the new plant.

On the other hand, supporters say not to worry about increased greenhouse gas emissions from the new plant, because once it is built, Alliant will take offline or renovate older, less efficient facilities. If economic gains in Marshalltown come at the expense of other communities where Allliant facilities are located, doesn’t that suggest that Iowa’s economy on the whole would not benefit from this plant?

Here’s hoping the Iowa Utilities Board will reject the proposal. The rumor mill says it will be a 2-1 decision, with John Norris casting the decisive vote one way or another.

Last week was disappointing for Iowa environmentalists in several ways, which I’ll discuss in future posts. Thankfully, I opened the Des Moines Register today to find an editorial opposing plans to build a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown:

Five years ago, when MidAmerican started construction at Council Bluffs, a Register editorial made just one reference to global warming and declared that Iowa “is on the right course by encouraging development of modern, cleaner-burning coal plants while pursuing renewable fuels and rewarding consumers who use less energy.” The newspaper also praised Alliant’s plans for new generating capacity.

Today, the editorial board has concluded that building a coal-fired plant in Marshalltown is not now the right course for Iowa. The right course would place far greater emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable sources of generation, particularly wind. For power plants, it would encourage a harder look at natural gas, which emits much less carbon dioxide, and would specify that any new “cleaner-burning coal plants” must be able, at least on the near horizon, to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

For background on strengthening energy efficiency and finding alternatives to coal in Iowa, check out this page on the Iowa Environmental Council’s website.

On the right side of the screen you can click on a pdf file, which is a position paper specifically about coal-fired power plants.

For much more information about coal, including the costs of coal and the impacts of coal-fired generation of electricity, the Union of Concerned Scientists website has comprehensive information.

Tom Harkin and Leonard Boswell are good people and good Democrats, so it’s disappointing to read in the Sunday Des Moines Register that they are unwilling to take a stand against building new coal-fired power plans in Marshalltown and Waterloo.

It could hardly be more clear that building new coal-fired plants is bad for the environment, bad for the public’s health, and a net loss for Iowa’s economy (since we would be importing all the coal used in the plants).

Ed Fallon categorically opposes building new coal-fired power plants in Iowa. In the article I linked above, Boswell said he hadn’t studied the issue closely, because the proposed plants are located outside Iowa’s third Congressional district. Fallon has the right response:

Fallon said even though the plants would be outside Boswell’s district, some central Iowa towns would be downwind from the Marshalltown facility.

“It clearly affects our district, and because of concerns about greenhouse gas, it concerns our whole planet,” said Fallon, a former state representative who opposes construction of any new coal-fired plants.

Jennifer Oredson of Des Moines, the Greenpeace member who asked about the plants, said she had mixed feelings about the answers from Harkin and Boswell. She said her group opposes the plants, but she appreciated that both men are pushing for more conservation and alternative sources of energy.

She particularly noted Boswell’s support of the Safe Climate Act, which aims to limit greenhouse gases. But she said her group would not endorse a candidate in the primary.

By the way, Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) signed onto the Safe Climate Act months earlier than Boswell. Boswell only took that position in December, when rumors of Fallon’s likely primary challenge were circulating.

In related news, Boswell was on Iowa Public Television this weekend saying he is more qualified than Fallon to represent the district. He also brought up Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000, which seems to be Boswell’s strongest card to play.

But Boswell’s comments on policy during that television program suggest that he is feeling the heat from Fallon’s criticism:

On other issues, Boswell said:

– Congress should consider repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement, which “hasn’t worked well.” Fallon opposes NAFTA and other free-trade agreements. Boswell supported a recent trade agreement with Peru.

– The country should look for ways to burn coal in efficient, environmentally friendly ways perhaps even “cleaning” Iowa’s high-sulfur coal. Fallon wants a moratorium on new coal plants, which are a chief source of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change.

Fallon has said Boswell supports greater use of coal and backed $14 billion in tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies.

– He supported tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars after voting against an earlier measure. “We recently raised the fuel-efficiency standard. If you don’t want to put people out of work, and not cause a new problem, you have to look at it carefully.”

– He supports removing troops from Iraq, but opposed a bill that would have led to immediate withdrawal, something that he believed would have cost too many lives. Boswell said he originally supported the war based on the administration’s statement that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, later disputed. Fallon has said he opposed the war all along.

I saw Fallon yesterday at the Natural Living Expo in Des Moines, and it looked like a lot of people were signing up to volunteer.

Also this weekend, the Des Moines Register reported that Fallon has raised about $130,000 for his campaign and has 16 paid staffers.

Friday was the last day of public testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board on the proposed new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. The Sierra Club put out a release noting that while Iowa debates building more coal plants, other states in the region are overtaking us in wind power capacity.

Key excerpt:

“The difference is clearly policy,” said Mark Kresowik with the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign in Iowa.  “Illinois and Minnesota have passed policies that look to the future, such as Renewable Electric Standards, carbon dioxide reduction targets, and even a moratorium on new coal plants.  Iowa’s energy policy remains in the 20th century.”

Time for the Democratic-controlled legislature to do more on this front for Iowa. I’ve put the full text of the press release after the jump. It’s worth a read.

As I posted a few days ago, this is the time to take action to stop a new coal-fired power plant from being built in Marshalltown. Coal not only contributes to global warming, it also increases the rate of asthma in nearby residents, as well as mercury levels in fish.

The Iowa Utility Board will hold hearings starting tomorrow, January 14, at 10 am. The hearings will take place at the Whitehall Auditorium on the grounds of the Iowa Veterans Home (1301 Summit St, Marshalltown).

The invaluable noneed4thneed has information on the testimony of Iowa native James Hansen, a climate scientist from NASA.

After the jump I’m putting information about events this week organized by the Cedar Rapids-based environmental law group Plains Justice. For more on that group, check out their website.

If you attend any of these events, or hearings at the IUB, please put up a diary with your impressions.

I got this e-mail from a fellow Sierra Club member:

Now that the caucuses are behind us, there is another way to get involved in energy and environmental issues.  We have a special treat for you this month – international global warming spokesman and Iowa native Dr. James Hansen of NASA will be returning to Iowa the week of January 14th to testify against the construction of a new coal burning power plant in Marshalltown.  We need your help today to convince Governor Culver and the Iowa Utilities Board to listen to the scientific experts, and the people of Iowa, and reject the construction of this major new source of pollution.  Our leaders should choose a clean, efficient energy future that will help Iowa’s economy grow.  They should put off any decision on dirty, expensive coal until we determine if efficiency and renewable power are sufficient to power the state.  Please take thirty seconds to contact the Iowa Utilities Board by clicking on the link below:

http://capwiz.com/iowacci/issu…

Then let us know you wrote the Iowa Utilities Board by just replying to this email (mark.kresowik AT sierraclub.org).  An even more powerful action would be writing a letter in hard copy and faxing it to the Governor’s Office at 515-281-6611 (fax) or sending it to:

Governor Chet Culver and Lt. Governor Patty Judge

State Capitol

Des Moines, IA 50319

515-281-5211 (phone)

Best yet, come testify in person to the Iowa Utilities Board starting at 10:00 AM on Monday, January 14th at the Whitehall Auditorium on the grounds of the Iowa Veterans Home (1301 Summit St, Marshalltown) .  

According to a recent survey nearly four out of five Iowans think that “Iowa should focus on increased (energy) conservation steps and more fuel efficiency to reduce demand for electricity before it constructs new coal-fired power plants” (http://plainsjustice.org/survey-iowa-voters-say-no-new-coal/). Coal burning power plants are the single largest source of global warming pollution in the United States and Iowa is over-dependent on this dirty form of energy.  The first step we need to take to combat global warming is to stop the construction of proposed coal plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy.  The Governor should continue his pledge to make Iowa the renewable energy capitol of the world and stop these plants.  Please contact the Iowa Utilities Board and the Governor today:

http://capwiz.com/iowacci/issu…

You can also hear Dr. Hansen and other expert witnesses for the Office of the Consumer Advocate and Plains Justice – who have concluded unanimously that the Marshalltown plant is unnecessary and will in fact put Iowa ratepayers at far greater risk than more prudent alternatives – in person on January 16th at 7:00 PM at the State Historical Building (600 East Locust) in Des Moines or January 17th at 7:00 PM at Old Brick (26 E. Market) in Iowa City.

Good for him. Got this today from the Iowa Environmental Council:

 

 

IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS HAIL HISTORIC AGREEMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING REDUCTION
Iowa Gov. Chet Culver exercised bold leadership to reduce the critical threat of global warming and promote economic development when he signed a historic multi-state agreement Thursday to significantly reduce carbon emissions, Iowa environmental leaders said.

 

Culver joined leaders of five other Midwestern states and the Premier of Manitoba, Canada in a pact to cut carbon pollution 60 to 80 percent, as recommended by scientists.  The agreement, signed at a meeting of the Midwest Governors Association, will spur investment in clean, renewable energy and energy efficient technology – fueling the growth of local industries in Iowa.

 

“Our governors today will propel Iowa and the Midwest to a clean energy economy. Boosting our use of wind, solar, and biomass will create thousands of new jobs,” said Nathaniel Baer, energy director at the Iowa Environmental Council.

 

Already wind turbine manufacturers have brought nearly 1,000 new jobs and over $100 million in capital investments to Iowa. Studies by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Law & Policy Center show that thousands of additional jobs and investments are in store from the kind of clean energy policies recommended in this platform.

 

The multi-state accord finalized Thursday should also yield major reductions in Iowa’s total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, which rank in the top half of the nation, according figures obtained from the website of the Energy Information Administration in the U.S. Department of Energy.

“With the stroke of Governor Culver’s pen, Iowa has reversed its legacy as a major source of global warming pollution and emerged as part of the solution to the problem.   We thank him for his leadership in securing our energy future,” said Marian Riggs Gelb, executive director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

The Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club sent out an e-mail later in the day, hailing the accord while urging citizens to call Culver's office at 515-281-5211

to thank him for his support of this accord and ask him to prevent the construction of two new dirty coal burning power plants in Waterloo and Marshalltown. If built those two plants would eliminate all of the good work that Governor Culver is trying to accomplish by emitting as much carbon dioxide every year as the entire passenger vehicle fleet of the State of Iowa, more than 1.6 million cars.

I'll make that call today. 

UPDATE: The Union of Concerned Scientists has declared an “urgent action” to thank Culver for this while asking him to block the proposed coal-fired power plans. I've posted an e-mail from that group after the jump.

Good news for opponents of the proposed Interstate Power & Light (Alliant) coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown: 

http://www.state.ia….

Office of Consumer Advocate
  John R. Perkins, Consumer Advocate

 

Consumer Advocate Opposes Interstate Power & Light Co. Proposed Coal Plant

 

Consumer Advocate urges company to evaluate more cost-effective and environmentally sound supply resources.

 

The Iowa Consumer Advocate has filed testimony with the Iowa Utilities Board, recommending that the IUB reject Interstate Power and Light’s application for authority to site a 630-megawatt coal-fired generating unit (SGS Unit 4) adjacent to Interstate’s existing Sutherland Generating Station in Marshalltown, Iowa. Interstate is a subsidiary of Alliant Energy of Madison, Wisconsin.

 

“When the risks to consumers and the public associated with building a new coal-fired power plant are properly taken into account, the advantages are clearly demonstrated of Interstate Power meeting its supply needs through lower-cost and environmentally-friendly energy efficiency and renewable energy generation resources,” said Consumer Advocate John R. Perkins.

 

The Office of Consumer Advocate filed the testimony with the IUB late Monday. The OCA represents gas, electric and telephone utility consumers generally and the public generally in all proceedings before the Iowa Utilities Board.

 

Expert testimony submitted by the Consumer Advocate interpreting current scientific analysis and consensus argues that the proposed coal plant would inject enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for 50 years or more, contributing to a worsening of the dangerous buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere and to accelerated global climate change for centuries to come.

 

According to the testimony, emissions from the proposed plant would be equivalent to the CO2 emissions from about 740,000 additional cars – an additional 40% of current emissions today from all of the cars registered in the state in 2005.

 

Human-induced climate change presents a grave and increasing threat to the environment and to human societies around the world, according to the testimony. The primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels by industrialized societies. Unless squarely addressed by effective public policy, the increasing buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases will likely cause dramatic environmental and economic harm to societies around the world, including communities in Iowa. Policymakers within and beyond Iowa are evaluating policies to achieve electricity production by less carbon-intensive or zero-carbon means, the testimony said.

 

“The proposed coal plant stands in stark contrast to this goal,” Perkins said. “Undertaking construction of a coal plant in these circumstances presents an enormous risk for IPL’s customers and the environment – a risk that is unnecessary. Moreover, our recommendations would allow for the potential development of cleaner energy sources which may occur over the next decade and eliminate the need for a baseload coal plant in the future.”

 

Perkins said that in the course of the OCA’s detailed analysis of Interstate’s electric resource planning model, OCA’s experts determined that IPL failed to properly model the costs of CO2 regulation and other energy resource potentials. Adjusting for these errors, the OCA experts concluded, IPL can defer the need for the base load coal plant beyond the planned 2013 in-service date of SGS-Unit 4. Energy efficiency and wind generation would be a more cost-effective means of meeting Interstate’s energy needs, and with little to no adverse environmental impact, Perkins said.

  “Energy efficiency and renewable energy resources actually deliver greater and more evenly distributed economic benefits to the State of Iowa than the proposed coal plant,” Perkins said. “Removing IPL’s modeling constraints that limited Interstate’s wind generation capacity to 9.1 % of its projected retail energy needs in 2022, and allowing the model to increase wind generation to 25 percent of IPL’s retail energy needs, would result in 1,657 MW of wind in 2022, or 1,039 megawatts more than IPL assumes in its base resource plan. Similar environmentally sound results will accrue from increased investment in energy efficiency.”

According to someone posting on the Iowa Renewable Energy Association e-mail loop, “(The OCA is part of the Iowa Attorney General's Office.  The OCA is a party to all cases before the Iowa Utilities Board, representing the public interest).”

Just got this on the I-Renew e-mail list:

September 20, 2007       
Contacts:          

Carrie La Seur, Plains Justice (Cedar Rapids), 319-560-4729, claseur@plainsjusti ce.org

 

Nathaniel Baer, Iowa Environmental Council (Des Moines), 515-244-1194, Baer@iaenvironment. org

Maureen McCue, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Iowa City), 319-828-4789

 

Sally Wilson, Community Energy Solutions (Marshalltown) , 641-751-2852, saynotocoal@ yahoo.com 

Des Moines – Today a coalition of five public interest organizations filed a Petition to Intervene in the application by Interstate Power and Light Company (Alliant Energy) to the Iowa Utilities Board to construct a 660 megawatt pulverized coal plant in Marshalltown.  The coalition will present expert witness testimony on the public health and global warming impacts, the increase in electrical rates, and the displacement of renewable energy that will result from this old-fashioned coal plant. 

 

The public interest coalition that intervened today includes Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Renewable Energy Association and Iowa Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.  Coalition members represent Marshalltown residents as well as tens of thousands of Iowans.  Coal-fired power plants contribute 40% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities.  Iowa gets up to 85% of its electricity from coal, while the national average is 50%.  

 

Coal combustion emissions contribute to respiratory and cardiac ailments because of increases in particulate matter, or soot, a pollutant regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.  As epidemiologists expand studies of the smallest particulate matter, its harmful health impacts become increasingly apparent.  Coal plants emit heavy metals into the atmosphere, including mercury, which settles into surface waters and bioaccumulates in fish, which can in turn cause neurological damage if eaten.  Illinois has mercury advisories on 100% of its surface waters, but Iowa does not track mercury contamination.  Finally, Iowa allows use of coal ash for fill in unlined quarries without groundwater monitoring, a practice that has led to groundwater contamination in dozens of sites around the U.S. 

 

The intervenors are represented by Attorneys Carrie La Seur and Jana Linderman of Plains Justice, a public interest environmental law firm based in Cedar Rapids.  Says La Seur, “Utility regulators across the country are denying permits for new coal plants, and investors are pulling out.  This is a very risky time to propose a coal plant.”  Dr. Maureen McCue of Physicians for Social Responsibility emphasizes: “The harmful health impacts of coal plants are undisputed, and it's simply immoral to construct a giant new source of greenhouse gases.” 

 

Local Marshalltown residents express concerns about impacts on local health care services, and particularly the health impacts on vulnerable elderly residents of the Iowa Veterans Home.  Sally Wilson, Associate Professor of Biology at Marshalltown Community College, worries that Marshalltown has been chosen for the plant because the community is perceived as lacking the resources to fight a large corporation.  “We deserve clean air and water as much as any other town in Iowa,” says Wilson.  “It is critical that we protect our environment for the health of our community.  It makes no sense to build a coal plant when much better alternatives are now available.”

 

 The IUB has scheduled the administrative hearing in this docket to begin January 14, 2008, in the auditorium of the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a vacancy on the Iowa Utilities Board right now. Let's hope that whoever gets that job before January 2008 is not favorably disposed to coal.

Incidentally, the Iowa Farmers Union represents family farmers, unlike the Farm Bureau which represents corporate ag interests. 

I just got this press release on the Sierra Club Iowa topics e-mail list:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 19 June 2007
Contact: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

                    Senate Says Firm No to Liquid Coal
         Vote Puts the Public Interest Ahead of Special Interests

          Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“In spite of Herculean efforts by the coal industry and its friends in
Congress, the Senate today delivered a very important victory in the fight
against global warming by decisively voting against jumpstarting a new
massively expensive, massively polluting liquid coal industry–twice.
Senators showed that they understood that we need to leave behind the
failed policies of the past–and past Congresses.

“At a time when we need to get on the path to achieving an 80 percent
reduction in our global warming emissions by 2050–an achievable annual
reduction of 2 percent–the level scientists tell us is necessary to avoid
the most catastrophic effects of global warming, business as usual is no
longer acceptable.  Liquid coal produces nearly twice the global warming
pollution as conventional fuel and Senators were right to turn their backs
on it.

“Though Senators successfully blocked these damaging liquid coal
provisions, they now need to turn their attention to breaking a filibuster
led by Senator Domenici that is preventing a fair up or down vote on the
Bingaman Renewable Electricity Standard amendment.  Senators must also
block attempts by Senators Levin, Bond, and Pryor to further weaken the
CAFE compromise in the bill.

“We thank Senators for their leadership on this important vote and hope
they will continue to make the changes necessary to make this bill one that
we can truly be proud of.”

The person who posted the press release noted that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted FOR the coal to oil subsidy, which thankfully did not pass the Senate.

That is pathetic. I'm not surprised that Hillary voted yes, because the Clintons have never seemed to care much about the environment.

But for Obama to support this subsidy for the coal industry suggests to me that he is not serious about dealing with global warming. Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards all have put forward superior proposals on this issue. 

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Senate roll call vote on liquid coal:

http://www.senate.go…

Of the presidential candidates, Clinton and Obama voted yes, Biden voted no, Dodd, McCain and Brownback did not vote. (I'm sure Dodd would have voted no.) 

Harkin and Grassley both voted no. 

John Edwards called for a halt on coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown, where a proposed $1 billion, 600 mw coal-fired power plant is being proposed by Alliant Energy. 

Edwards said…

…we need to use coal sequestration technology and not build anymore coal plants until this technology is available.

I assumed Edwards was not informed about the proposed power plant in town when I first heard this comment. However, after the event, I overheard a local reporter ask if Edwards was aware of Alliant's proposed coal-fired power plant. Edwards said he doesn't believe in changing his position based on what town he is speaking in. This makes me think Edwards knew about the plant was once again taking a principled stand on the issue.

Way back before Tom Harkin was elected to the Senate, Iowa had two Republican senators: Roger Jepsen and Chuck Grassley. We used to call them “Tweedle Dumb” and “Tweedle Dumber.”

For those of you too young to remember, Tweedle Dumb lost to Harkin despite the massive Reagan landslide of 1984. His campaign faltered when it became public knowledge that he had frequented “massage parlors.” Why did it become public knowledge? Because Tweedle Dumb used his personal credit card to pay for the massage parlor services.

But I digress.

It's easy to forget Chuck Grassley was ever known as Tweedle Dumber, but I remembered when I saw this piece in the Des Moines Register:

Grassley: Ethanol plants should use coal

Responding to worries that the ethanol boom will drive up the price of natural gas used to power the ethanol plants, Grassley had a brilliant idea:

“We’ve got to use things that we have in greater supply. We need to use more coal in place of natural gas,” Grassley said Tuesday.

Noneed4thneed comments that using coal to produce ethanol negates any environmental benefit from the renewable fuel. If you're not reducing greenhouse gases, then the only benefit of ethanol is that it helps Iowa farmers. He wonders, “Why limit the benefits?”

Well, maybe Grassley has no concern for the environment and no interest in reducing greenhouse gases. Instead, his ingenious plan would please the corporate interests that profit from coal as well as the corporate interests that stand to profit from ethanol.

Or maybe Tweedle Dumber really does care about the environment and is too dim to understand why it makes no sense to use coal in ethanol production. 

Senator Grassley, do everyone a favor and retire. Maybe you can get an ethanol-powered riding mower to demonstratively mow your own lawn with.