no new coal!--really?!?

For the first time ever, a state (Kansas) has rejected an air permit for a coal-fired electricity plant--because of concerns about carbon dioxide pollution. Kansas's decision is supported by the Supreme Court ruling in April of this year that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is therefore subject to regulations under the EPA. My favorite political commentary blog, The Grist, pretty much sums it up: Bad news for coal; good news for the human race.

Finding the right decision is so much easier when human interests and the interests of the natural world coincide.

Particularly encouraging to me was Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius's statement equating "the question of where we get our energy" with "a moral obligation to be good stewards of this state." Although the coal company, Sunflower, didn't like that very much. Spokesman Steve Miller retorted, "That implies that we're not moral stewards of the land." Well, um, yeah.

Also encouraging is the fact that many voters opposed the plant, despite promises of new jobs and low energy costs. Which goes directly against my long-held belief, acquired while working in retail, that people as a mass are just plain stupid. But this is more evidence that the wind is changing, and ordinary people are starting to think differently about energy and pollution. They're starting to think about it as a moral issue, and not just an economic one.

All of this, as I said, is encouraging. But it's still a little mind-boggling to think how long it's taken us to get here, and how many people are still unconvinced that these questions actually do matter. I mean, as far as moral dilemmas go, this seems like a no-brainer. Is it ever right to do something that will ultimately destroy us and everything around us in order to obtain a few short-term, continually diminishing gains? You can argue that we don't know for a fact what the results will be of continuing to spout out greenhouse gasses indefinitely. You can even argue (with the entire scientific world against you) that we don't know that global warming is being caused by human activity. But if there's any chance at all that we're on a path to destroying ourselves and the rest of the planet, then surely you can't argue that this isn't a moral issue. I mean, if you had the chance, would you try to talk down a suicide jumper? Or would you shrug your shoulders and say it's none of your business? What about a suicide bomber who's planning on taking a building full of people with him? Is there any question about the morality of an action like that? Sure, the consequences of global warming are much less dramatic and sudden, more gradual to take effect. But the evidence is growing more and more overwhelming that they will be no less deadly.

Maybe my analogies are a little too extreme. But I simply don't understand the resistance to change in this arena, especially when a lot of small changes can have a surprisingly big impact. Of course, it will take big changes too--and make no mistake: getting off coal is a big change. But I don't know how much longer we can keep arguing that the benefits outweigh the risks. There's simply too much at stake--too many moral issues at stake--too much to lose and too little to gain. Which goes back to my general assumption about people being stupid. Generally, I think we probably are. But we don't have to be too smart to make the right decision here. Richard Heinberg's illustration puts it best: we only need to be a little bit smarter than yeast.