Vote ‘NO’ on Southwest 2…
Rhetorica today takes a rare turn into local politics:
The Springfield News-Leader has endorsed the building of a new coal plant in Springfield. I voted against it in 2004, and I’m voting against it on 6 June.
Here are a few of the points the News-Leader makes today:
“There’s little debate over whether this city needs more power.”
Yes.
“There’s little debate that coal provides the most efficient, least expensive option.”
Again, yes. But efficiency and cost are certainly not the only (or the most important) considerations, although that’s the way this issue has been played.
“There’s no debating that the modern-day coal plant is much cleaner than its predecessors.”
Certainly. And just as certainly it is still a dirty technology. “Cleaner” does not mean clean or clean in comparison to other options. We in the Ozarks have far too much invested in our streams and lakes to allow them to be fouled by coal.
“There’s no debating that there are cleaner alternatives to coal.”
Yes. And only lip service has been paid by CU to considering these–including conservation programs.
“And there’s no question that consumers appreciate CU’s low rates.”
Cheap does not equal good. If we are not willing to pay for better energy, then we will suffer the consequences.
Click here to follow the issue. The News-Leader has done a good job in providing useful information about the choices.
