Energy Advocacy for Iowa Progressives

“With
a burgeoning world population, expected to reach between 8 and 10
billion people by the year 2050, the prognosis for controlling release
of additional greenhouse gases is poor if we don't get a grip on
reducing carbon emissions. Heaven help us when Africa turns the lights
on.“

The trouble in advocating for a change in how electricity is produced and delivered in Iowa is that the stuff is so darn cheap on the monthly bill. It is easy to leave the computer on, or the mobile phone charger plugged in because the direct financial consequences are minimal. Most Blog for Iowa readers understand that the price on our electricity bill is not an “all in” price, excluding costs to the environment and to our health. Nonetheless, once we change our light bulbs to compact florescent or LED and weatherstrip our doors and windows, one feels it is time to move to areas of more consequence when it comes to how we spend our limited advocacy time. For most Iowans, advocating for change in electricity sourcing and use does not make the cut.

Some of us continue to believe that planetary warming and climate change pose one of the gravest threats to survival of our species. It is undeniable that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and these emissions are tied, in part, to electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. With a burgeoning world population, expected to reach between 8 and 10 billion people by the year 2050, the prognosis for controlling release of additional greenhouse gases is poor if we don't get a grip on reducing carbon emissions. Heaven help us when Africa turns the lights on.

It seems unlikely that politicians will take action to mitigate planetary warming until it is too late.

Iowa's Governor Chet Culver did nothing to stop the construction of new coal fired power plants in the state, despite appeals from public health officials and environmental advocacy groups.

The Vilsack administration's initiative to create a business environment for construction of new coal fired power plants resulted in one new plant in Council Bluffs, which increased the health expenses within the state, mostly related to human mortality. The other two plants under this initiative were scuttled as banks and utility companies realized that the uncertain political climate regarding carbon regulation created potential costs that had not been factored into their financial model. After the 2010 midterms, substantive federal legislation to regulate carbon emissions seems unlikely and the prognosis for the 112th Congress was stated succinctly by Republican operative Karl Rove, “climate is gone.”

Regarding nuclear power, the Iowa Senate debate over HF2399 was not a debate at all, but more of a ramming through of an idea to conduct a study of nuclear power that was predetermined at the outset. We may never know who was behind this initiative, but Warren Buffet's MidAmerican Energy was the beneficiary.

If legislative solutions have proven ineffective in changing how electricity is produced and delivered, the small bands of activists picking away at specific issues are not any better. Jane E. Magers, self described “lone concerned citizen,” is a case in point. Magers recently attempted to organize a response to Thomas Saporito's petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change the way the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, Iowa was repairing a nozzle in the plant. Magers struggled to gain support for a press release on the issue, and was unable to do so before NextEra Energy, the nuclear facility's owner, announced that the repair had been made. This type of small scale, single issue advocacy has also proven to be ineffective.

So what can we do? Part of my experience during the 2010 campaign was several conversations with Secretary of Agriculture candidate Francis Thicke. He said that what is needed to change agriculture is someone setting up a working example of what change looks like. Once farmers saw that it worked, they would adopt it. Applying this concept to the production and delivery of electricity is no different. What is lacking in Iowa is innovation, required capital and a compelling reason for electric utilities, consumers and politicians to change behavior. Being right on the perils of climate change and planetary warming, coupled with advocacy for controlling carbon emissions has not been compelling enough.

There is always strength in numbers, but finding a unifying issue regarding energy has proven to be difficult, and issues chosen, ineffective. The next step for advocacy for a new energy system should clear the slate and begin anew with a focus on locating the compelling model that will meet our electricity needs without further harm to human health and the environment. It is a tall order, but considering our history and our options, it may be the only viable path.

~Paul Deaton is a
native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend editor of
Blog for Iowa. E-mail
Paul Deaton