President Barack Obama and former Gov. Tom Vilsack - now U.S. agriculture secretary - will attend the climate conference this week in Copenhagen to enlist nations around the world in an effort to meaningfully confront global climate change.
Here in Iowa, the largest contribution to the climate problem is by far the carbon dioxide emitted by coal power plants. That coal continues to dominate our energy portfolio - generating three-fourths of our electricity - is a significant setback to any solution. Still, there has been notable progress as of late. Earlier this year, proposals to build two new plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo were scrapped.
Building them would have been disastrous. Now, it's imperative that we clean up the coal plants that already exist.
The state is home to a fleet of aging, and thus, inefficient power plants. Environment Iowa recently released a report that found that among these are Alliant's Dubuque Generating Station, the nation's fifth oldest. Most of the facility dates to the 1940s and 1950s.
The single biggest emitter was MidAmerican Energy's Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center in Council Bluffs. It released nearly 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide in 2007, which is enough to place it among the top 70 most polluting power plants nationwide. Most of the electricity produced there comes from generators that are at least 30 years old and from some that were built in 1954 and 1958.
The answer to aging, inefficient coal plants isn't to build new ones. Instead, we should power the economy by utilizing our abundant natural resources - sunny hillsides and windy farmsteads - and by making strides in energy efficiency. However, the Register downplayed the economic benefits of these possibilities recently ("Green Jobs Offer Limited Hope to Iowa," Nov. 22).
The article notes that the green-job sector is highly dependent on policy mandates. That may be true, but it's due to enormous federal subsidies for coal and nuclear industries, which limit the ability of wind and solar to effectively compete and which restrict much incentive to make homes and buildings a lot more efficient.
The Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2007 the coal and nuclear industries received about $4.5 billion in subsidy and support, more than four times the amount allocated to renewables. That's unfortunate, because investments in clean energy can provide 40 percent more jobs than similar investments in coal. In fact, the green sector here already employs more Iowans than the coal industry. The Pew Center on the States and the Pew Environment Group counted 7,702 green jobs in the state in 2007. The National Mining Association, on the other hand, notes that the coal economy employs only a little fewer than 2,000 Iowans.
We can move away from coal and toward solar, wind and efficiency while successfully creating even more jobs. When it comes to energy efficiency alone, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates that by 2020 we will have created about 6,200 more jobs here if strong efficiency provisions are included in comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Thus far, Congress has failed to deliver such legislation to Obama's desk, even as he prepares to negotiate an international treaty in Copenhagen. We cannot forget the awesome responsibility that falls upon our nation to lead a treaty that compels the international community to take action before it is too late.
That burden currently falls upon the Senate. In the compromising that will undoubtedly take place in the months to come, Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley should advocate for a bill that both retains the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to regulate the amount of carbon dioxide that our power plants are allowed to emit and advances investment in solar, wind and efficiency. Those are the next steps in addressing Iowa's contribution to global warming and transitioning our state to a clean energy economy.
