Ozarks bloggers (would the local comunity be called the Blozarks?) are starting to take sides in the debate. Andy @ Rhetorica says he's voting "no" because:
... efficiency and cost are certainly not the only (or the most important) considerations, although that's the way this issue has been played ...
We in the Ozarks have far too much invested in our streams and lakes to allow them to be fouled by coal.
The reason I will vote no is precisely because there is no long term plan.
Whereas there is talk about solar and wind farms, along with other futuristic energy sources, they are not practical yet, and may never be. However, they will never exist as long as there is a cheap alternative. And that's what it's all about. Coal is cheap.
Vote NO. Not for cheap energy, but for City Utilities' having no real plan for the future. Vote NO for a bandaid that only masks the real problem: The need for clean, safe, renewable energy. The need for a real plan for the future.
Michael Soetaert, Andy Cline, Donna Bergen -- and others who wave the environmental banner -- need to answer a few questions. Starting with this one: How many of you are putting your money where your mouth is, and signing up for wind-generated electricity offered by City Utilities?
Yes, it costs more. But that seems to be what Soetaert advocates -- clean energy that gets us off the cheap coal teat. Funny that only a couple hundred CU customers (out of 110,000) take advantage of the program.
We're voting "yes" on Tuesday. Not because we want more pollution, but because we believe in the art of the possible, and we like CU's rates. And, frankly, we're voting "yes" because we're sick of the hypocrisy of so-called "progressives" on the energy issue.
They complain about pollution from coal while driving to the corner grocery. They dismiss nuclear power as too dangerous to consider. They say they want wind power, but they don't buy it when it's available, and they'd probably bitch about aesthetic blight if someone proposed erecting a local wind farm.