Breaking News

Editorial: Re-elect Francisco for state senator

By Lauren Keith

Monday, October 27, 2008

Kansas Senate, District 2

Unfortunately, the local elections seem to have gotten the least amount of attention even though they may be the most important because of how they influence students’ lives.

The main issue in Kansas’ last legislative session was the proposed coal plants in Holcomb, and proponents of the plant have promised to make it an issue again.

This is why the Kansan editorial board has chosen to endorse incumbent state Sen. Marci Francisco. Most Kansans have realized that coal’s time has come to an end, and Francisco has consistently supported clean energy and opposed the coal-fired power plants.

photo

Opposing supposedly cheap energy is not an attractive political position to take in light of the economic crisis and the surely higher energy bills that will come this winter. But it’s time for Kansas to move forward in its energy policy, and Francisco has been that progressive candidate.

Francisco’s challenger, Scott Morgan, supports similar clean energy initiatives but had not given definitive answers about what he would do until recently. Morgan told the Lawrence Journal-World in June that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the coal plants but has now given more details about how he would allow coal plants with a time line to phase them out on his Web site.

The majority of Morgan’s print and online advertisements that have appeared in The University Daily Kansan say that Morgan supports the Amethyst Initiative to start a discussion about lowering the drinking age. Although this was an obvious attempt to hook college students, this conversation isn’t even relevant at the state level yet, and Kansas has other, much more pressing issues to work on. Including this issue among energy, higher education and taxes is laughable.

Kansas House of Representatives, District 44

Incumbent Rep. Barbara Ballard is running unopposed and has the Board’s support.

— — Lauren Keith for the editorial board

Comments

connerm (anonymous) says...

"Most Kansans realize that coal's time has come to an end."

What type of more efficient and clean energy source would you like to see it replaced with? By the way, not-yet-invented energy sources don't count.

Most Kansans, especially those who could have been given jobs by the construction of the power plants, are upset about Governor Sebelius's veto of the coal plan and will exact their revenge in 2010 when she runs for the US Senate.

October 29, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sjschlag (anonymous) says...

"What type of more efficient and clean energy source would you like to see it replaced with? By the way, not-yet-invented energy sources don't count."

Nuclear power?

Very Safe.
Doesn't spew tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Provides very high level professional jobs (engineering).
Provides more power than what we know what to do with.

October 29, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

Sam,

Nuclear power is safe? What do we do with the spent fuel rods?

How many jobs does a nuclear power plant provide compared to a coal power plant?

What is the real cost per kilowatt hour of generating energy via coal vs. generating it via nuclear technology in the United States? According to the OECD it is $3.01 and $2.71 for nuclear and coal respectively:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf...

Nuclear power is certainly a step in the right direction, but we have to shed the red tape our bureaucracy has created over the past 4 decades before we can build a cost-effective plant. For now, coal is king.

October 29, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

Also: Something tells me that Sebelius, Greenpeace, and most of the environmentalists who stopped the coal plant from being built aren't advocating building a nuclear power plant there in its place.

October 29, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement