The CapTimes has an interesting and reasonably-balanced article (the lead article no less) called ‘The cost of clean air’ today.  Once you get past the opening premise that customers of MG &E are ‘voting with their pocketbooks’ for cleaner energy (10% opting in is not what I consider a vote for something), the article accurately portrays what is coming down the road for Wisconsin if the Cap ‘n Tax bill is passed in Washington.

Getting right to the point, the chair of Gov. Doyle’s own ‘Global Warming Task Force’, Roy Thilly, clearly and accurately points out that such a bill would be a ‘huge wealth transfer’ from states like Wisconsin to the states on the coasts.  Similarly, the National Association of Manufacturers is also saying that the bill could cost the state of Wisconsin another 50,000 jobs.  These are some of the most accurate and telling statement I can remember reading from the local media on what this really means for our state.   The only thing I can think to add is to remind everyone that Tammy Baldwin, our Representative, helped pass this bill. 

So what are we going to do?  Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison) is going to sponsor a ‘Clean Energy Jobs Act’ bill!  That’s right, in other words, the federal government, with Tammy’s help, is passing legislation to kill jobs in Wisconsin so the state government would like to pass legislation to try and replace those jobs – but only if they’re the ‘right’ kind of jobs. 

The bright spot in all of this is that there is a small nod to nuclear energy.  Lifting our state’s moratorium on nuclear power plants would provide cheap, abundant energy to our state.  One nuclear plant alone would provide as much or more energy than if we committed the entire state to wind energy.  That’s a lot of windmills to make up for a single nuclear power plant (side note: what’s the environmental impact of all those windmills compared to a single nuclear power plant? Just asking).  In addition, wind power only works when the wind is blowing.  Last time I checked nuclear power plants can work round the clock, with or without wind, with or without sun (since solar is on the list too).  Lastly, after fully committing to wind, there is no room to grow.  With nuclear power, we could add a second plant or third plant as needed. 

The drawback to nuclear power?  Some democrats have said they won’t support lifting a ban until the long-term storage problem is figured out, environmentalists will fight nuclear power, and the process takes too long.  First of all, while they’re not named in the article but I’m guessing they’re likely the same democrats suggesting we are in the midst of a climate change crisis and we need to act yesterday.  The fact is we can deal with the storage; it’s not ideal but compared to alternatives nuclear power is the most attractive, realistic solution on the table.  The second and third points go together.  Environmentalists are a huge part of why the process to create a new plant is so cumbersome and time consuming.  Again, like those democrats, environmentalists that warn of global catastrophe with no time to spare want us to gamble on ‘green power’ that is not proven or reliable at this stage.  Wouldn’t it make sense to allow nuclear power to fill that gap until such a time when green power is ready for prime time?  Or does ideology trump reality?

The CapTimes made an interesting (read: lacking any basis in reality) observation this last week. The gist of the whole article is that Conservative media, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, only have 1% of the US in their listening audience therefore only 1% of the US would vote Republican. As hard as it may be to argue with that kind of logic, I’ll give it the old college try.

First of all, where does 1% come from exactly? It looks like the 1% claim is based on Larry King’s statement that its 2% - close enough for CapTimes work I suppose. Mid-article, the author reluctantly admits that Rush might exceed 5% (only 500% difference from the article’s headline, again close enough for certain types of work I suppose). Contrast this to the pinnacles of liberal talk radio used for comparison, oh wait, no percentages are ever given for what their audience might be. If I had their numbers, I wouldn’t want to advertise them either.

Secondly, their liberal counterparts are praised for ‘breaking out of the echo chamber’ and challenging conservative listeners whereas conservative media screens out all liberal callers. I don’t see any reference from where this assertion comes from, I can only guess it comes from the writer listening to those liberal shows exclusively and not to conservative media – or maybe he found it on the internet somewhere (that always makes for great research). This same type of in depth journalism led to the atrocious reporting of false quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh over the last week. Unlike the author, having listened to both, I would argue that the notion that one has a better record or monopoly on engaging hostile listeners is ludicrous. Frankly, engaging opposition views is some of the most engaging radio and either side would be stupid to screen calls for the ratings alone – not to mention the most extreme callers from either side probably make great propaganda for the other.

Lastly, in the rush to attempt to take cheap shots at conservative media, the author fails to realize is that no single show accounts for an overwhelming percentage of the American viewing public today. It is the fact that conservative programming is robust and well that speaks highly for its appeal among the general population. Furthermore to make the connection that the percentage of any shows audience equates in some way to the entire body of any political party is asinine. If that were the case, Democratic candidates would consistently be pulling significantly less than 1% in every election based on the record of failed, liberal media like Air America.