Your Opinion: Data shows Missourians prefer clean energy

Dear Editor:

I found it interesting in Congressman Luetkemeyer's Aug. 15 perspective that he hears from so many of us who are in fear of EPA's rule to clean up power plant emissions. Missourians like clean energy so much they approved a renewable-energy standard in 2008.

Based on Yale Climate Opinion Maps, while only 32 percent of Missourians believe global warming will harm them personally, 64 percent support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants. Why so high? The Maps show Missourians believe global warming will harm people in developing countries and future generations. Maybe they agree with Pope Francis when he says climate change is a moral issue - it's about caring for other people separated from us by distance and time.

However, that distance isn't as far away as some believe. The 2014 National Climate Assessment projects that by 2050, Mid-Missouri will have an additional 20 to 25 days per year when temperatures are above 95 degrees F. With increased humidity, heat-related deaths will rise sharply, quality of life will go down and farming will face a host of new challenges.

This summer, 70 Missouri counties are eligible for federal aid related to floods and storms. Because of delayed planting, many farmers missed deadlines for federally subsidized crop insurance, which resulted in Missouri suing USDA to extend the deadlines.

These extreme events are exactly what scientists warn us to expect more of if we do not reduce CO2 emissions. We are already paying for the cost of global warming through increases in subsidized crop insurance, food prices, disaster relief, wildfire fighting - and the list goes on.

Yet, Congressman Luetkemeyer's whole focus is on the cost of the power plant rules. He and Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler are helping the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity pitch a report that shows the new rules will add $235 annually to the average Missouri household utility bill.

But that's only one study. The Energy Information Administration projects bills will only temporarily increase by about $62 annually during our transition to clean energy.

Is $62 or even $235 annually really too much to pay for cleaner energy and a more stable climate?

For those who fear the new power plant rule, a carbon fee and dividend would reduce emissions more than complicated regulations and cost less. There's a study at citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/ that shows how this policy would boost the economy and create jobs.