| Of course, it's not all environmental. I live in Kansas. There's a long-running feud going (several years now) over permits to build several coal-fired power plants in the western part of the state; the legislature keeps passing bills ordering the permits to be granted, and the governor keeps vetoing them (thus far the legislature's been unable to get enough votes to override her). While various folks here love to complain that it's just some sort of environmental agenda being pushed by our (liberal) governor, there's a powerful economic reason to say no to these plants: although they'll be built in Kansas, although they'll use resources from Kansas, although they'll dump pollution into the air and water of Kansas, not one single watt of power from them will go to homes or businesses in Kansas (the plants, if they're built, will be built by out-of-state power companies to produce electricity which will be used elsewhere, mostly in Colorado). Which raises a valid question: if Kansas is going to bear the cost of having these plants, why shouldn't Kansas get any of the benefits? They won't generate nearly enough jobs to cover the impact they'll have on the state in other ways, so I don't see how any sound economic argument can be made in their favor. From what reading I've been able to do on the subject of power-plant construction, it seems Kansas isn't alone in facing this sort of situation. Though it may feel like a variation on NIMBY, I think it's entirely reasonable for one state to ask why it should bear costs while another reaps benefits, and to refuse to enter such an obviously one-sided deal. |