COLUMN: Forsee right to question cap-and-trade idea

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 | 12:01 a.m. CST; updated 8:30 p.m. CST, Tuesday, December 15, 2009

University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee’s letter to federal lawmakers urging opposition to “cap-and-trade” legislation as a much too costly venture has earned him a world of critics, few of whom are favorable or even constructive. Those in disagreement include organized (Coal Free Mizzou) and individual students, members of the faculty, the Sierra Club and the Kansas City Star..

Forsee and his opposition have one thing in common: the right to express their opinion. However, he alone is confronted with issues not faced by his dissenters — that of leadership and responsibility. He is responsible to UM students and faculty, the community, the Governor, the legislature and to taxpayers for the operation of the university system. And, in asking the legislature to oppose cap-and-trade, he has exercised that responsibility we expect from our leaders.

Those who oppose carbon-generated energy have something in common also — exactly zero responsibility for the consequences of their opinions and recommendations. It is relatively easy to sit on the sidelines and demonize “Big Coal,” “Big Oil” and “Wall Street” and equate profit with greed while advancing no solution other than vague references to “alternate energy sources.” Thus far, not one “green” (wind, solar or biofuel) energy source has demonstrated cost effectiveness nor efficiency, while each poses measurable environmental consequences also.

For example, meteorologist Mark Johnson and Green Econometrics have placed the cost of solar energy at 35 times the cost per kilowatt hour of that of coal while wind power’s cost estimate varies from more than 50 percent more to 7 times that of coal generated electricity (variations caused by subsidies and by intermittent nature of wind). When balanced against the fact that but 1.4 percent of global electricity demand is provided by wind and 0.8 by solar energy (more then 80 percent of Missouri's electricity is coal-fired), there obviously is no economically feasible quick fix to a carbon-free MU.

Additionally, either unwittingly or by design, carbon dioxide is overdemonized. The percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is approximately 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere and is essential for photosynthesis in trees and other vegetation. The vast majority of the “greenhouse gases” are water vapor and clouds, which includes CO2 — it is difficult to keep a straight face while declaring a vital-to-all-that-is-green chemical compound, one that each of us emits in the process of exhaling, a dangerous pollutant.

Now, this in no way intimates that reducing the demand for and use of carbon-based energy sources is neither desirable nor necessary. No one in his or her right mind endorses pollution of air, land and sea – having served a tour of sea duty in Long Beach (Los Angeles County) in the smog-infested early 1960s, I can attest to the discomforts in breathing noxious fumes. But, lessening the demand for carbon energy will not be accomplished by well-meaning but all too often illogical, uninformed or impractical protests and movements.

The notion that we have reached a point of no return, necessitating drastic measures which, while they might cause temporary higher costs and reduced services, are justified as a means to a glorious, carbon-free end, is devoid of logic or common sense. The costs of cap-and-trade will be passed on to the consumer. Anyone who believes the added cost of doing business will be absorbed by the provider is in need of a reality check. To remain in operation, businesses must pay employees, maintain equipment and inventory, provide for research and development and show a profit.

To anyone who believes the promise that government subsidies will defray the initially higher energy costs to individuals, one must ask the obvious: How does the government fund this “temporary” relief as carbon is phased out? The answer is simple — those monies come from you and I and all taxpaying citizens. Picking the pocket of citizen “A” to pay for the needs of citizens “B” and “C” is an illusionary feat practiced only by governments and is not available to those bound by budgetary constraints.

Consequently, President Forsee has demonstrated courage and foresight in recognizing and calling attention to the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The impetus for cap-and-trade is largely driven by the alternative fuels industry, which stands to lose money for itself and its investors unless governments raise carbon prices arbitrarily. These industries owe their very existence to vast billions in subsidies, yet they remain unable to compete economically with carbon.

Although President Forsee tracks a reasoned and responsible course, that does not negate the obligation of honest disagreement: "Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent and debate" (Hubert Humphrey). However, informed dissent requires realistic and objective alternatives — these are not yet apparent.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via e-mail at


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Frank Garro December 15, 2009 | 7:33 a.m.

With all due respect Colonel, I believe you have missed the point of Mr. Forsee's critics. As I understand it, MU's power plant was always exempt from cap and trade negating any economic hardship for the school. More importantly, Mr. Forsee sits on the board of directors of Great Plains Energy Incorporated, a company opposed to cap and trade. I have no problem with debate over such issues as long as it is done honestly. If Mr. Forsee had written his letter and spoken as a representative of Great Plains Energy I doubt there would have been the same reaction. Speaking as he did as the president of the University of Missouri was, in my view, unethical.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush December 15, 2009 | 9:19 a.m.

Remind me, Colonel, what are your environmental credentials? Where did you study? You're an economist? Armchair meteorologist? Statistician?
Why should we listen to you?
These are legitimate questions.

I guess I'll just turn the channel.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Gray December 15, 2009 | 3:24 p.m.

- Cost of wind: The cost of wind-generated electricity is in a competitive range with the cost of electricity from new power plants of other kinds.

- Subsidies: The National Academy of Sciences has found that fossil fuels enjoy a hidden subsidy of more than $60 billion a year because the costs resulting from their emissions are not reflected in their market price. More on this at .

- Wind's Contribution: Easy to pooh-pooh the small percentage. Here's another perspective: the wind farms installed in the U.S. today power the equivalent of nine million homes, and we're currently adding another million homes every five months.

--Tom Gray, American Wind Energy Association

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking December 15, 2009 | 4:06 p.m.

Does that cost of wind include energy storage, or the interconnections required to rapidly and robustly send power to places where it is needed? The numbers I often see do not.

While power plants (even nukes) are complex installations, it should be considered that the level and capacity of interconnection required to run a large regional, or national, grid reliably with a large percentage of intermittent energy sources would be orders of magnitude more complex.

I question whether building such a system would be a wise use of resources. I believe that starting small and building up, on a local level, with local energy storage facilities, would use fewer resources and be easier to maintain. The energy would be generated where it was used, and far fewer and smaller interconnections between areas would be needed. The massive increase in transmission lines and switchgear required to make renewables work as their own backup, on a regional or national level, would likely decrease total grid reliability.


(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.