Pennsylvania's love affair with fossil fuels: Cha-ching!

As a citizen of Pennsylvania I am, naturally, concerned about the latest state budget. The Governor and state legislature agreed to a $28.4 billion budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That's a lot of money, but not nearly enough of it goes to beefing up public transit or supporting the development of renewable energy.

Surely, many of us have no doubt thought, there must be ways to cut needless government spending in order to build a greener future in Pennsylvania. I had that thought (for the umpteenth time) just yesterday, and suddenly remembered a great report written a couple of years ago by Christina Simeone, director of the PennFuture Energy Center.

In writing Pennsylvania Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Simeone did some serious digging to figure out to what extent Pennsylvania taxpayers are subsidizing the production and use of fossil fuels. 

Gulp. Turns out that we, the citizens of the Commonwealth, are giving away $2.9 billion per year to industries that  harm our natural resources through the extraction of fossil fuels, and then belch carbon pollution, mercury, arsenic, and other poisons into the atmosphere.

That represents at least 10 percent of our state budget. At least 10 percent. As the reports points out, there simply are not cost estimates available for many of the subsidies. So much for transparent government, eh?

But don't cry for the dirty fuels folks. Even if we eliminated all fossil fuels subsidies granted by the state, the industry still gets untold billions in subsidies federally.

Are we at PennFuture the only ones who think it's crazy to give away almost $3 billion every year to industries that don't seem to care at all about Pennsylvania's future?

Come on, Harrisburg. Stop the nonsense and stop funding dirty fossil fuels.

It's a war on injustice, actually

President Obama hit it out of the park on Tuesday, announcing his plan to tackle climate change. It was especially encouraging to hear him instruct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants. Although he couldn't quite bring himself to say out loud that coal is the primary target of the new rules, it wasn't lost on those who somehow defend this dirtiest of industries.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wrongly described the plan as a war on coal. Sorry, Mitch, but you're wrong. All that carbon dioxide belching forth unchecked from coal plants means we'll fry the planet if we don't transition immediately to a clean energy economy. More specifically, we're on the way to ruining the future of millions of children who will have to contend with a world of routine extreme weather and the economic and societal disruptions that will result.

This isn't a war on coal, Senator. Rather, it's a war on the injustice of relying on a devastating source of power when we have clean sources of power such as wind  and solar readily available. Even so, Congress insists on providing disproportionately large subsidies to fossil fuels instead.

Fortunately, there's another guy named Mitch who sees the truth. That would be Rev. Mitch Hescox, president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network. Mitch, a self-described Republican Evangelical, said this week, "We need solutions that engage all of America. I agree with the President, American ingenuity can help us cut down on pollution, champion energy efficiency, and create the next generation of jobs, while taking care of the poor."

Which Mitch would you choose? Backward-looking Mitch McConnell, or forward-looking Mitch Hescox?

I know my choice. I'm on the bus with Mitch Hescox.