Wisconsin Should be Coal-Free by 2050 [EDITORIAL]

The long-standing rivalry between polarized political parties is only posing a deeper detriment to the state of environmental engagement levels after Wisconsin legislators hesitated to pass Governor Tony Ever’s budget measures aiming to eliminate all carbon-based energy sources in the state by 2050. In response to increasingly threatened environmental conditions, Evers proposed a goal that would transition all the state’s energy sources to renewable methods and discontinue the reliance on the coal industry. Every political body in this nation should be prioritizing environmental correction efforts.

Even if little momentum has been gained on a national level, it is essential for state governments to take initiative in these matters. Because of the impending environmental crisis, which will soon reach a point of irreversibility, Evers’ budget measures to reach a carbon-free Wisconsin by 2050 should be passed immediately.   

With the state’s average temperature rising at least two degrees in the past century, severe changes in weather patterns and increasing levels in carbon dioxide threaten agricultural and ecosystem functionality, according to a study by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The current environmental trajectory is looking at potentially irreversible conditions as soon as 11 years from now, according to The Washington Post. Evers’ proposal would ultimately counter this impending threat by administering immediate action by way of his renewable energy plan. The idea here is that all coal-based energy would be replaced by affordable and accessible renewable energy sources like hydro, nuclear, wind, and solar-powered developments.   

As of 2017, Wisconsin’s coal industry produced 55% of the state’s energy, according to The Isthmus. Many environmental threats can be traced back to the reliance on coal-based energy including traces of sulfur and mercury that damages waterways and air composition as well as potential respiratory and developmental issues harmful to humans and animals. The emphasis on switching to renewable energy sources would aim to eliminate the harmful byproducts of coal-burning by funding clean energy plants.   

Wisconsin borders two Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, which are powerful sources of hydraulic energy. Much of Wisconsin is also comprised of farmland and open pasture that could be developed into windfarms or solar fields which are becoming increasingly affordable and accessible. In 2017, a proposal to develop a solar field of more than 1.2 million solar panels was projected to be built by 2023, according to The Energy News Network. This development could allow an alternative approach to modifying the current environmental protection plan and will offer actionable goals to Evers’ proposal.   

Because of the budget’s call for major economic adjustment, hesitation on the practicality of the projects deters immediate legislative action. The issue of renewable energy plants’ functionality during climate extremes leaves coal-burning as the only economically safe alternative, which is a vicious cycle of worsening the problem. But prioritizing the funding and upkeep of these plants would help propel this industrial shift without distracting from the budget’s financial limits.   

If lawmakers remain divided on the redirection of this funding, all parties should work together to devise a cooperative plan to address these serious environmental threats. Refusing to collaborate will only worsen the issue with time and will require heavier funding to recover. This is a global issue and impacts everyone in some way or another, meaning it is essential for any solution—big or small—to be made actionable as soon as possible. 2050 may seem far from now, but if action is not taken sooner, the environmental crisis may never be repairable.   

This editorial was based on a discussion by a JAMS 504 editorial board.