Whenever the state House and Senate are in session, the Coastal Conservation League sends out a great weekly update on bills they’re watching and working on. Whatever your stance on the issues being debated, it’s a good way to stay informed. Here’s a couple of the bills they’re watching this week. To see them all and get these emails yourself, sign up here.

 Defining Renewable Energy Resources
Thankfully, two weeks ago the Environmental Affairs II Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee amended S.360, a bill that defines renewable energy resources, by removing “nuclear” from this definition. Unfortunately, this week, the full House Agriculture Committee rejected the amendment by Rep. Phil Lowe (R-Florence) and re-inserted “nuclear” into the definition of renewable energy resources, which includes energy sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, biomass and landfill gas. Next week, the full House will debate S.360. The League recognizes nuclear energy is a part of South Carolina’s energy future. However, nuclear energy does not conform to any scientific definition of “renewable.” It depends on limited supplies of uranium that, unlike true renewable energy sources, are not restored over time. Defining nuclear as renewable is scientifically incorrect and could undermine South Carolina’s genuine, homegrown renewable energy options such as biomass, wind, and solar. Please click here to urge your Representative to oppose including nuclear in the definition of renewable energy resources.

Help Save South Carolina’s Special Places
For the last three years, the Conservation Bank has been the most important source of funding for land conservation in South Carolina. For only $70 million, the Bank has protected 134,171 acres of vulnerable natural and historic lands, family farms, wetlands, battlefields, urban greenways, river corridors and parks. (Click here to see a short video on some of the properties that have been protected.)

However, the rapid rate of development in South Carolina (nearly 200 acres per day) far exceeds the amount of land conserved, just as the number of grant requests to the Conservation Bank far exceeds the funds available. That is why we are asking members of the General Assembly to fund an additional $20 million for the Bank.  Please click here to help us contact members of the House Ways and Means Committee and ask them to support this additional funding.

Sanford proposed plenty of new funding for the Conservation Bank this year, but it’ll take lots of citizen support to get enough.

And nuclear as a renewable energy source? That’s doublespeak.