Looking toward future on climate and energy in Colo.
Re: “Tumultuous year in climate change,” Dec. 24 editorial.
I commend the Denver Post editorial board for ongoing reviews of the deleterious effects of climate change in Colorado as well as of the 2016 fits and starts of our climate policy. We can all increase our efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions individually by installing solar panels, taking public transportation when possible, remembering to turn off lights, and lowering the thermostat at night. We can encourage citywide sustainability efforts, as is being done in Golden, and support state goals such as in the leaked Colorado plan. We can call and write our federal legislators encouraging them to enact federal legislation that would institute a fee on carbon. This is the time for New Year’s climate change resolutions.
Mary Richards, Evergreen
I appreciate your editorial stating what the science is telling us about climate change. Given our present political climate, that takes courage, and The Post is to be commended. However, the editorial was timid about solutions. And the closer we come to Colorado, the more timid you are. The irony, given your concern about job loss, is that if we roll up our sleeves and take on climate change, it will create a wealth of new jobs, much like the switch from typewriters to computers did.
The solution that avoids regulation is to have a revenue-neutral carbon fee. This fee would reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, instead of socializing those costs onto society. The fee is assessed at the point of extraction and returned to the consumer as a dividend. If you’re going to take a stand on climate change, it’s important to offer a solution.
Merrill Glustrom, Boulder
Re: “Energy sabotage costs Colorado jobs, blue-collar votes,” Dec. 24 Ray Scott guest commentary.
State Sen. Ray Scott dismisses Democrats as “protectors of the planet.” But the planet will be here long after we’re gone. Rather, it’s us who simply cannot survive a hotter, drier, more extreme climate.
Sen. Scott reasons that cutting fossil fuels means cutting jobs. But there are actually more Americans employed by renewable energy than by oil and gas. And this is a global trend. China, a country derided for its dirty air, employs 35 percent more people in renewables than in fossil fuels.
I understand Sen. Scott has financial interests in his district to consider. Those jobs are important. But rather than slandering Democrats, he should look to Congresswoman Mia Love as an example. She is a Tea Party Republican — pro-life, pro-gun, anti-regulation — in oil-rich Utah. And she recently joined the growing Climate Solutions Caucus, a strictly bipartisan group of representatives considering conservative solutions to our climate crisis.
John Pappas, Denver
Rather than pointing the finger at Democrats, those concerned with climate change and whoever else, Sen. Ray Scott would better serve his district by advocating for job retraining, the creation of new business and industry, employment and the quality of life of communities in his region for tomorrow, in the face of a naturally diminishing fossil-fuels industry.
The projections indicate that solar and wind power have become cost-competitive with fossil fuels, coal demand will continue to decline in competition with natural gas, and oil and natural gas exports will be subject to global energy advances, on the whole probably not unlike declining fossil fuel dependence in the U.S.
Politicians and community leaders can now proactively recruit creative enterprises that will support sustainable local economies, the retention of young people and the educational and vocational resources to undergird employment in new and evolving technologies, business and industry.
Kenton Burns, Denver
Sen. Ray Scott’s guest commentary and The Post’s editorial run the limited gamut of Colorado power-elite thinking on climate action. Sen. Scott is an outright climate change denier, while The Post expresses support for Gov. John Hickenlooper’s recent draft executive order, which addresses power-sector CO2 emissions only.
Both positions are flawed. Scientists are clear about the grave danger posed by continued greenhouse gas emissions to civilization. The fact that many deniers of anthropogenic global warming hold high political office in this state is a travesty. On the other hand, Hickenlooper’s draft executive order — which would reduce Colorado’s total emissions just 11 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2035 — falls woefully short of what’s needed.
We need a state climate action plan that puts Coloradans to work building infrastructure and providing services to move us quickly toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing less will suffice.
J. Kevin Cross, Fort Collins The writer is spokesman for the Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate.