Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Ritter Will Arm-Wrestle for Green Stuff

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 15:36:59 PM MST


Not for money, but for environmental jobs.

As CBS4 Denver reports:

Gov. Bill Ritter has made it clear he wants Colorado to be a leader in creating green jobs and he's ready to arm wrestle anyone who gets in his way.

The issue came up Monday at meeting between government, business, environmental and labor leaders in Washington. The challenge after Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick outlined his plan to attract companies working to build a green economy.

"I don't just want wind farms," Gov. Patrick told the group. "I want companies that built turbines. I want hybrid vehicle companies to consul us on conversation strategies. If we get this right, the whole world will be our customer."

Gov. Ritter made it clear he wants Colorado to compete for those jobs, saying he believes investing in clean will provide good jobs.

"We're going to arm wrestle you for those jobs because we want those same manufacturing plants," said Gov. Ritter.

If Ritter did arm-wrestle another governor, he'd at least get better odds than former Gov. Bill Owens, who weighed in at about 97 pounds.
Colorado Pols :: Ritter Will Arm-Wrestle for Green Stuff
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ritter Will Arm-Wrestle for Green Stuff | 116 comments
Ritter must be smoking something green
If he wants to attract green entrepreneurs, he'll have to repudiate his platform.

1. Cut property taxes or eliminate them/.
2. Eliminate income taxes.
3. Jail the environmentalists.
4. Disown the unions.
5. Forget bringing socialized health care insurance to Colorado.
6. Keep government out of the "green" markets and industries and let them marke it or fail on their own.
7. Override the CEA and fix the k-12 schools.
8. Veto attempts to increase the cost of workers compensation.

What???
You must be drinking something green!! Kool-aid maybe? How in the world are government subsidies a negative thing when trying to convince companies to move here??? (See #6).

In addition, the rest of your list follows double-think logic. Jailing environmentalists will get environmentalist companies to move here?!? Removing taxes will help companies that need subsidies to even get started?? This sounds like Independence Institute talking points (i.e. minimum wage is BAD for poor people, universal health care is BAD for people without health care, collective bargaining is BAD for workers, etc.).

[ Parent ]
Making an AS of himself again
Instead of building a new American economy to make the USA the predominant industrial power once more, AS rather move back into the dark ages of fuedal rule.

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole
[ Parent ]
Serf's Up!

[ Parent ]
Well said Another Skeptic


NoBama .... NoBamaCare either
[ Parent ]
Most buisness mean aren't mean, ideological jerks like you
They understand that success takes public input, too.  They understand that your prescription would spell disaster for any modern government.  Tweak here and there, sure.  Wholesale destruction and you've got the Talabanized Afghanistan.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Yeah
Like Oregon, Washington, California and MA have done that and it REALLY hurt their ability to attract new businesses. Oh wait. NONE of those have done it. Instead, states like Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming, etc, have all done it. Loads of jobs in those places.

If you are a company, you might be attracted to more than no taxes. You might want to be able to attract good employees.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
Jobs?
You mean like all the Toyota and Hyundai plants they're building across the South?

"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." -GKC
[ Parent ]
Tried to think of a witty refrain..
"Way down yonder in the land of cotton" ?????

Yes, the land of low wages and low expectations.  Don't forget Toyota decided to build its latest plant in Canada; officially because of the lower cost of health care.  Unofficially, the word was also the better educational level of Canadian workers.

I think all these plants built in the south are just assembly plants.  The parts come in from Bavaria or Tokyo, they put 'em together.  Not like the Detroit/Great Lakes area which made the steel, glass, and rubber rigbt there.

I'm not saying that those assembly jobs are decent ones, especially for the south.  Better than textiles, I would imagine - another offshored industry. Low tech assembly vs. high tech stuff like we have here and in CA, MA, etc. 

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Hypocrite In Chief
Big talk for someone who lives in a 3,054 square foot 4 bedroom 5 bathroom home that is (no doubt) heated by natural gas.  All of that gas must come from somewhere else --- right, Bill? 
oh fuck it
I wish I could lead the state in it's transition to attract and use better green technology, but I rode in a car once so I'm disqualified.

" And there are no Christian terrorists."

The Beej, circa 8/26/2010

[ Parent ]
Such Language!
"Rode in a car once" is quite different than trying to stop resource development (read his list of proposals to regulate the shit out of industry) while trying to find ways to spend all of the money flowing to the state from severance tax, federal mineral royalty payments, etc. 

He is more than trying to have his corn and make ethanol out of it too. 

[ Parent ]
Get a grip on reality
Ritter is moving his entire family into the Governor's mansion, unlike the previous occupant who had two additional homes and utilities bills to pay for; one for his wife and the other for his girlfriend.

Unless the Utilities companies exchanged paying BO's bills for gubernatorial favors?


"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole

[ Parent ]
Compared to the energy that Al "tree hugger" Gore
is wasting, 2nd choice Ritter is godamn frugal.

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either
[ Parent ]
Gore's energy usage
http://thinkprogress...

Responding to Drudge's attack, Vice President Gore's office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint - a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore's office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

[ Parent ]
Maybe you missed Rosen's show today
A short Google search will show you just how much that tree hugger wastes EVERY YEAR!
Over $30,000.00 A YEAR in electric bills! Give me a break.
Show me how that is being even remotely fuckin frugal.
And if he wastes that much energy plus has solar panels, he should be taking lessons on conservation from, I don't know, Sean Hannity?
Gore wastes more in one year than I could in my whole life.

Not to mention flying around the countryside, and around the world in jets of every imaginable size. Many of which are private fuel guzzling beasts.
So don't you libs preach how this HYPOCTITE is such a beacon of light in the ways of preventing global warming.
He is quite the opposite.
A hypocritical wealthy liberal. No more, no less.

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either

[ Parent ]
How is he supposed to travel?
As far as I know, all airlines use non-renewable fuel.  No other options.  The guy is single handedly changing world views on global warming.  Pretty amazing.  With his help, we will see more renewable powered transportation options open up in the future.  And, he is participating in carbon offset programs - so, the end result is no footprint. 

Your continued argument is that we should ignore new technology, ignore new scientific finding, and keep everything the same.  Buy American - forget the rest of the world.  Capitalism be damned.  Man, you should read Thomas Friedman's book "The World is Flat".  He states that commerce, and education are rapidly changing in the world.  We've got a couple of options, pull back in to our shell, or start innovating and educating to keep up with China and India's workforce and education system.

What's it going to be Gecko?  Retreat?  Or, accept that the world is rapidly changing and make every effort to keep our country competitive.

[ Parent ]
another fake story pushed by the right wing echo chamber
It's being pushed by a Heritage Foundation shill and was just debunked by Olbermann. You must have gotten your Drudge/Faux News wingnut email talking points today.

For one thing, Gore's energy bills are higher because he's using renewable energy which in his case is about 50% higher.  Also, "home" is a bit of a misnomer - it's also his office.  He uses about the same rate of energy per foot as other homes in the area.

Another non-story pushed by the folks who brought us the Saddam WMD myth.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for adding more detail
I am amazed that the wingnuts feel the need to tear down Gore.  He's not even running for anything.  He's just trying to stop global warming, the bastard.
[ Parent ]
Thanks Emma and Bob


"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan
[ Parent ]
Another non story.....
yeah right. Keep justifying his waste.
He single handedly will burn more fuel and use more energy in a year than all of us on this blog put together will use the rest of our lives, all the while shouting us down for being wasteful.
I say again,
Hypocrite= Al "Tree Hugger" Gore

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either
[ Parent ]
Yeah
Thank christ you realize that global warming is man made. Also, strawman.
[ Parent ]
I've gotta disagree
My helicopter burns a metric butt-load of fuel.  And I'm darned proud of it.

"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." -GKC
[ Parent ]
Figures.
Has anyone calculated how much this war and occupation has cost in barrels of oil?  It must be horrendous, flying troops and tanks and burgers half way around the world.  Sadly, again and again. 

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Do you know what a strawman argument is?
I ask this because every single argument you have ever tried to push is a strawman.

What I think is hilarious is that you and your friends are tacitly admitting that global warming is caused by man. Im glad to have you on our side, Gecko.

[ Parent ]
Olbermann is an oasis of sanity in the desert of talking heads
highly recommend his show. 

Also worth reading for relief from Planet Wingnut is Dan Froomkin's White House Watch on Washingtonpost.com.  Froomkin doubles as the editor of Niemanwatchdog.org, a Harvard University project that factchecks the media.

here's a link to today's column:

http://www.washingto...

[ Parent ]
thanks, Bob
Nice link. Like finding a watering hole in the desert.

Hopefully, Gecko and his friends will come have a drink. Even Voyageur. I think he's a little washed up, though. If I were he, I wouldn't show my face either.

"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

[ Parent ]
I like Hardball too
In fact, MSNBC is the only cable news channel that I watch.
[ Parent ]
hmmmm
Well, lets see here:


  1. America needs to focus on Terrorism and quit funding it (of course, W, et.al. pushed through liberal tax cuts designed to keep us dependant on venezuela, SA, Syria and indirectly, Iran).
  2. Americans need to balance their budget and plan for their future. When W. and the republicans came in, we were kind of balanced (not really), but now, everything is shot to hell with zero chance of it hitting anytime in the next decade.
  3. America needs to be reduce dependancy on oil, while cutting NREL and do half ass support of alternatives and nukes.
  4. American needs to go clean up its act and take care of the children; republicans push "no child left behind". They then insisted on manditory tests that have been certified. Oh, one of the largest suppliers of the test? Neal Bush. Oh, Love that funding. Rob the schools to pay his brother.
  5. I will fire and prosecure anybody in the white house who outed a CIA agent??? I do not see him throwing himself, cheney, scooter, and libbey in prison.

And that is just a few off the top of my head. It does not include the lies.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
I thought it was Marvin Bush...
who, coincidentally owns an educational firm called Excite! or some vague thing like that.  I guess that's no worse than Neil off in Japan selling access to bro' and wondering why all these sexy women were knocking on his door.

"Hookers!  Well, sumbitch, I just thought they liked a big Texan."

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Purchasing Carbon Offsets?
I believe the Catholic Church called them "indulgences."

The more things change...

"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." -GKC

[ Parent ]
Purchasing offsets doesn't reduce pollution or promote energy efficiency
It just lets the hypocrites off the hook in their minds.

Nobody with any brains considers buying offsets a form of energy conservation.

Gore can save energy by: Staying home. Telecommuting. Tele seminaring. Riding his bike instead of his SUV, living in a condo, keeping winter temperatures in his house at 60 degrees and putting his movie on the Web so people don't have to drive to a theater to see it.

[ Parent ]
Thats not true
I have been thinking that American or Chinese companies could buy by a number of kyoto offsets. It might make the kyoto group re-form and do it correctly. Otherwise, it would force them all to re-evaluate their alternative options esp nukes.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
You are a jerk.


"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Am not you are, nyah


NoBama .... NoBamaCare either
[ Parent ]
That wasn't for you, Geck
Scroll upward.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
let's get analytical
Okay, folks, time to put some meat on the bones of my pleas for a move toward a more analytical approach to political discourse (with my apologies to any who might have done so already: I only skimmed about a half dozen of the 58 or so replies already posted).
First of all, the notion that no one has the moral authority to argue for eco-sensitive public policies if they do not lead highly eco-sensitive lives themselves is a typical levels-of-analysis error: It confuses an argument on the social institutional level with behavior on the individual level. It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, for a person to drive everywhere while simultaneously arguing that we need higher gasoline taxes (for instance), because it is perfectly reasonable for someone not to want to unilaterally pay a high price for an infinitessimal contribution to cleaner air without binding others to do the same through some sort of social institutional mechanism. If I, for instance, cease to drive out of my own conviction, yea for me, but the air won't be much cleaner as a result, and I will be greatly inconvenienced. If, however, I fight to institute measures which will change incentives in such a way that everyone, including me, will be more inclined to drive less, I am investing my time and energy into a substantial (rather than symbolic or exemplary) effort to effect change. In game theory, it's called "the prisoner's dilemma," a famous mathematical representation of the difference between individual and group interests, something which has been researched and explored in relation to public goods (e.g., clean air) and public bads (e.g., polution) ad nauseum.

Secondly, the notion that green-friendly is not economy-friendly depends on economic definitions. In traditional economic analyses, potential resources still in their natural condition (untapped) are considered to have no value: Value is created in the act of extracting those resources for human use. Since many of those resources are limited, and are consumed far faster than nature produces them, many economists consider this a flawed way to frame their value. By creating new definitions of value, more faithful to reality, the economic value of ecologically sensitive policies is brought directly into economic analyses, and we can go about the task of making cold, hard calculations about what policy in what instance is really in our net collective best interest.

The bottom line is that we live in a world of intertwined and concentric complex dynamical systems, such as social systems embedded within ecological systems. Nature, in its marvelous elegance, has done us the favor of accentuating that particular relationship by creating dynamics that are mathematically extremely similar. Ecologists and natural historians routinely use the terminology and mathematical tools of economists (game theory, for instance, being a major tool both for naturalists and economists). In fact, the words themselves, "economy" and "ecology," by an ironic twist of etymology, share one greek root ("eco," for "household" or "habitat"), and are essentially identical in literal meaning.

Our policies should reflect this awareness. When pursuing ecologically sensitive (or any other) policies, we should recognize how human beings, including politicians, really behave, and should try to forge institutions that align individual and collective interests. For instance, rather than searching largely in vain for benevolence, let's assume that people are generally pursuing their own interests, and design policies that exploit rather than lament that fact. Rather than passing laws that make the best and the brightest avoid public service, lets pass laws that make the best and the brightest gain the most by serving the public interest most effectively (Both Democracy and  the free-market, in fact, are major, though very incomplete, steps in that direction, in the public and private spheres, respectively. That's why most of the world has come to consider their combination the best political-economic system yet devised). And, finally, rather than trying to club into submission a society that is a bare half-step away from complete eco-indifference, institutionally speaking, let's employ the same system-sensitive approach to rapidly accelerating our social-institutional eco-sensitivity.

The more we break down issues into 1)identifying practical (rather than ideological) challenges or goals framed within the context of maximizing human happiness and welfare over the long-term, 2) devising practical, logical, and viable means for confronting those challenges or pursuing those goals, and 3) participating in the "marketplace of ideas" with well-reasoned arguments, based on empirical evidense whenever possible, about what the goals should be, and how we should pursue them, the better our collective future is likely to be.

Obviously, even were these "proposals" to be universally accepted, they would not eliminate passionate arguments, and fundamental differences of faith, belief, and opinion. But, frankly, I am taking a very strong stand against didactic thinking, that is, political (or academic) positions that derive from articles of (religious or secular) faith. I believe we remain a species dominated by superstitions and cheaply acquired certainties, and that our greatest and most pressing challenge is to continue the Enlightenment we have so often so horribly betrayed. Once again, there's nothing wrong with being a bunch of apes, but at least we can be smart apes.

(By the way, ironically enough, the people who are most ape-like in their behavior tend to be the ones who take most offense at the suggestion).


"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

[ Parent ]
OK, yev, can I call you yev? But did you know that
Colorado Lib reports that John Salazar was flirting with Marilyn Musgrave?  Shameful.

As you can see, the level of discourse you propose is a little high brow, even for the smart apes.  What you are suggesting, if I can break this down into short, Scrabble like sentences, is that we focus on practical solutions that work instead of ideological and emotion laden arguments that seem to be getting us nowhere fast.  Am I close?  Is so, I agree wholeheartedly. Aligning individual and collective interests, great idea. Not crazy about artificially increasing the price of gas to change people's behaviors because, well, I'm pursing my own selfish interests here and do not want my gas bill to triple so I'll be more interested in buying a hybrid car and riding my imaginary bike more, but that's just me.  I'd prefer that Moveon.org, George Soros, et al put a butt load of money into alternative energy technologies and sources that compete with gasoline so I have a good choice of cheap, plentiful options to quench my consumer thirsts.  Certainly something we could discuss though, maybe there is a compromise.  I know, let's cut subsidies to mega-rich oil companies and shift them to newer, cleaner technologies that are, hopefully, emerging in the free market as we speak.  Once boosted and thriving in the free market, we cut the subsidies, reduce taxes, and live in a cleaner, cheaper world. 

Now back to those salacious rumors about Salazar and Musty....

[ Parent ]
Sure, Yev is fine.
Right! We can disagree about, and discuss, how to get there, but first we need to find the on-ramp. You disagree about gas taxes because you don't want to pay higher gas prices. Fair enough. In fact, there is such an overwhelming aversion to substantial gas taxes in this country that politicians who believe it would be a good idea have stopped proposing them. As a qualification, for the economists in the crowd, gas taxes would have to include some carefully targeted exemptions -even subsidies-to avoid rippling through the economy in very destructive ways. But individual, recreational gas taxes (including commuting to work) would have a contained negative economic impact, and the revenues could go to constructing and maintaining state-of-the-art public transportation which would largely off-set even those negative consequences (and a lot of the inconvenience of not being able to drive everywhere).

But that wasn't your point: Your point was that you don't want to pay the higher price. Of course not! *That* IS the point! If we want people to drive less, we need to make driving a less attractive alternative, and other, more eco-friendly modes of transportation more attractive. We can't always seek policies that never alter our incentives if we want to create a better world.

But I certainly do appreciate your engagement with me! As for the salacious rumors, you know, in spite of the fact that I'm a playful, lighthearted fellow in "real life," I've never really been very interested in or entertained by salacious rumors. But to each their own....

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

[ Parent ]
Ah, but yev my erudite friend,
wouldn't you rather change your behaviors based on an offer of say, candy, as opposed to a stick? (I hate carrots) If you have a shiny new alternative, one that competes with the current gas/coal/oil companies, thereby driving the price down of both, wouldn't that be better than artificially jacking up the price of gas? (bad for the economy and my budget) There is a belief that there are millions of green people just dying to save the planet from global warming with eco friendly alternatives. This would seem to be a prime opportunity for the free market to work.  So, you (the government) offer incentives for risk taking green entrepreneurs with tax breaks at the State and Federal level for a period of time until their product is plentiful and available nationwide, and they can offer competitive prices for the alternative energy sources.  Win win! The earth is saved, the wild cat green companies get rich, the evil oil companies no longer have a lock on the market, and we all get cheap plentiful energy.

My point re the salacious rumors, is that focusing on promoting plans, goals, and positive changes is certainly the way to go, but first you have to move people past the desire to focus on Britney, Anna Nicole, and slamming the McCandidate de jour.  A tall order for even the brightest monkeys on the block.  Keep trying though, anything that elevates the discussion past Salazar's flirtations and cutesy Photo shopped put downs is worth exploring.

[ Parent ]
Now you're talking
Thanks for your earlier post on the legislative priorities of a moderate Republican.  The middle ground is definitely where progress can be made.  Looks like green issues are now planted in the firmly in the middle.  I agree, providing small incentives to green organizations - should help than industry bloom.
[ Parent ]
It can't hurt CrazyOkie
we've been doing it for oil and tobacco for years, and look how they are thriving!
[ Parent ]
Sure, L.B.
Positive, more attractive alternatives are definately an important part of the equation. But I'm not convinced that pursuing a particular political economic agenda is best served simply by offering something sweeter and not also making negative behaviors taste a bit more sour. And I'm not sure that the word "artificial" has any real meaning here: Political and economic behavior are laden with artificialities (including printed or electronically stored currency). Anything we do is, more or less by definition, "artificial." (Though I prefer to say that anything we do is natural, since we emanate from and are a part of nature and have never actually found the exit except in our own inflated self-esteem). What you're suggesting is, "sure, let's do it, as long as it's painless." Maybe that would work, maybe not. I tend to think that progress requires a combination of both persuasion and dissuasion, as happens "naturally," when the market is left to its run its own course (increasingly rare resources go up in price due to dwindling supply, making alternatives more attractive). I'm only talking about accelerating that "natural" progression, in order to avoid the pitfall of the response to the market signal coming too late to avert huge costs (to our planet, in particular). But why quibble? You say tomato, and I say guacamole: Nothing artificial in yours, but mine makes for a better party. (Or, maybe you're completely right and I'm completely wrong. Wouldn't surprise me a bit).

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.
[ Parent ]
(Or, maybe you're completely right and I'm completely wrong. Wouldn't surprise me a bit).
Let's go with this thought:)

But seriously, while I agree that a combination of incentives and disincentives would probably be optimum for changing behaviors, I personally don't want to feel that pain and will happily switch to green when it is available and competitive. Why not start with the carrot/Snickers bar approach and see if that works.  If not, we can always look to the stick later, you know, long after I'm dead.

Question of the day:  What would the next election look like for the party that successfully doubles or triples energy prices?

Ding ding ding ding ding...We have a winner!

[ Parent ]
yep, you're the champ (and I'm the chimp).
That's why it (a substantial gas tax) was taken off the table years ago. But just because something is popular, or unpopular, doesn't mean the populace got it right (look at Iraq. The plebiscite was completely gung-ho at the beginning). That's why I don't believe in government by plebiscite, and do believe in leading the public, encouraging some deference to expert analysis (while retaining vigilance that such analysis is not a cover for serving narrow interests), and cultivating the kind of discourse I've been advocating on this blog.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.
[ Parent ]
I may be a champ
but between the two of us, only the chimp knew how to use "plebiscite" in a sentence.  Ever thought about getting on the show, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" I think you could take 'em.

Anyway, I agree with you and Hamilton about the "uneducated masses" trying to make policy decisions, but getting re-elected seems to trump just about everything these days and polling the masses to see which direction to take is standard fare. Not sure how that is going to change, but exploring the possibilities is fun!

[ Parent ]
I differ
Question of the day:  What would the next election look like for the party that successfully doubles or triples energy prices?

Ding ding ding ding ding...We have a winner!

No doubt that it would hurt a republican candidate. After all, Poppa bush did the right thing (started the balancing of reagans deficits) and was thrown out by the republicans. After  all, he would not have the liberal vote and the indies actually were split. It was the republicans who changed to Perot because of the tax increase that did that.


But if a dem were to raise it incrementally rather than a large increase, then then economy would have time to adjust. I think that that pres would probably win over the indis and the liberals. In fact, a number of high-end conservatives now push the incremental tax. But it will take a politician with intelligence, leadership, and backbone to do what is right for the country.



I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
What's a high end conservative?
I can't imagine a gas tax flying, incrementally or not.  No one wants to pay more for gas.  The party that pushes this through hands the other party the gift that keeps on giving.
[ Parent ]
Re: high-end conservatives
high-end conservatives are those have total influence. They are wealthy and own a number of pols (just like high-end liberals). Well, the high-end conservatives would be the likes of Wayne Huizenga, Warren Buffet, Arnie schwartzenagger, etc. These folks and other rich politically active (or perhaps just outspoken) conservatives have started to push this same idea. But as I have pointed out, there is zero chance of a republican being able to do it. They would be ousted by the neo-cons at the next election. Both the dems and the republicans depend on a loyal base and the ability to influence the indis.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
Gotcha
thanks windbourne.
[ Parent ]
All we have to do is push any tax hike off into the future...
Americans generally have trouble thinking past next Christmas.  That our grandchildren will be paying for this occupation and other significant political errors hardly registers on the typical voter.

But if Congress were to enact a series of gas tax increases - starting after next Christmas - most Americans would feel good for supporting such a measure and convince themselves that they won't feel any pain.  It ain't happening tomorrow, we'll figger out next week next month.


"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Yes and no
It would have to happen right after an election. In addition, it would have to start slow for the first 2 years (.25/6 month), then raised to .50/ months.

Most important, it has to be by those that believe that GW is a real threat. Since most neo-cons  do not believe it (but the original republicans are willing to accept science and therefore believe it), they would never be able to do this. As I pointed out, Poppa Bush got nailed to the wail by neo-cons for fighting against reagan's deficits. So, that means, that any tax hike like this will have to come from democrats or an indi. That means that there has to be a leader who is willing to take a possible hit, and can sell it to congress, followed by selling it to voters in about a year. That is the only way that it will happen. If it is not done that way, then the indies could jump and if another neo-con (or RRR) gets in, they will kill it and increase the tax cuts.

One thing that might help it, is to have a strong leader like CA's schwartzinagger. He has proven that he is willing to take risks AND can work with conservative dems. I suspect that if a state like CA, OR, or even WA were to do it, and prove that it improves the state, then others will follow. To be honest though, I believe that it will take the whole nation. The automakers showed that they were willing to lose CA's sales before (over the electrical car issue). But to lose all of America? Not a chance in hell.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
Excellent stuff, but it's what I expect from you...
I am of the opinion that if "Big Oil" could pull its collective head out of the oil bucket for five minutes, they would see both a historical opportunity of unlimited profit possibilities while simultaneously becomeing heroes.  "It" is one of the only institutions that could make decisions and stick by them, set up standards, and get Congress to behave.  Sometimes a dictator gets things done.

Unfortunately for all of us, they would rather keep sippin' the crude to make their asses even more lard like.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
I agree
the oil companies should corner the green market.  It would be profitable for them and they have the infrastructure to do it. I still don't know why the millionaire/billionaire greenies don't start companies themselves though. They could make money, stick it to the oil companies, and clean up the atmosphere. 
[ Parent ]
Very fascinating post
Can you give an example concerning your statement: 

"lets pass laws that make the best and the brightest gain the most by serving the public interest most effectively"

I appreciate the additional information.

[ Parent ]
I'll try...
Like Thoreau, who inspired Ghandi and MLK but did little of practical value himself, I tend to be an idea-guy, hoping that others will work out the nuts-and-bolts of how to implement those ideas. Let's start with a political innovation that actually does, to some extent, align the interests of individual politicians with the interests of those they represent: Democracy. The fact that politicians periodically have to win the support of the public they serve contributes something to their accountability, and to the alignment of their interests (i.e., getting re-elected) with the public interest (i.e., making sure that people want to re-elect you). I'm not trying to open the can of worms about the imperfections in democracy. I am well aware of them. In fact, even dictatorships have some element of alignment between the interests of the dictator and the interests of a public that he serves: He has to have enough support (often of the military) to be able to control the country.

The point is, and your question asks, how to do better. I'm going to think "out-loud" about that, and ask your indulgence for the relative stupidity of this catalyst ideas. Perhaps we could loosen up, but re-vamp, the ability of politicians to profit while in office. We would have to make all such profiteering transparant, so that no deal that satisfied one faction at the cost of the general public would be a winning strategy (and we could compose laws that continue to prohibit that). But let's back up to basics first, and see where it takes us.

If the goal is to allow politicians to profit by serving the public interest, one of the biggest challenges is determing how to define the "public interest" in a relatively objective way. That would require the creation of a very complex algorithm involving a large number of diversely-oriented experts on various aspects of the systems in which we are embedded (e.g., ecological, economic, cultural, etc.) and a political process to balance competing values and interests concerning the relative importance of those systems and the conflicting agendas within some of them. That's a daunting task, but is something akin to a 21st century constitutional convention: Keep it simple, short, broad, and brilliant. "The Public Interest Algorithm," or "The Algorithm" for short, would be the next step in political evolution. There would be compromises in its composition, and debates over its ratification: It would be a huge historical moment. I doubt we're ready for such a step yet, but just as John Locke helped sow the seeds for the American experiment 100 years before the event, it doesn't hurt to start talking about it.

The way to use the algorithm would be to create a kind of "pay-for-performance" schmeme for politicans. Kick-backs, in essence, would be from the public as a whole, rather than from factions within it.

Another approach might be to create some kind of literal political currency, facilitating a more sophisticated market for political exchange. We know that legislators already trade votes ("you vote for my bill, and I'll vote for yours"). That's not such a bad thing: It is a form of disparate interests trading with each other for mutual benefit. If there were some currency that could be used, that was limited to the political arena, to buy and sell political initiatives (using, remember, currency that is solely based on political initiatives), we would move past the inefficient bi-lateral barter system and move toward a true political market. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider nations gathered for talks on global warming. We might want nations rich in rain forests to reduce deforestation, but they will want something in return. Maybe we don't want to give them what we want, but a third country does, and maybe that third country wants something from us that we are willing to give in exchange for the rain-forest countries to reduce deforestation. Now consider that the more issues and more participants involved, the more able they are to exchange to mutual benefit. It's exactly like the evolution of economic trade from barter to currency: It frees the participants from the double-bind of having to have what each other wants in quantities comparable in worth. Just as in economic trade, political trade would increase the efficiency with which we arrive at mutually beneficial outcomes.

It's just as applicable within a country as between countries: Christian fundamentalists want this, social liberals want that, environmentalists a third thing, and so on. I don't particularly want to compromise with Christian fundamentalists, but we're not going to get anywhere unless we make deals: We'll give you this, you give us that. Again, the more multi-lateral and multi-issue the trading, the better. But, just like with barter, the degree to which it can be multi-lateral and multi-issue is logistically limited if we trade political initiatives rather than buy and sell them in an open market. If you are asking, "What, exactly, does that mean?" my answer is "I don't know." Like I said, I'm thinking out loud. But considering the fact that we can and do trade positions on issues, locally, nationally and internationally, and that we would produce more political "wealth" (more people getting more of what they want from the political process) by involving more issues and more parties in a single trading-process, and considering that the same exact evolution occured in economic markets, I suspect that there is some meaningful way to implement what I'm talking about here.

Well, this may not have been as practical as you had wished, but at least, I hope, it provides some food for thought.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

[ Parent ]
Thanks -
I've thought about the idea of trading "Roe v Wade" with the Christian Fundalmentalists for their vote on very progressive environmental legislation.

I like your idea of somehow enabling elected officials to transparently earn additional revenue.  The current 30K state legislator salary is restrictive.

[ Parent ]
an unfinished thought...
Nice to finally be getting some engagement on this blog! My first few posts sank like lead weights....

By the way, I didn't quite finish my last thought (I had paused to play for awhile with my three year old daughter, and when I came back only remembered to finish the thought on political markets, not how it connected to incentives for politicians). The connection between the political market idea and incentives for politicians to serve the collective public good is this: Political commissions (very marginal ones). If political trade creates political wealth (i.e., more net satisfaction with the results of the political process, or, factoring in political losses, more net political gains), and politicians are the brokers in the political market place, then why not give politicians commissions on their trades? We would have to choose the model that facilitates the creation of political wealth rather than simply encourages a high volume of political transactions, but that could be one paradigm for both improving the efficiency of the political process *and* aligning the interests of politicians with the interests of the general public.

A parenthetical comment above gives rise to one of the great challenges this path would face: The tension, just as in considerations of the economic market, between efficiency of production and justness of distribution. So, for instance, if the political market place created a surge in overall political wealth, but an increased polarization between winners and losers, we would have to find ways of compromising the overall efficiency of the political economy (in my peculiar sense of the phrase) with the demand for a just distribution of those gains.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

[ Parent ]
sorry, Okie
Down near the bottom of this whole mega-thread, where someone chastised me for writing something that seemed irrelevant to what he, and the original article, were talking about, you replied (correctly) that the post was duplicated up here, and that it probably wasn't intended to be posted down there. You also said that the economy-ecology idea was interesting, so I referred you up to this thread, not realizing that it was you I was conversing with up here (I'm paying more attention to the contents of the posts than to the sign-offs)! Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I got it straight now, and that I'm enjoying the conversation.

Trading Roe v. Wade would be a lucrative deal, but it would face incredible resistance from Roe's partisans. It's unfortunate, too, because trading it away wouldn't be trading away much: Fewer states than many suppose would actually abandon the fundamental right to abortion (it's too entrenched). Those that tried would face a formidable political opposition, in any state in the union. And, for those that did, pro-choice organizations would supply transportation to neighboring states that retained abortion rights to anyone desiring it. The practical effects of overturning Roe would probably be negligable. The left would get a lot for giving up a little, the very best kind of trade!

The thing is, the more people get in the habit of thinking of a political marketplace rather than a political battlefield, the more willing more people will be to think in such practical terms. That would be a huge step forward.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

[ Parent ]
The more people get in the habit of thinking of a political marketplace rather than a political battlefield, the more willing more people will be to think in such practical terms.
Excellent point.
[ Parent ]
Thanks Gov
Ritter,
Thank you SO MUCH for going down this road.  In the largest view of our little blue marble, this is EXACTLY where we should be heading.  The future is green technologies.  Economically, morally, environmentally...

There are two lines of thought.  One is that it is not the cost of the actual technology, but the ability to service this technology.  I can buy an electic car, but when I break down in North Platte can I find someone to service it?  That goes for every type of technology.  Once you solve that little issue, the costs go way down.  We need to begin this journey.

Second, this is an industry that can go on forever.  Think of it.  Almost every corner of the globe has a combustion engine vehicle.  In some places, these vehicles are very old.  With the introduction of new technologies, from vehicles to farming, this technology will also trickle down to all corners of the earth.  We need to begin this journey...

It is one small step on a journey we so desparately need to begin.  Not simply for global warming (which I think is real) but for basic geopolitics.  Get us OFF FOSSIL FUELS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!  Like I've said many times- the first shot in the war on terrorism should have been aimed at Detroit!  You want off your holy lands?  Not a problem.  As soon as we curb our oil addiction, you can have your brown, dirty fluid.  I will give my money to an American company that came up with new technologies and you can go back to living in tents and riding camels...

Well said!
I believe it was around the turn of last century a wealthy, wealthy landowner in England,,,with a bunch of slaves, took the small unpopular and seeming hypocritical step to ban the slave trade in England and got it done. It has to start somewhere, and I applaud our new Democratic Governor for taking the lead. What a breath of fresh air! (pun intended:-)


"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan
[ Parent ]
Amen! Preach!
Couldn't agree more.  I, for one, voted Ritter in '06 because I thought he would take us down this path.  We absolutely need a global warming czar in Colorado DNR.  We absolutley need to impose more taxes on big oil so they pay their way.  Even though renewable technologies aren't all proven, it makes sense for Colorado to throw money and incentives to these companies so they can one day be profitable and effective. 

Thank you Governor Ritter is right.  Keep fighting industry and keep fighting for us.

[ Parent ]
Jimmy Carter said...
....less than a year ago that if we had kept the CAFE standards of the 70's in place - get this - we would be importing NO middle east oil now.  Think about that.  No 9/11, no Iraq, tell the Saudis to stick it to themselves.

Jimmy Carter said during the campaign, "I will never lie to you."  Compare that to GW, who lied in the campaign, "I'm a compassionate conservative", or best of all, "I don't believe in nation building."

Until proven otherwise, I'll believe Jimmy.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Valid Comparison
Thank you, parsingreality for injecting Jimmy Carter in to this thread on Bill Ritter.  Now that you  mention it, I believe there are quite a few good parallels  between Carter and Bill Ritter.  For one, Carter gave in to the Iranians.  Ritter gave in to illegal immigrants.  I can see your line of thinking. 
[ Parent ]
I must comment...
Oh come now. 

Do you want the best example of why America is the GREATEST county on earth?  Do you remember those HUGE rallys when the congress was considering immigration reform?  Did you notice that there was not ONE SINGLE DEMONSTRATION in any Mexican or Central American city demanding their own situation got better?

Nope, instead they came out into our streets pleading to be able to stay...

Like it or not, our greatness is a pull factor. 

Now, go back to your Iranian/ illegal immigrant example.  Were the Iranians trying to come here?  Only those who didn't want life under a theocratic Ayatollah!  Funny- they waited 30 years and ended up under the theocratic Bush/Ashcroft/Delay/Santorum/Falwell/Bob Jones University/Reed state instead!

[ Parent ]
Carter gave into the Iranians?
Reagan sold them arms.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010
[ Parent ]
Don't try arguing facts with ditto heads.


"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan
[ Parent ]
Reagan & Bush I gave us Osama and Saddam
The CIA hired the former and armed the latter. The foreign relations term is "blowback", which is when your bad decisions come back to bite you in the ass.
[ Parent ]
Reaganites also backed the Taliban in Afghanistan ...
... in order to keep the Soviets bogged down there in the 1980s. Talk about something comin' back to bite you in the arse. Makes you wonder what kind of seeds the latest Sideshow in the White House is planting around the globe. I guess our kids will find out in about 20 or 30 years.
[ Parent ]
Carter gave in to the iranians?
You must have those republican glasses on that allow for re-writing of history. JC did NOT give in to the Iranians. which is why they kept hostages. It was Reagan who gave in to them, helped armed them and gave them all sorts of other deals, in exchange for them KEEPING our hostages. Then he and others LIED about it. In any other nation, that makes Reagan a slimy traitor. And I think that in the future he will be truly regarded as what he was. And unlike in years gone past, history is better recorded. One thing that I have noticed is that more economists and historians are downgrading Reagan. History is

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
Man, you must connect dots with a bazooka
Carter gave into the Iranians?  Hmmmmmm...... last I heard he hadn't met their demands to the moment of Reagan's inauguration....then 20 minutes later the hostages were free.

Carter's peace between Israel and Egypt has never been broken in almost 30 years.  Not bad work.

And Ritter "gave in" to the illegal immigrants?  You better upgrade from that dried horseshit that you've been smoking.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Actually,
Reagan, as parsing mentions gave into the Iranians. He also gave in to the terrorist when they bombed the barracks in Beirut. Then there is Iraq.
[ Parent ]
How does a governor give in to illegal immigrants
that is a federal issue

Tom Tancredo Interview
[ Parent ]
A governor can
in the warped brains of RWR's, dontcha know?  They can conect any two dots out there in the universe, whether it makes sense or not.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Want to quite Importing oil? Get rid of CAFE
Also get rid of the tax cuts given to oil companies. Instead, create a time-based  increasing tax on Gas, Diesel and then Oil. If you slowly raise it, AND let ppl know that it will keep raising, I guarantee you that our issues will solve themselves within 5 years.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
Yes.
Some people proposed a flat gasoline price several years back.  If gas and diesel were, say, $4 a gallon, everyone could make reasonable long term plans of what to drive and such.  The difference between that $4 and whatever the market fluctuation below that would be used to develop alternative transporation systems, rebates to low income folks, and whatever else congress deems wise.  (Don't laugh.)


"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Can I snicker?

[ Parent ]
can't be a flat price
The problem is that gov (feds and state) want to impose a singular tax. If you hit the fuel with a low tax nothing really happens. If you hit it with a high tax, then economy comes to a halt. But if you increase the tax .25/.50 / gal every 6 months for 4 years, then yeah, ppl will have time to adjust and will insist on high milage vehicles. I just wish that politicians had some leadership. I am now convinced that we have no real leaders. Either they lack backbone to change (owens and nearly all of congress comes to mind) or they lack intelligence (w. is the best example of this). While I know that many here hate 41, I will like the fact that Polis had enough backbone to do something. I just wonder if he (or others) have more.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
We aren't in disagreement
A flat gas price could and should be done incrementally.  As you say, if everyone knows what the future will bring, they can start changing their vehicles and driving habits. 

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Right now, this very moment, other countries are eating our lunch.
China took on a massive alternative energy program about five years ago.  I believe the city of Shanghai is their laboratory.  They are looking into design and development of better solar cells, green construction materials, and the electronic technologies, for starters.  Guess who they expect to sell those, oh, blocks made of recycled plastec to, huh?  Those solar cells?  I'll bet they have a Prius in 3-5 years.  Probably selling through eat-your-own-shit American car dealers.

Second, I did a Houston harbor cruise a year ago.  And what did I see on this one freighter, but a huge wind turbine blade.  Two others were already off-loaded and onto semis. I don't know where they came from, but obviously it wasn't from the USA.  So there's another angle, who is going to make our wind generators and solar cells?

Obviously, not us. 

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
problem
The big problem?  China has an economic set up ready to kick our tail!  On one hand, they encourage capitalism- so there is PLENTY of incentive to "build a better green mousetrap."

On the other hand, they are communist/socialist so the government will put TONS of money into education.  This education will churn out plenty of thinkers AND workers...

Here in the United States?  Well, we put up a new coat of paint and hand out pencils, text and paper to every school in Iraq, but put unfunded mandates on our OWN schools while giving the rest of the money away to the wealthy in the form of yet another tax break...  Our greed will be our undoing and I find it frightening and breath-taking our short-sightedness....

[ Parent ]
Absolutely.
And in China any high achiever gets his/her education IN THE US paid for, no problem.  And I guarentee you that they aren't getting their PhD's in Ethnic Studies.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
And they teach the kids
No trying for ignorance by not teaching evolution, sex ed, etc. They're in it to win while in the U.S. the right wing is in it to be politically correct.

Tom Tancredo Interview
[ Parent ]
U.S. institutions have been working on energy conservation since early 1970s
The kids on the board don't realize or understand this, but major consumers of energy have been implementing energy saving technologies and practices since the oil embargo of the early 1970s. The same goes for  pollution, which has been reduced dramatically at great expense during the last 35 years.

Lots of consultants and suppliers, think Honeywell, make big bucks helping institionalized consumers of energy conserve. Similarly, our star saver appliances didn't come from nowhere. They are a result of decades of efforts to make appliances more energy efficient. And, believe it or not, we were getting 25-28 miles per gallon in our sedans in the 1970s. Problem is, gas is so cheap, we buy and drive SUVs. I wrote about these issues for years.

So all this green talk is johnny come lately. All the talk about global warming is pure  political hype by Al Gore and some ignorant state politicians around the country. Is there global warming? Yes, a bit. Can man do anything about it? Nil over the next 100 years regardless of the investments and proposed regulations.

Think about all of the world's other problems, most of which are more solveable and higher priorities than climate change. Consider these priorities:

1. HIV AIDS in the third world.
2. Malnutrition due to a lack of iron and Vitamin A.
3. Malaria
4. Free trade.

All of these world problems could be sharply minimized in only five years. Solving them would make people healthy, wealthy and wise, enabling them to learn, earn and help solve and pay for solving lower priority problems that will be provide smaller returns on investment.

The problem with Ritter, Gore and the other politicians is that they focus on the scare of the day, exploit fears to increase their personal power and pay no attention to problems that can be solved with a high return on investment.

But global warming does a better job of scaring people than AIDs, malnutrition, malaria and protectionism. Fear sells, even made up fears.

There is no integrity in the global warming alarmist movement. It's mostly highly political hype, and it could be tragic hype.

[ Parent ]
Go visit
the North and South Poles and tell your opinion to the indigenous peoples whose villages are going under water. There are archipelegos in Indonesia going under water.

I mean it. Buy a ticket......let's all donate a dollarship Shackleton (do I have that name right?) and send AS to the arctic to see for him or her self.

I'll repeat, How can a self proclaimed skeptic be so certain of their doubts?

"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

[ Parent ]
Nuclear power
The only credible alternative to cola & oil today is nuclear. We can do alternative sources too but if you want to stop 10 large coal plants you need to build several large nuclear plants.

Anyone who says no to oil, coal, & nuclear is just mouthing platitudes.

Tom Tancredo Interview

[ Parent ]
I agree.
Nuclear sets off most libs like a cat in a cage of pit bulls.  Other than either conservation or shutting down the economy, only nuclear holds out much short term hope. 

We have twenty some nuclear plants in the US, and when is the last time one came close to being a problem?  Chernoble was a dangerous, cheapskate, uncontained plant, no comparison. 

I would much rather deal with a pollutant that is a point pollutant (used fuel) than spread out all over earth in the form of CO2, mercury, and other nasties. 

In the meantime, we should be pumping billions into fusion technology.  I think there is a consortium fusion plant being built in France, but it won't be online for another ten or more years. The scientists involved in fusion are hoping for 2040-2050 for viable commercialization.

Until then, nuke.  (And lots of other alternative energies and conservation.)

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

[ Parent ]
Colorado
is a leader in the nation for its educated, innovative work force. Innovation is the way forward in creating strong new economies. Today's 500+ drop in the Dow apparently was tied to the Chinese stock slide. What does that tell us?

Perhaps our naysaying friends at CoPols can inform us where the new economic growth is to come from. We're not living in the age of plastics anymore, or, for that matter, computer technologies. I saw today where Toyota is building a $1.5B plant in Mississippi. What American company is building $1.5B plants in this country. Google?

Ritter is onto enterprises that create jobs, wean us off of oil, preparing for a future that is ever arguably ever more environmentally fragile (we can argue just how fragile).

I do enjoy how we work together in such constructive, creative and positive ways here at CoPols:-)

"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

Colorado has intellectual capital, albiet apparently somewhat tainted
Colorado has centers of intellectual capital with expertise in climatology, but it won't do the state any good until that expertise is freed from the corrupting influence of the culture of academic research and peer review.

So if Ritter wants to do something for Colorado related to the environment, he should find ways to privately fund scientists who don't depend on the herd for their grants, tenure and career advancement.

If Ritter could get his rich, envirnomentally concerned buddies to fund a truly honest, independent envirnomental institute, he might accomplish system. By so doing, he could expand the state's environmental intellectual capital to the appoint that it would spin off and attract entrepreneurial enterprises that focus on energy conservation, the environment and climatology.

Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Pat Stryker, where are you and your billions?

Playing hard left politics, of course.

[ Parent ]
Tainted with illegal money
But they are not stealing taxpayer money like Bill Owens, who was run by Bruce Benson, Pete Coors and Alex Cranberg.

Also, what about all the construction business that are addicted to illegal immigrants who contributed millions to Republicans in this past election? Why are you not crying foul against the do-nothing Republicans who have years upon years to solve issues, while screaming for change, but happily pocketed cash from the special interests who want them to keep everything the same; a free market to hire illegal immigrants at slave wages. Is this why the Republicans fought against the labor bill? Because that would actual help solve the illegal immigraton problem and they wouldn't want their contractors paying fair wages to Americans on the jobsites.

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole

[ Parent ]
Corrections: Colorado has intellectual capital, albiet apparently somewhat tainted
Correcting typos:

Colorado has centers of intellectual capital with expertise in climatology, but it won't do the state any good until that expertise is freed from the corrupting influence of the culture of academic research and peer review.

So if Ritter wants to do something for Colorado related to the environment, he should find ways to privately fund scientists who don't depend on the herd for their grants, tenure and career advancement.

If Ritter could get his rich, envirnomentally concerned buddies to fund a truly honest, independent envirnomental institute, he might accomplish something. By so doing, he could expand the state's environmental intellectual capital to the point that it would spin off and attract entrepreneurial enterprises that focus on energy conservation, the environment and climatology.

Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Pat Stryker, where are you and your billions?

Playing hard left politics, of course.

[ Parent ]
Good challenge, I suppose
The "corrupting influence" of personal security does get in the way of larger visions. God knows, the Republicans wrote the book. I'm heartened that you acknowledge the expertise in climatology CO has within it. I saw it in action in front of the US Senate and was impressed, both by its expertise, but also by its humanity.

Who, by the way, was BO's rich buddies, and what interests did they represent?

"Hard left politics" serves no purpose. Stay on point.

"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

[ Parent ]
Not good interests for Colorado
The Oil Baron Bruce Benson. The Booze Distributor Pete Coors. Another Oil Baron Alex Cranberg who is trying to destroy education in this state.

As noted above, contractors who push to keep the status qou so they can continue their addiction to illegal (slave wages) immigrants working on jobs in this state. Which is exactly why Republicans fought against the labor bill this session.

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole

[ Parent ]
Or
Should Coors be referred to as the DUI King?

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole
[ Parent ]
Your buddy Ted *hic* Kennedy is the booze King!
And that other Kennedy liberal, what's his name?...oh yeah, Patrick could be called the DUI King.

Pete Coors didn't kill someone like fat ass Teddy, when he drank and drove.

Forgot all about that huh?

**Tom Tancredo for Governor**

[ Parent ]
hoo boy
And the point of bringing this up is... ?

Not a Queer Dude, how about not posting when you have nothing to say?

"The fact that we Dems can't rebuild the house does not mean you bring back the [Republicans] who burned it down." - DavidThi808

[ Parent ]
Calling Pete Coors the DUI King is OK though?


**Tom Tancredo for Governor**
[ Parent ]
Wrong response
If you want to elevate the conversation, don't just react to Go Blue and go wallowing in the pigpen too. Ignore those posts and they won't be entered anymore.

"The fact that we Dems can't rebuild the house does not mean you bring back the [Republicans] who burned it down." - DavidThi808
[ Parent ]
Good points
I still can't understand why so much money is spent trying to get green candidates elected and green technologies funded by the government.  I don't mind government incentives, but put all those big enviro dollars to work in private green companies.  If you build it, we'll come!
[ Parent ]
an "environmental" institute that gives me the results I want
obviously based on the tobacco company model. They've been producing "sound science" for years that is annoyingly contradicted by that pesky peer review system. 

"Culture of academic research" and "peer review" aren't insults, they're points of pride.

[ Parent ]
peer review is a problem???
How on earth is verifying research claims a problem???

Tom Tancredo Interview
[ Parent ]
That's the latest hard right talking point
Since the cost of addressing climate change is more than the typically short sighted types can bear, and since they can't argue with the research, they have to attack how the conclusions were reached. Since all the research showing that climate change is directly linked to human activity was peer reviewed, as especially since the research (such as it is) disputing that finding can not stand up to peer review, then peer review is at fault, doncha know.

Of course there are instances of ambitious researchers and grants possibly being corrupted but those are typically isolated instance involving arcane topics that can only be understood by doctoral candidates. Climate change is way too big and has been researched for way too long by way too many researchers all over the world for this argument to hold any water.

"The fact that we Dems can't rebuild the house does not mean you bring back the [Republicans] who burned it down." - DavidThi808

[ Parent ]
finding the dough
The question here is mandate versus market.  The gratuitous slap at Owens for not fighting Governors for other jobs belies the fact that Colorado has a history of NOT doing that sort of thing.  This situation won't change and the current plan seems to rest on mandates funded with higher rates and then higher taxes in the long run.
I am tired of bad leaders.
Owens was a total disaster to Colorado. I am starting to think that Ritter is more of the same. There is only so much money to go around in terms of attracting these companies. So, IMHO (or maybe not SO), it would seem that the state needs to focus on several things.

  1. Fix the infrastructure that Owens was busy destroying. Schools, Water, and Roads all come to mind.
  2. Target a few based on our strengths and allow the others to come.

So what are some of the areas to focus on?


  1. Solar Cells: CA has spent billions attracting Solar cells. Not sure that I would focus on it.
  2. Wind is actually more developed, but there are a number of companies developing this.
  3. Tidal and Wave? Develop it in-land?
  4. Ethanol or bio-deasil? Certainly new, but any approach will need loads of water. We are starved for it. In addition, this is most likely going to end up not being a farming solution, but a modified algae that produces it.
  5. Methane? could, but will probably be small player.
  6. Hydro? Large plants already in place, but there are some good ideas that could done here. In particular, we have loads of places where small water turbines would make sense. In particular, I walk my dogs at chatfield and always notice the amount of water flowing there. It could easily support support several turbines of a .5-1M each. In addition, there is already high power line close by.  Then in the mountains are loads of pipes that drop long distance. Putting simple 1 M generators along the way would provide cheap power to the mountains 3/4 of the year.
  7. GEO-THERMAL. Ok, this is where we shine. In particular, we have school of mines AND we have loads of low heat geo-thermal spots. There are plenty of plants that handle high heat geo-thermal. The trick is to work at lower temps. In addition, geo-thermal can be used for heating AND cooling homes. The problem has been that it is currently expensive to install. By focusing on lowering these costs, the state could attract companies here.


All of these deal with energy generation. And that is the problem. There is loads going on WRT generation. What is really missing is storage. W. is busy pushing Hydrogen, but that will never really work (more energy in than out). Super Capacitors would really be a great way to go, but work still occuring (eestor and MIT come to mind). The one that the state should take a look at is thermal storage. There is a company trying to get a set-up here called skyfuel. The idea is to use the sun to generate heat and then save the heat in salts. Good idea, but this can be extended easily ONCE the plants are cheap. In particular, these can be used outside of regular power plants in which the expended heat is discarded. Now, the sun is used to heat up just a bit. Of course, another area to tie this to, is to wind energy. Wind will go at various times. It can be strong at night, but of course, the power on the grid would be low income. Instead, the energy is needed during the day. So the energy can be saved by heating up the salts at night and then running during the day. There is a good chance that millions of such storage could be built throughout America. In particular,these could store energy during the low useage time (typically night), and be called on during high demand. Thing is, that America is not doing a good job at researching or building energy storage.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Let's get analytical
Okay, folks, time to put some meat on the bones of my pleas for a move toward a more analytical approach to political discourse (with my apologies to any who might have done so already: I only skimmed about a half dozen of the 58 or so replies already posted).

First of all, the notion that no one has the moral authority to argue for eco-sensitive public policies if they do not lead highly eco-sensitive lives themselves is a typical levels-of-analysis error: It confuses an argument on the social institutional level with behavior on the individual level. It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, for a person to drive everywhere while simultaneously arguing that we need higher gasoline taxes (for instance), because it is perfectly reasonable for someone not to want to unilaterally pay a high price for an infinitessimal contribution to cleaner air without binding others to do the same through some sort of social institutional mechanism. If I, for instance, cease to drive out of my own conviction, yea for me, but the air won't be much cleaner as a result, and I will be greatly inconvenienced. If, however, I fight to institute measures which will change incentives in such a way that everyone, including me, will be more inclined to drive less, I am investing my time and energy into a substantial (rather than symbolic or exemplary) effort to effect change. In game theory, it's called "the prisoner's dilemma," a famous mathematical representation of the difference between individual and group interests, something which has been researched and explored in relation to public goods (e.g., clean air) and public bads (e.g., polution) ad nauseum.

Secondly, the notion that green-friendly is not economy-friendly depends on economic definitions. In traditional economic analyses, potential resources still in their natural condition (untapped) are considered to have no value: Value is created in the act of extracting those resources for human use. Since many of those resources are limited, and are consumed far faster than nature produces them, many economists consider this a flawed way to frame their value. By creating new definitions of value, more faithful to reality, the economic value of ecologically sensitive policies is brought directly into economic analyses, and we can go about the task of making cold, hard calculations about what policy in what instance is really in our net collective best interest.

The bottom line is that we live in a world of intertwined and concentric complex dynamical systems, such as social systems embedded within ecological systems. Nature, in its marvelous elegance, has done us the favor of accentuating that particular relationship by creating dynamics that are mathematically extremely similar. Ecologists and natural historians routinely use the terminology and mathematical tools of economists (game theory, for instance, being a major tool both for naturalists and economists). In fact, the words themselves, "economy" and "ecology," by an ironic twist of etymology, share one greek root ("eco," for "household" or "habitat"), and are essentially identical in literal meaning.

Our policies should reflect this awareness. When pursuing ecologically sensitive (or any other) policies, we should recognize how human beings, including politicians, really behave, and should try to forge institutions that align individual and collective interests. For instance, rather than searching largely in vain for benevolence, let's assume that people are generally pursuing their own interests, and design policies that exploit rather than lament that fact. Rather than passing laws that make the best and the brightest avoid public service, lets pass laws that make the best and the brightest gain the most by serving the public interest most effectively (Both Democracy and  the free-market, in fact, are major, though very incomplete, steps in that direction, in the public and private spheres, respectively. That's why most of the world has come to consider their combination the best political-economic system yet devised). And, finally, rather than trying to club into submission a society that is a bare half-step away from complete eco-indifference, institutionally speaking, let's employ the same system-sensitive approach to rapidly accelerating our social-institutional eco-sensitivity.

The more we break down issues into 1)identifying practical (rather than ideological) challenges or goals framed within the context of maximizing human happiness and welfare over the long-term, 2) devising practical, logical, and viable means for confronting those challenges or pursuing those goals, and 3) participating in the "marketplace of ideas" with well-reasoned arguments, based on empirical evidense whenever possible, about what the goals should be, and how we should pursue them, the better our collective future is likely to be.

Obviously, even were these "proposals" to be universally accepted, they would not eliminate passionate arguments, and fundamental differences of faith, belief, and opinion. But, frankly, I am taking a very strong stand against didactic thinking, that is, political (or academic) positions that derive from articles of (religious or secular) faith. I believe we remain a species dominated by superstitions and cheaply acquired certainties, and that our greatest and most pressing challenge is to continue the Enlightenment we have so often so horribly betrayed. Once again, there's nothing wrong with being a bunch of apes, but at least we can be smart apes.

(By the way, ironically enough, the people who are most ape-like in their behavior tend to be the ones who take most offense at the suggestion).

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

[ Parent ]
I will regret this, but I have to ask
You replied to my posting. Therefore, I am going to assume that you were actually replying to what I wrote. What in God's name is there in your response that has the least bit to do with either my posting OR even the article?

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
I think
he mistakenly posted the same comment in multiple threads.  Read through the post, though - his approach to resolving our economy vs ecology delima is quite fascinating (IMHO).
[ Parent ]
exactly
I'm new to this: I've just been posting for less than a week. The last time I participated was before blogs, on some list-serves in the early nineties. Anyway, I had the crazy idea that if I were going to reply to something in this whole stream flowing from the original article, that I had to post at the end of the stream, even though I was responging to people who posted closer to the beginning. If you look at some of the earlier posts, where I, in fact, reposted to make mine more relevant, you'll see what I was responding to. Sorry for the confusion.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.
[ Parent ]
by the way...
CrazyO- If you go up to the end of the thread that begins with "hypocrit-in-chief," you'll find my other posting of "let's get analytical" followed by a pretty interesting discussion which gets into the concept of political markets and political commissions. If you like the general approach expressed in the economy v. ecology dilemma, you might like that incarnation as well.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.
[ Parent ]
oops!
CrazyO- I realized, after posting this referral to our discussion above, that it was you I was having that discussion with! Sorry about that.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.
[ Parent ]
The government does a lousy job of picking avenues
What the government does a good job of is providing a highly educated workforce. Silicon valley came about because of HP and Fairchild. But those happened because of Stanford (and I'm sure UC Berkley didn't hurt).

Make CU and Mines superb schools on energy issues and there will be startups here that are very successful on alternative energy.

As to energy storage, hydro does well now. And hydrogen has a lot of promise - and storage system has losses.

Tom Tancredo Interview

[ Parent ]
Very lousy
Well, I would include CSU in that educational mix. The schools are close and allow our state to get multiple bang for the buck.

Actually, when it comes to energy storage, the world does have that many options. First, hydro does not do well. For starters, it requires loads of water with a high head (top of the source down to the point of the generators). Back east, they have loads of water, but  have few high head areas. Out here in the west, we have many more areas for high head, but water is an issue. In particular, we are worried about evaporation. Hydro really is not a great solution. After all, you are not going to use it in flagler Co, Chicago Il, or the middle of new york city.  Hydrogen really does not show a lot of promise. In fact, talk to folks out at NREL. They will be happy to tell you that the earliest will be 2025 for small scale. In addition, if you look at the costs of energy to produce the h2, let alone store it, it is the worse of all systems. Basically, it is too damn inefficient to get hydrogen. As it is, the only reason that W. has been pushing it, is that if you take  oil and coal and strip hydrogen from it, bury the excess Carbon, you would still end up with about the same efficiency if you try to convert from h2o to h2. All in all, hydrogen is a disaster in the making.

Yes, all storage systems have their issues. That is why you do not depend on just one type. But storage is where it will be at in the future.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[ Parent ]
Sorry about missing CSU
Great school - my wife and oldest daughter both went there.

Tom Tancredo Interview
[ Parent ]
We need to shift tense here.
We should be talking in the present tense instead of the future tense on this issue. Colorado is already attracting these companies.

http://www.rockymoun...

Vestas moving to Colorado proves AS wrong; we don't need to do any drastic overhauls to our tax or labor laws, just minor tweaking.

Vestas
Good article River.

" And there are no Christian terrorists."

The Beej, circa 8/26/2010

[ Parent ]
Ritter Will Arm-Wrestle for Green Stuff | 116 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 59 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >















RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox