CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 30, 2009 11:54 PM UTC

Adopt a Senator for Climate:CO Sen-Michael Bennet

  • 31 Comments
  • by: wade norris

(Because I can… – promoted by ClubTwitty)

crossposted at daily kos

One of the newest members of the Senate is Colorado’s Michael Bennet, appointed by Colorado’s Governor to replace Ken Salazar who was tapped to be the Secretary of the Interior, (who himself has become more environmentally friendly as the Secretary than as a Senator). Although he is new to the Senate, Senator Bennet has spoken favorably of the Waxman-Markey bill in a response to a constituent letter as seen in this  Grist article. So he seems like a ‘Yes’ vote for CEJAPA right? Unfortunately there a few things we have to examine to find out how strong Bennet is on Climate legislation.

Michael Bennet

Michael Bennet

read on…

Full disclosure: I have been known in Colorado Political Circles as a ‘rabble rouser‘ for promoting a Primary Challenge to Michael Bennet, based on what I was hearing from state dems disappointed in Governor Ritter passing over several other candidates, such as former house Speaker,

Andrew Romanoff

Andrew Romanoff, who now is the primary opponent.

I wanted a primary, mostly because I was suspect of Michael Bennet because he had not been elected before to an office and no one really knew where he stood on key Democratic issues and this uneasiness was reaffirmed by Bennet joining a  Conservadem group of Dems headed by Evan Bayh.

This group was started to try to give fiscal ‘balance’ to the President’s agenda, which Ms. Maddow says is code for watering down Obama’s legislation on Climate Change and Healthcare.

Supporters of Bennet will say that this is mostly hot air from Ms. Maddow, but there are a few other issues that we must investigate.

I have made it no secret that I wanted a primary so that we the voters could demand a solid stance on issues from the two candidates – for me the main issue was Environmental policy.

I know that Bennet has made positive statements on Waxman-Markey, and has toured the state promoting alternative fuels and clean energy as seen here on his website.

But the real issue is that while Bennet says that the Waxman-Markey bill is

“a significant step in the right direction,” , this is a state that gets 97% of its energy from Coal (82%) and Natural gas(15%).

coal and gas in co

Oil and Gas PAC money barely make Bennet’s top 20 donors, and it is a relatively small portion.

I want to know specifically, how progressive is Michael Bennet going to be in his support of CEJAPA? Will he vote for it? Will he add amendments to weaken it or strengthen it?

His actions are not encouraging, as he has  indicated by signing this letter promoting Natural Gas as part of the final Climate Bill.

It reads:

“Any Senate energy and climate bill should provide statutory guidance to harness this important resource and stimulate and support even more activity in this sector of our nation’s diverse energy portfolio,” states the letter from Sens. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), David Vitter (R-La.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).

I am still quite surprised that both the Udall’s signed this, and really disappointed in Mark Udall for his recent statements on revitalizing Nuclear power in Colorado.

But that could take up another whole diary – so we will let someone else adopt him.

The real problem with Senators promoting Gas or Nukes or ‘Clean Coal’ is that it is totally the wrong direction.

Drilling in Colorado for more Gas or Oil is already a sensitive subject, as residents are protesting new exploration and upset about the water coming from their taps – which is now flammable due to water contamination by the extraction process.

As you can see in this video, we have more than enough renewable energy sources like Solar and Wind in Colorado and in many other states to power our nation cleanly.



Leslie Glustrom of Clean Energy Action:

The State of Colorado uses 12 gigawatts of energy per year.

Right now, in Colorado, Colorado has 96 gigawatts of wind energy.

In terms of Solar energy, Colorado has 200 gigawatts of energy.

(me) enough to power the Midwest…?

Yes more than enough. We have to give credit to Xcel who has made great gains to become a leader among utility companies.

Leslie Glustrom has certainly taken back the praise she gave to Xcel in this interview, because even though there was a ballot intiative by voters that requires our Electric providers like Xcel to pursue alternative energy, they are bringing online a new coal fired power plant in Pueblo Colorado – which will release 25% more carbon into the atmosphere per year than current levels in Colorado, and will use up valuable water from the Arkansas river, when a CSP could do the same job with no added carbon.

For me, Waxman-Markey and CEJAPA don’t go nearly far enough to satisfy my concerns about the millions of Environmental Refugees that are going to be displaced by our energy consumption – which is why I started this petition to directly appeal to the President.

My concern is that by the time we have had enough Katrinas and Tsunamis to change our energy policy, it will be too late for millions of people.

Colorado voters have some leverage in this state with Senator Bennet. Since receiving a primary challenge, Michael Bennet has released a video highlighting his support for a Public Option in the Healthcare debate, and I want to see the same happen on Climate Change/Environmental Legislation.

Michael Bennet would be wise to listen to the voters in this case, especially since Nate Silver ranks his seat in the top 5 for vulnerability.

And Andrew Romanoff would be wise to tack left of Bennet on issues like the environment to let us know that he is listening to our concerns. That campaign will also be receiving an email with this diary in it.

I want both candidates to know that I will support the candidate in this race who is the most progressive on this issue – because this is not just about creating jobs or consumer choices, its about saving lives.

And even though we have a President who is calling on the G-20 to end subsidies for fossil fuels, we still subsidized the fossil fuel industries to the tune of 72 billion dollars between 2002-2008 and even Waxman-Markey has millions of dollars to subsidize coal.

While the President can call for bold change, the Senate is a slow moving body, that often waters down and weakens strong legislation.

We need Senators that will speak up and be counted on this issue. Even if we go to zero fossil fuels immediately, we will still see decades of impact from the fossil fuel use. If we continue business as usual, it will be a catastrophe beyond comprehension.

So contact Michael Bennet, and let him know that he definitely should support the Kerry-Boxer CEJAPA bill and must also lead on this issue by promoting clean energy, not asking for Natural Gas handouts. Also contact Andrew Romanoff and let him know that the ball is in his court if he is more progressive than Bennet on this issue when the primary vote is counted.

Thanks and please take a second to sign the petition.

Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Adopt a Senator for Climate:CO Sen-Michael Bennet”

    1. Only Chairman Mao would create a policy to melt all metal in an effort to industrialize.  The Great Leap Backward.

      You’ve heard of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. Are carbon default swaps and subprime offsets next? If the Waxman-Markey climate bill is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn’t get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown.

      Cap and trade would create what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton anticipates as a $2 trillion market, “the biggest of any [commodities] derivatives product in the next five years.” That derivatives market will be based on two main instruments. First, there are the carbon allowance permits that form the nuts and bolts of any cap-and-trade scheme. Under cap and trade, the government would issue permits that allow companies to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Companies that emit too much can buy allowances from companies that produce less than their limit. Then there are carbon offsets, which allow companies to emit greenhouse gases in excess of a federally mandated cap if they invest in a project that cuts emissions somewhere else-usually in developing countries. Polluters can pay Brazilian villagers to not cut down trees, for instance, or Filipino farmers to trap methane in pig manure.

      … and before you political jock sniffers, cry babies, bed wetters, free market blamers, America haters, public-private partnership pansies, and social emo-queens go into full hyper ventilation, here’s the link: http://www.motherjones.com/pol…

        1. We’ve neglected our investment, eschewing obviously necessary upkeep in favor of a blind hope that the inevitable (and, in this case, catastrophic) depreciation will somehow magically just not occur.

          Libby chooses his analogies as blindly as he chooses the rest of his convictions.

  2. The hooey is that anyone ever called you a “rabble rouser.”  I just read that post from last winter. Surprising to me- but people made the same comments then that we’ve made in recent weeks both for and against Speaker Romanoff making a primary challenge to Senator Bennet.  Not all the same people- but all the same comments. No “rabble rouser”.

    The balooey is that Senator Bennet has only got progressive enough according to you because Speaker Romanoff is in the race.  The Senator has expressed support for Waxman-Markey, which support you referenced above.   I’ve heard him speak, and he get it right. Natural gas is part of the solution, but with caution.

    And the yayy is that we may be moving past the healthcare hoo-ha and getting to an actual energy-climate-national security  discussion.  

    Now we can get to real questions with real answers. ANd you can remind me how in the all those effective years legislating Speaker Romanoff weaned Colorado off the O&G.

    1. Waxman Markey,

      but why are our senators signing a letter to give subsidies to natural gas along with people like Murkowski and Brownback?

      doesn’t this tell us something?

      you’d think with people’s tap water catching on fire from natural gas drilling, our senators would be thinking more of preserving our water and supporting clean energy.

      I am curious to see what Andrew Romanoff’s position on this is as well.

        1. It’s obvious that Sen.Bennet supports clean energy.

          Do I see pattern developing? Yes, I do.

          I suppose that we can expect every issue to be “I’m so dissapointed that Sen Bennet supports our issues, I want everyone to believe that he doesn’t”

            2. It doesn’t matter how much pie is in your sky, we don’t have enough time and money to simultaneously switch to renewables, account for population growth, and save the planet. One of those things has to come after the other two.

              I vote for saving the planet and not having China-style forced sterilization to save our quality of life.

              Renewables are the ultimate answer, not the immediate answer.

              1. Death panels and sterility panels.  Cool.

                And if you could sell the sterility panels as a way to reduce abortion, the pragmatic anti-choice might get on board.

    2. are using in Maryland – smart grid electric cars – charged at your work during the day by solar and wind, then at night when you plug your car in at home, the grid can pull excess power from the car battery to offset the sun going down.

      1. When all these magical cars that hold enough juice to power themselves and all the houses, businesses, and industry in America have been manufactured and distributed and the smart grid built, it’ll be teh AWESOME!

        Until then I’ll power my refrigerator with wishful thinking.

        1. just like geothermal and wave motion power.

          btw this has more comments than the daily kos diary.

          pretty cool.

          and unicorns are real…


          “if you want to know the secret of being you will come with us…”

    5. There is so much energy available in solar and wind that we could power multiple worlds.

      We constructed 94,000 km2 of interstate highway system in 35 years. In just the US. We need about 4x this area in solar panels to power all the world’s energy needs in 2030.

      Give these graphics a look-see.

      Here’s a smaller version of what I’ve linked to:

      Given that we don’t need to power everything with solar – we can use wind & hydro and continue using gas, oil and coal for a while — we won’t need 4x the area of the US interstate system in the next 20 years. To argue against using solar alone is a strawman. We must use everything, but intentionally work to rapidly reduce our dependence on that which is killing us.

      1. Where have I ever said we shouldn’t do solar?

        The rambling diarist said we shouldn’t do natural gas and justified that claim by (using 1999 data to say we get 97% of our electrical power from coal and natural gas. Your beef is with him.

        1. you said:

          Wind and solar aren’t adequate alone.

          And what I am saying, based on the the area we would need to use solar alone, that solar and wind are adequate alone.

          But … given that we don’t need to do solar and wind alone by tomorrow, if we set our selves to work (now) we will generate the great majority of our power needs from solar and wind in 20 years.

          If we want to.

          And if we don’t waste time pretending that yesterday’s fuels are the answers to tomorrow’s problems.

  4. Adopt a corrupt program is more like it.  This will be another failure in DC.

    I can’t believe you fools support the creation of a new leveraged derivative market financed by home owners and renters through their power bills.

    Sick!

    Reckless!

    1. as you can see, you just started here a month ago and were called out for being a sockpuppet then.

      http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

      i made my case for a primary for a choice for voters – Bennet could earn my vote just as Romanoff could – depending on what they say and do.

      Bennet signing a letter for Natural Gas subsidies in a state where people’s drinking water is flammable puts Bennet in the ‘no’ column for me, for now.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

47 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!