Sound Of GOP Silence As Trump Exits Paris Accords

UPDATE: While we wait to hear from Sen. Cory Gardner on the Paris Agreement, here’s a clip from a few years ago of Gardner positively going off at the Steamboat Institute over the liberal “war on coal.”

Doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, does it?


President Trump and Sen. Cory Gardner.

Michael Karlik of the Colorado Springs Gazette:

On Monday, the Trump administration notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, effective Nov. 4, 2020. The nonbinding agreement, in which nearly every other country is a signatory, seeks to limit the global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels through voluntary carbon emissions reduction.

Democratic policymakers in Colorado reacted with harsh criticism of the decision. As of yet, no Congressional Republicans have responded.

Colorado Democrats are livid as one would expect, even though Donald Trump’s plan to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement has been known for years now–Rep. Joe Neguse of Boulder:

The question of Republican support for Trump’s pullout from the Paris Agreement is especially timely in Colorado, since vulnerable incumbent GOP Sen. Cory Gardner has switched message tracks in recent days from 2014’s “New Kind of Republican” championing renewable energy to “oil and gas defender” as Gardner works to shore up support on his weak right flank. Despite this updated conservative-friendly message on energy, Gardner still can’t afford to look like a complete throwback on an issue he’s paid significant lip service to over the years.

What will Gardner say when he’s cornered on the Paris Agreement?

Most likely as little as possible, followed by a quick-march to the nearest exit!

But it’s still worth asking, at least the usual five to seven times.


15 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Wait until Colorado voters figure out that all of the top Democrat candidates have called for a total ban on fracking.

    • unnamed says:

      Wait until Colorado Voters figure out that your party just pulled another lie out of it's collective ass.  Oh, wait.  They already have.  Where did they say they want a total ban on fracking Fluff nut?  Show your work.  It had better be a credible source.

    • PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

      This is exciting news!  Could you link to where you found each quoted as saying they would "totally ban fracking?"

      Just my guess, but…

      • ModeratusModeratus says:

        Wow really?


        Warren supports a ban on fracking, her campaign told The Post.

        Elizabeth Warren

        SANDERS: “Yes. Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe. It has resulted in more earthquakes. It’s highly explosive. And, to top it off, methane from natural gas is contributing to climate change,” a campaign spokesman told The Post. “Safe fracking is, like clean coal, pure fiction. … No amount of regulation can make it safe. When [Sanders] is in the White House, he is going to ban fracking nationwide and rapidly move to 100 percent clean, sustainable energy.” Sanders told Colorado Public Radio that a ban wouldn't happen "overnight."

        Bernie Sanders

        HARRIS: “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” Harris said at a CNN town hall. “And starting — and starting with what we can do on day one around public lands, right? And then there has to be legislation, but yes — and this is something I’ve taken on in California. I have a history of working on this issue. And to your point, we have to just acknowledge that the residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of the impact on the health and safety of communities.” Her climate plan does not include a ban, but mentions closing loopholes, “including the Halliburton Loophole, which exempts the fossil fuel industry from disclosing the dangerous chemicals used in fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act,” and “immediately halting all new fossil fuel leases on federal lands and waters.”
        Kamala Harris

        Want me to keep going? I'm amazed you don't know what your own candidates stands for, especially on an issue so important to Colorado…..

        What does that say about the readers of Colorado Pols??

        • ModeratusModeratus says:

          I am laughing hysterically at how ignorant Colorado Pols readers really are about their own candidates. This is a sad day for this community.

          • unnamed says:

            We laugh hysterically at how ignorant you are about a lot of things Fluffnutz.

            Like tax policy and how the 2017 tax giveaway to the rich actually caused the middle class to pay more in taxes.

            Doing the math between my 2017 and 2018 taxes, I paid $906.68 more in taxes for 2018.  Thanks to your party.  

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            Are you laughing hysterically sitting on a toilet in a government building while on the taxpayers dime? That would be hysterical.

        • unnamed says:

          Maybe that we ultimately want fracking to go the way of the dinosaur.  Because we don't want to be dependent on oil forever.  To say nothing of the health dangers of being in proximity to fracking sites.  

          Hell, Sanders said that ending it wouldn't happen overnight.  

          But, hey.  It's better than your usual bullshit.  Though, the third candidate was Harris, not Warren.  When you're going to attribute quotes, at least do it correctly.

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        Maybe the only picture ever taken of Fluffy’s good side . . . 

        . . . without his head being planted firmly in the middle?

  2. ModeratusModeratus says:

    AS I WAS SAYING, all of the leading Democrat candidates support a ban on fracking.

    How do you think any of them will win Colorado by promising to destroy Colorado's economy? This isn't SB181 where you can pretend you're not out to destroy oil and gas. You candidates are flat out promising to do it.

    First you should educate yourselves what your candidates really stand for. Then figure out how you can fool Coloradans into going along.

    • unnamed says:

      Right.  Because the ban on fracking will happen immediately, and it takes up such a huge chunk of the state economy:


      • While different approaches exist for how best to articulate the economic impact of the oil and gas industry, Colorado Fiscal Institute’s analysis of federal economic data finds total jobs attributable directly to oil and gas development averaged just over 29,300, or less than 1 percent of total covered employment in Colorado, from 2006-2016.
      • State data show economic activity created directly by oil and gas development averaged a modest 2.5 percent of total state GDP from 2014-2017.



    • PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

      Is that

      all of the top Democrat candidates

      I mean, the one most folks consider to be the "top one" didn't make your list.  And Harris isn't a "top one" at this time.

      Did you forget about Biden, or are you just a liar?

  3. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Outright bans won't work. A few years ago, the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, one of the leading alternative energy think-tanks in the world, with a strong international following, predicted the US would still get 25% of its energy from natural gas in 2050.

    Recently, RMI has updated its models to predict peak fossil fuel demand occurring in the 2020s. Sanders offers that the transition won't occur overnight. Warren doesn't seem to acknowledge the need for market forces to be allowed to run their course, which is another major shortcoming of her campaign. Harris' desire to close the loophole regarding fracking fluids is spot-on.

    I think Moderatus is correct in stating that perhaps some Pols readers aren't up to speed on what their candidates advocate for. A far, far, bigger problem comes from Moderatus' god, Trump, who is in the hip pocket of the oil & gas, and big coal, industries.

    There also are legitimate concerns with renewables that need further work, like the amount of land taken up by solar panels (roof-top solar anyone? how to pay for it?). Electric cars are fine in major urban areas. But what about good 4x4s for accessing the backcountry, ag work, etc. I have yet to see a good electric, or even hybrid, 4×4. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.