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
30%↑
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%
May 28, 2021 05:39 PM UTC
15 Comments
Intermountain Rural Electric, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Amendment 37 set the stage for Colorado’s New Energy Economy. At the heart of the Amendment was a 10% mandate for green energy by 2015. Also at the heart of the movement was to bring new opportunities to community-based energy systems. Implementation of the amendment’s language was arduous, thanks to a concerted effort by the state’s various utilities. A settlement was finally agreed to only after giving Xcel the green light to build the Commanche III coal plant in Pueblo, which has proven to be an anvil around Colorado taxpayer’s necks.
Reading of the "anti-change" mindset that opposed alternate energy projects and legalization of an agricultural product with what appear to be sizeable advantages, I continue to wonder about the decision-making abilities of our public and the representatives they select. "Conservatives" have often been found among agricultural populations, but we seem to have gone to an extreme version of conservatism in the past 40 or 50 years.
During some eras of history I have read a bit more deeply in (Reconstruction, Progressive and, Depression), there were organized groups from rural locations who were significant backers of change. Railroads and highways were endorsed, even as their development showed opportunities for corruption, shoddy planning, and exploitation of the weakest communities among us. Social movements for economic balancing and more localized decision-making often were led by agricultural interests powered by rural populations. Economic cooperatives for electricity, commodity storage and trading, and even social services emerged among rural populations.
Any idea what tipped the balance and makes it less likely there are changes inspired by self-interest? Any deeper answers to the question "What's wrong with Kansas?"
I wish I had one, simple answer to your question, John. In my lifetime I can remember (and participated in) the Romer-era Tri-State Initiative, sponsored by the governors of CO (Roy Romer), KS (Joan Finney), and NE (Ben Nelson). It brought together representatives and citizens from the Ogallala, recognizing that state lines really meant little in the practical health of the region, that working on common goals was a valuable exercise. I’m convinced that we wouldn’t be managing this aquifer by attorneys and courtrooms had that initiative remained intact. All three of those governors were Democrats, and all of them were succeeded by Republicans, who ended the support.
From a Colorado perspective, the advent of the ‘God, Guns and Gays’ agenda as a replacement for policy focusing on rural development and market developments was the origination of the mindset we find ourselves in today.
Couple that with the current voices from our representation, case in point: Sonnenberg’s ridiculous obsession with MeatOut! Day (or as we Catholics call it, Friday). While we witness an explosion of the plant-based proteins market (domestic and globally), a sector or water-strapped farmers could benefit from, and emerging carbon practices that will likely pay for managed grazing systems – he (and Ken Buck as well) act as though packer concentration in the livestock industry isn’t a problem (I can only conclude that from their absence of comment on the issue).
One model that I’ve witnessed that seems to be working really well is the group of leaders in the Memphis area who launched Davos on the Delta. Urban leaders from Memphis, and rural interests, businesses, and farmers alike, to determine how they can maximize the leverage of their financial, human, and natural resources and transform the Delta region into a global, value-added powerhouse addressing new markets.
We’re Colorado, not Tennessee so we should, and will, come up with our own blueprint. A summit of some sort between now and the Fall Special Session would be useful to bring together not only our electeds who will decide how to allocate the stimulus funds, but the ag, land grant, and financial community to build our own roadmap.
What I do know for certain is that with the abundance of natural resources in this state, including soil, water, wind, and solar resources, a world-class land grant university system, there are zero reasons for any of our rural communities to be anything other than both robust and resilient.
But to be repetitive, we’re going to have to Think Differently.
Market forces and obvious effects of climate change have combined to force the Big Three oil producers to seek lower-carbon-producing alternatives. They’re losing in courts, their sharehlders are revolting, and Bill McKibben is ecstatic. See Maddow segment, below.
I have to think that rural folks who deal with practicalities will change their own practices, based on those same market forces and daily reminders of climate change ( in Colorado, drought , flooding, and wildfires).
Your own work with promoting industrial hemp and regenerative soil practices will help propel that realization. I’m not sure the commercial beef industry as it exists now is worth saving. Higher quality meat, grown with more care and labor, and yes, pricier, is the natural transition- just as coal is dying as fuel, leaving space for other energy sources, so must Big Beef. Market share will increase for plant based proteins and pasture-raised meat. But that transition will be seen as a culture war, us vs. them, instead of market science.
The key, I think, to creating widespread rural wealth and a sustainable agriculture, is to push the market and science facts, refusing to engage on the bogus culture war diversion.
A thought-provoking speculative fiction book, Kim Stanley Robinson’s “ The Ministry for the Future” opens a vision of how a sustainable future could happen. It’s Realpolitik and extrapolation from current science. So it’s all about “ thinking anew”.And it’s a good read.
OWN THE LIBS!!
Put wind turbines on your ranch in eastern Colorado and sell power to the Front Range. The smart business people in rural eastern Colorado already are doing that. Sonnenberg and Buck are behind the times.
Of course, not every Front Range resident is a liberal; we do have Pat Neville and The Dudster. But you get my point.
We had more than a handful of structural problems in the early days. The rural electrics, hiding under their bogus Rural Utilities Service 'All Requirements' Contrac' language (even when the Secretary of Ag said the language was not meant to preclude new sources of non-coal energy) kept local projects at bay. Much of that was resolved during the Obama years with FERC action and now any QF (qualifying facility) is required access to the system with good faith negotiations (still not sure how Trump missed that regulation as a 'roll back').
Thanks to DMEA (and now others), they have forced Tri-State into joining the 21st century and that's a good thing. This was a hard-fought battle but ultimately one where we were the victor.
CHB, the last time we drove to Chicago, we saw countless windmills in farm fields all along 1-70, and at least a dozen flat-beds hauling blades for them, so it is happening.
Worse (i.e. more effective) than the GOP’s “God Guns & Gays” agenda, is their light-bulb moment realizing that anything good can be painted as socialist – and therefore anathema to rural folk. No students of history they. Michael has pointed out the good that came to our rural communities – the wealth built – from past “socialist” legislation. I’ll use those as talking points as the summer neighborhood get togethers resume and conservatives gird their ignorant loins for 2022.
Also I second kwtree's recommendation of KSR's "The Ministry of the Future". A fine, fine read, whether you're a science nerd, climate Cassandra, or SF fan. Then read "New York 2140". Then the Mars trilogy.
Don’t forget “Antarctica” by KSR. Re-read it earlier this year.
Enjoyed the link to Rural Wealth Creation. For future replies to secessionists and urban/rural divide warriors, I would like to see a fairly simple graphic showing how much Colorado tax revenue has actually been allocated to rural counties over the past say 50 years, for roads and infrastructure, schools, economic development programs, public lands and habitat protection, and the like. I know folks in rural counties do valuable work that can't be done in urban areas, but I suspect info about how much money flows to and toward all 4 corners would be useful in future discourse.
… and a second graph showing those results in per capita v. urban spending.
Take it all the way back to 1900 or so. That way you'll capture the full spending on water projects, the REAs and other goodies.
That's a friendly amendment, but I hope whomever will actually do the work is reading!
Buffalo Commons is an alternative.
Denver—the city—gained more people last year than the total populations of the 10 smallest counties.
Time to send some counties to zero.
Working grasslands will be a key component to transitioning the Central Great Plains. We don’t have to turn our region into a national park. We can have our cake and eat it, too, if we take the opportunity seriously.