U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
40%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 10, 2008 11:28 PM UTC
16 Comments
Loading ...
He sees climate crisis as an existential threat. The Vranes hits it on the head: for him its not just boilerplate, Shafroth actually understands the details. His command on this issue means we won’t just be a reliable vote on this issue, he will be able to lead quickly on this issue.
a strong environmental advocate, you’ve got to give credit to Fitz-Gerald for her work in the Lelgislature including doubling our renewable energy portfolio by 2020.
…then it is pretty easy to figure out which candidate to vote for. They do have clear differences on area of interest.
But if you want someone who will do best for the country – then it’s incredibly difficult. They’re all real good, and very different people.
And the honest answer is, we don’t know. We all have opinions but we don’t know who would do best across the board.
I interviewed Shafroth for SquareState.net
The other candidates have their own strong points, but I liked his opinions on this topic quite a bit. This is really his life’s work.
I have posted a position paper on global warming and how to reduce our carbon emissions.
In addition to calling for a cap and trade policy and a moratorium on construction of new coal plants, I call for a comprehensive feebate approach to incentivize energy conservation. The retail price of energy-consuming products would be adjusted based on their carbon footprint.
I am also running a carbon emission neutral and zero waste campaign, and have pledged to do the same with my congressional office.
Jared Polis
http://www.polisforcongress.com
For a zero waste campaign you guys sure throw a lot of stuff in the trash. Zero waste doesn’t mean you sometimes bring stuff to the recycle plant when it is conveinent. It is just like your B.S. line about having 100% contributions from individuals when you have taken money from poltical committees and self funding of $400k.
Jared Polis will say or do anything to try and get elected.
That is why Obama and Clinton supporters have united to back Fitz-Gerald at the Assemblies.
Jared says he is against vouchers except when he is for vouchers.
Jared says he is against lobbyist money except when he is taking lobbyist money.
Whatever Jared says today about the environment if his record is any indication is not what he will do if he is elected.
I’m an Obama delegate at the Boulder County convention (and a Jared Polis supporter) and I never heard a word about our uniting for anyone at the assembly.
I assume the rest of your statements are equally suspect???
A majority of delegates supporting Obama are supporting Fitz-Gerald.
A majority of delegates supporting Clinton are supporting Fiz-Gerald.
Jared has lost badly in all but one Assembly. Delegates no matter who they support for President are overwhelmingly supporting Fitz-Gerald.
Now, did Jared tell the truth about his position on vouchers? Did Jared tell the truth about taking money from lobbyists?
It’s virtually impossible to prove a negative. Do you have anything other than wild general statements to say he is not being truthful on these issues?
It’s always refreshing to see your posts. David.
Unless its a sham marriage. Just a little snark, onto the substance
To be fair though, Jared took money from lobbyiests after he said he wouldn’t: its on the record. It doesn’t bother me, I have friends that are (were) lobbyests. They lobbyied for progressive causes, causes I believe in. However, I understand that politicians have to say “lobbyiest bad”, but Jared said he wouldn’t take lobbyiest money and he did.
On the vouchers: folks at the independence institute thought he was for vouchers, bob shafer thought he was for vouchers, he wrote an op ed in support of vouchers, he put on his 2006 boulder democratic policy form that the party shouldn’t be against vouchers. Based on the overwhelming evidence he was for vouchers at some point, I take him at his word that he is not for them now.
I know I’ve really made it when I have my very own haterZ 🙂
Jared Polis
http://www.polisforcongress.com
That if “Obama and Clinton supporters have united to back Fitz-Gerald at the Assemblies.” then I’m stunned at the number of delegates for Mike Gravel, the only remaining Democrat in the presidential race, since apparently those are the only ones supporting you.
Seriously, in your energy policy what role do you see for:
A-nuclear power
B-Sequestering carbon dioxide from coal.
C-retrofitting existing coal plants to sequestering technology or replacing them with zero carbon emission sources such as Nuclear/ solar/wind with either hot salt or pumped storage in the case of solar and wind to make their power availble on a 24/7 basis.
Any of these points addressed in your energy policy? And would you please e-mail me a copy of that policy?
regards,
Bob
bewegen@Denverpost.com
Please forgive the online query but I think pols posters are very interested in this subject.
Cheap shot.
At least you mentioned us!
My energy and global warming policy can be found at http://www.polisforcongress.co…
I tend to be skeptical about the long term value of nuclear power, although I don’t rule it out, especially for the relatively short term need to reduce greenhouse emissions quickly. We have had commercial nuclear power plants since the mid-1950’s, but have made very little progress with the fundamental environmental constraint of the technology: How to dispose of spent fuel. Nor with an important secondary constraint: The environmental damage caused by uranium mining. I oppose the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, and in fact am satisfied by none of the existing technologies for dealing with the fuel issue. So in considering the role of nuclear power in the transition to non-carbon sources of electricity, I think we need to weigh carefully the positive of decreased carbon emissions with the negative presented by the fuel issue. This is another area where a concentrated, sustained, nationally directed research effort is critical: We must seek to solve the spent fuel issue technologically, or ultimately give up on nuclear power.
With regard to carbon sequestration, again I am skeptical but open to technological innovation. There is little evidence I have seen that shows carbon sequestration to be a viable solution to carbon emissions in coal fired power plants, at least not at the vast volume we would be asking of it. I am on record supporting a congressional ban on the construction of new coal fired plants until and unless a viable sequestration technology can be proven. Again, as with nuclear power, this has to be part of a Manhattan-project-scaled research effort inspired and funded at the national (and indeed international) level: If an environmentally effective technology can be developed, it must happen relatively quickly. As an eternal optimist, I believe it can be done, but only with sustained, scientific effort well beyond what researchers at universities and our national energy labs can muster. We should be driven by good data and science, not by lobbyists and fads in reaching our policy solutions to this very real problem.
Replacing older coal plants with zero or low emission energy production is the ideal solution to the climate change crisis. With very strong federal incentives and true leadership from Washington, it can happen much faster than it currently is. In my judgment, the technology is much more promising in the solar, wind, and geothermal areas than in sequestration. I may be a broken record on this subject, but truly I cannot imagine a large scale shift in this country to renewable energy sources until the interests who would lose in that transaction (namely, the oil and gas industry) are tamed and put in their proper place by real, enforceable campaign finance and ethics reform, including public financing of elections. When the industry can, through campaign contributions and high dollar lobbying, be involved in even a Democratic primary in CD-2, there’s a very real problem. Nothing, or very little, can happen on a federal level without that reform, one of the primary reasons I have refused all PAC contributions to my campaign and support public financing of campaigns.
The technologies you ask about, “hot salt” and “pumped storage,” are really ways to decouple the gathering of renewable energy from the production of electricity, thereby making that production much more reliable. I know the national solar energy lab down in New Mexico is working hard on these technologies. But again, two things need to happen before a large scale transition to renewable energy sources can occur (a transition which I believe is a national necessity): 1. The special interests working against that transition must be de-powered; and 2) A huge international research effort must be undertaken, way beyond what Sandia, or NREL, or the other existing labs can muster.
Thanks for your interest, Bob!
Jared Polis
http://www.polisforcongress.com