President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 27, 2009 09:50 PM UTC
43 Comments
The Fox News talking head just dosen’t get it, or dosen’t want to. In his mind if anyone has a business background why surely they must know that all regulation like cap and trade is bad. What the hell does he know ? Has HE ever ran a business ?
used a “foxhole” metaphor while saying more businessmen should be in Congress. Maybe if a certain President had spent some time in a foxhole… But who the hell am I? Oh, a small business owner.
That’s what you call a Fox News reporter.
Nice two on one there. I wonder if they thought you’d be parroting the talking points too, or if they knew beforehand that they’d spend the majority of the time ignoring what you said.
For a moment I thought he had the two Congressmen confused.
“You’re talking about policy.” Oh, Rep. Polis, you’re too polite. I didn’t hear an actual interruption from you.
Anyway, in Colorado the most recent grant awards:
Good work on your part and, FWIW, your small part of the interview was well done.
http://www.denverpost.com/busi…
I’m glad the camera wasn’t on my face when he said the “socialist kingdoms of western europe” because there was no way I could keep a straight face on that line!
I about spit out a mouthful of coffee when he said that. Which ones would those be, Luxembourg and Monaco?
That’s where all the Formula One drivers live off season
Good job on policy and helping to make Colorado on the forefront of renewable energy policy. Keep up the good work.
I don’t think I could have restrained myself from laughing hysterically at that line. More people should crack open a history book before throwing down the “socialist” card.
deriding “Green” jobs as low paying.
a “green” job is the guy who chops the lettuce, and indeed it is low paying!
The only thing not grounded in reality is the Fox News anchorman. It should be mandatory that every politician be a businessman in order to qualify to run for Congress? WTF?
Jared, sweet way to turn it around on the guy–“it sounds like you agree with me on global warming.” Pure genius.
There is going to be a great opportunity to make money in renewables over the next three to five years. At least in the politically favored renewables. It will be the next bubble.
Government money is going to come pouring in with no end in sight. Guys are going to raise funds that invest exclusively in these companies (if that hasn’t started already). People will line up to pay crazy high valuations on made-up metrics because these companies are not going to be generating a penny of EBITDA.
And what better to pull us out of this mess than another bubble 🙂
Look back to the .COM bubble. It was rough for those of us in the industry but the rest of the country did fine and we recovered quickly. And it left us with this incredible infrastructure, hardware and software, from which we’ve continued to build a great system.
So if we have a green energy bubble we’ll still be better off. Lots of jobs now as we need them. A bubble that does not take the country down with it. And after it’s over, we still have all that lovely green energy generation.
I’ll risk it…
I think the risk is worth it for the reward we could reap, not just in Colorado but nationally.
The products of the .com bubble didn’t serve a greater good as the products of renewable energy companies would. That to me is worth taking a monetary risk.
Are a telecom infrastructure that is light years beyond what we had before. From YouTube to the iPhone that all can happen because of the improvements in our system.
And same thing with the Internet, it took it from a niche product with linked static pages of text and images to an integral part of just about everything in life.
I was thinking on a different tangent, more along the lines of how much money a few people made just in time for the bubble to burst. A lot of companies (pets.com. etc.) went under when the burst happened. I don’t see a similar burst for the renewable energy bubble. An eventual leveling off, yes, but not nearly as bad a burst.
But yes, the .com bubble was an evolutionary epoch for technology. I didn’t make my point as clearly as I wanted to.
but it seems to me renewables, by their very nature, should over the long haul be less subject to booms and busts than fossil fuels.
That and the fact that we have lost out as the leader or even significant player in so many manufacturing sectors and are losing leadership in so many technology sectors leads me to believe this is the way to go.
We have an opportunity to become the giant in this new field, creating well paying industries at home and exporting American clean energy technology and expertise to the world. You know. Like we used to do when we were the world’s industrial giant creating real stuff of real material value instead of basing our economy largely on financial card castles that tend to go “poof” over night, leaving nothing behind but worthless paper.
did you stay so polite & calm rather than telling them that they’re full of it.
1) Yeah, the owner of subway franchise stores is going to need a second accounting department if cap & trade comes in. For what???? The main impact for him will be slight price increases on electricity and goods he buys that are energy intensive. All that happens is the numbers change.
2) The host saying all the pollution controls brought in during the ’60s and ’70s might have been a good thing? Might? There’s a reason even the most rabid right-wing Republican doesn’t propose undoing the pollution controls – everyone realized how important they are.
3) Regulation is killing businesses? News to me. Payroll is a slight pain and that’s it. As to health insurance – please do have the government take that over so I can get out of that.
4) Only business owners can figure our business regulations? Because the head of the large banks sure showed they can do that well if left to their own devices…
This also had a bit of the old put-down using pre-Civil rights approach to blacks where the anchor called them Mr. Fleming & Jared. It’s an effective way to denigrate the authority of one of the guests – but it shows the host to be a tool.
Anyways, well done Jared.
the best part wasn’t even that it was Mr. Fleming and Jared, it was DR Fleming and Jared and he had to point out that the guy was a DR about five times. What a dunce gimme a break. I’m not sure how you can handle that crap Jared but props to you.
I’d like to preface my response by saying that I went through the Leaders Challenge program for high school students that Jared Polis founded, heard him speak on a number of occasions, and even met him once, if only briefly. I respect his experience in the business world, and think highly of him as a human being.
I’m also not a huge fan of that particular FBN host–although he did appear to keep it fair and balanced, though his personal opinion obviously showed. But it’s naive to think that anybody would be capable of entirely removing themselves from their own beliefs. Nobody should argue with you that Fox and FBN have almost exclusively conservative hosts.
That said, I have a huge problem with Mr. Polis’ argument. He says cap-n-trade and other regulations “will lead to even more job growth in this important sector.” The problem is that this is the ONLY sector where jobs would be gained. For every other sector, it simply increases expenses on the front end and the back end.
Case in point, Obama recently made a speech where he said “we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.” The problem is that you cannot legislate a business to become more profitable. You can subsidize it, which is another thing because it does cost someone (namely the taxpayers) extra money, but that’s it. The only way you can “make” an industry “the profitable kind” is to legislate its substitutes to become less profitable. That means costs go up for oil and natural gas, and therefore on every single American business and consumer.
Bottom line? Cap-n-trade and other similarly minded pieces of legislation raise costs for everyone, and cost every industry jobs, except, as Mr. Polis points out, in the green energy industry.
If the world didn’t use oil would we be in a war in Iraq & Afghanistan? Would Bin-Laden have had money to attack us? If oil & gas had to pay for the costs they inflict on society thengreen energy would be cheaper today.
Hydrocarbons aren’t cheaper, they’re just highly subsidized.
We have to know that we’ve financed every terrorist attack with the money we pay for oil, especially with the money we pay our buddies the Saudis, the major source of financing for every bad actor in the region. And the schools that indoctrinate them. Worked for KBR and the Cheney endless war and profit machine like a dream, though. And we can never produce anywhere close to enough oil to be independent. “Drill baby Drill” is a farce.
On the other hand, I do think that, realistically, we ought to be pushing hard for technology that could make clean, or at least much cleaner, coal a reality. It really isn’t at present but if it could be that would be huge. Especially given China’s dependence on coal. Exporting clean(er) coal technology to China and India could be the only way we can make a dent in carbon emissions in a timely fashion. And we have plenty of coal ourselves.
We traded with Germany prior to 1939, so are we responsible for the Holocaust because we funded them too? There is no technology in the world that is ready to replace oil and natural gas, and the Middle East is the only region from which we can get enough to power our society.
I don’t think anybody disagrees that we have to develop new, cleaner energy sources, and fast. But it’s important to remember that oil is our only solution at the moment and our world would come grinding to a halt without it. We do have to drill-and here is better than in the Middle East-and put money into R&D. Putting money into implementing inefficient energy sources is just a waste though.
It’s called nuclear power. It produces 20% of our electricity and in France it’s over 80%. The Navy uses it for all of it’s capital ships & subs. And outside of Russia where you had poor design and inept operators – never a problem.
And if we had that working, we could also use that electricity to crack hydrogen from water to power all cars.
So if we got our butts in gear within 10 years we could eliminate our use of oil.
And just starting that crash program where it’s clear we will be oil free in 10 years would immediately push the price of oil down as the oil producers tried to sell anything they can at any price before we no longer wanted it regardless of price.
but it’s not profitable. The only way nuclear works now is with huge public financing.
I was looking forward to Berkshire taking over that power company with all the nuke plants planned. The ROI would have had new management pulling the plug pronto.
And if we can dream- this looks potentially very, very profitable. Let’s fund the US Navy to find out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…
When you look at the societal costs of coal and oil from the war in Iraq to global warming to the pollutants in the air tha kill hundreds of thousands a year to the mountaintop removal mining – Nuclear stacks up quite nicely against the alternative.
who pays or guarantees the bond?
My point is that as conventionally compared- nuclear has a bad ROI.
Of course- your point is that coal and oil do too when we add in externalities. I don’t disagree.
before you get too far ahead of yourself on that one….. Charles Perrow. Excellent book. Was written in the 1980’s and has been used as a stepping stone by a bunch of recent popular books, including Outliers, Black Swan and some others. I’ve been mostly pro-nuclear my whole career, but Perrow’s analysis of “system accidents,” be they nuclear plants, airliners, economies, etc., is sobering.
As far as the economics of nuclear power, the industry is as subsidized as hydrocarbons, probably more so. The industry would not exist without Price-Anderson. You’re right about societal costs associated with hydrocarbons, but on a risk adjusted basis, they’re just as high or higher with nuclear power.
of a relevant, complicated issue that takes longer than the space between commercials to explain… especially when you have a FOX anchor with an obvious agenda trying to shove it to forefront AND FAILING.
Polis: you beat him at his own game. It was glorious. Everything you said should pique their interest at least enough for them to take it more seriously than “it’s a socialist agenda” or “global warming meow, meow, meow”.
And who still questions global warming??? If you do, don’t respond. I’m not talking to you.
Here’s a “test” to prove your worthiness to get into Congress:in order to get into Congress you have to believe in science. What a concept!
Just because someone doesn’t believe in a non-existent “science” you wont even allow them a response. This is the liberal version of a debate–anybody who disagrees is so dumb they’re not worth the air they breath.
between the value of crisp, clean air and the global warming denier that screams, “DRILL BABY, DRILL!!!” There is no contest.
Science tells us so.
if you are truly interested in being intellectually honest about this question, drive on up the hill to NCAR (you know, the big bat cave on the mesa), pick out any five scientists on the grounds at random, and ask them about science. Engage with them honestly, have an open mind, and then come back here and replay your line about climatology, atmospheric science and oceanography being “a non-existent ‘science.'” The reason you don’t “believe” in the science is not because you don’t “believe in science” because if you didn’t, you’d be living in a cave without electricity, modern health care or disease-free food on a daily basis, all of which are the products of years of “science.” No, the reason you don’t “believe” in global warming science is because the implication of that science — the cold-blooded scientific results — are politically uncomfortable for you. Why conservatives cannot admit this is a values question, not a science question, continues to baffle me. But people often use science as a proxy to fight over values.
Regardless of the values involved, you very obviously have no background knowledge of the tens of thousands of scientific journals articles and book written on the subject, or you wouldn’t be so flip. There are literally close to one thousand actual, working scientists here in Boulder alone, working on the climate system. We have invested literally billions of dollars into research into this question. To pretend all of this work is “non-existent” or worse, to pretend that there exists some furtive conspiracy amongst the worlds thousands of scientists, is paranoid-delusional at best, my friend.
A citizen’s group is working with the county to see if it can establish a financially self-sustaining program to install solar hot water heaters on any home that the owner wants.
The goal is to make the equivalent energy use (free) plus capital costs (not so much) less than the electricity currently used (most hot water in FL comes from electricity). They think they can do it. The county would set up the bonds, which of course are tax free muni’s and then add the costs onto the tax bill.
Very interesting! It would put hundreds of construction workers back to work and solve the biggest hurdle as to why people don’t do solar: up front capital costs.
Even FPL, the major electricity supplier is NOT against it. Then I figured out why: They won’t have to build a new power plant so soon, still plenty of demand. The program relieves them of necessary capacity.
Mother Earth wins, homeowners win, local employment wins, FPL wins, investors win, what’s to not like? Why not nationally?
All parties agree that if they can’t structure it to work, it won’t move forward.
sigh…. solar gets all the play because it’s sexy. It’s also far less cost-effective than a long, long list of energy efficiency measures that pay back faster and would employ just as many people to install. Before we generate more, we should be installing every single cost-effective efficiency improvement and demand reduction measure. Then let’s install new generation capacity (including sexy solar). Some utilities are getting this, mostly because the states (CA and MA) are prodding them into it. Xcel? You alive?
You communist! How dare you think past the next quarter, let alone the next fiscal year!
Pinko!
First, it’s tough – really tough – for me to watch a full 10 minutes of Fox, but I did. Dr Fleming and Jared – the Fox commentator probably went to “Jared” because he couldn’t pronounce “Polis.” So much mind-hurting content, such as the implication that only businesses – not the public sector – have to hire, layoff and fire employees. One of my favorites: DR Fleming stated, “green jobs will be lower paying.” Shouldn’t we point out that there probably aren’t many jobs that pay less than working at his 30 Subways?
Great job Jared.
Clear, calm, well thought out answers to ideologically loaded questions and standard fox talking points.
By staying focused and reminding the talking head that global warming was a topic of discussion for another day, you took command of the debate. Not easy to do when the premise of the “discussion” is preordained to be slanted toward the two guys debating you.
The last time I saw this obvious a victory in a 2 on 1 debate was when Sirota eviscerated Caldara and Cory Gardner on Independent Thinking about a year and a half ago.
Thanks.
Sirota, Caldera, & Gardner on a show called “Independent” Thinking.
I read the banks who got the first round bailout money only had to fill out a one page application to get 25 or 30 billion from the taxpayers.
Don’t know what all the fuss is about…..
Ick. If that’s what the right has to offer currently for intellectual analysis, the Dems have no worries. the host was barely coherent.
Jared, next time: there are plenty of ways to illustrate how regulations help business, not hurt them. R’s seem to live in this fantasy world where everything would be rosy if we just didn’t pay a rats ass bit of attention to business, and let them run as they please. But every business benefits from the level playing field that regulations are set to provide, whether or not they admit it.
Also, I’d love to see you be more aggressive next time. Hostboy needed some slapping around.